HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2014 10 Billboard and Off-Premises Signage Regulation; YMC Amendment Chapter 15.08BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of: 3/18/2014
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Public hearing to consider the Yakima Planning
Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
Recommendation, and Ordinance amending Chapter 15.08
Signs of the Yakima Municipal Code regarding regulation of
billboards and off -premises signs within the City of Yakima.
Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
(509) 575-3533
Mark Kunkler, Assistant Senior City Attorney (509) 575-3552
There are currently 119 billboard faces on 71 structures throughout the city. The Planning
Commission is recommending to the City Council the attached proposed ordinance regulating
billboards. The ordinance (a) provides a specific definition of "billboard" and for other terms
associated with billboards (b) allows existing legally installed billboards to be retained as legal
non -conforming structures, and (c) prohibits installation of any additional billboards. To ensure
consistency in code language and purpose, and to avoid legal challenges associated with code
purpose, the ordinance maintains current allowances for off -premise directional signs for
businesses, but prohibits off -premise advertising signs that may be similar to billboards except
for associated contracts and advertising fees.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is based upon the following considerations:
1. A comparison of how other cities in Washington State regulate billboards
2. Consideration of the aesthetic impacts of billboards
3. Information on the safety impacts to drivers
4. Information on the economic and fiscal consideration of billboards
5. Revenues to local government
6. Consideration of the legal implications to local government
7. Input provided by the public and industry representatives
8. Implications of current billboard stock
The above considerations are more fully described in the attached staff
memorandum and report.
The report identifies a number of issues pertaining to billboards that have been
particularly problematic for the No. 1st Street area. Specifically, many of the derelict billboards
in Yakima are located in this area, which is likely the result of what industry representatives
have acknowledged is an over -supply of billboards in Yakima. They have had a hard time
leasing billboard space on No. 1st Street and many billboards along that corridor have either
been utilized for pro bono ads or they have been left without ads, leaving peeling layers of old
copy exposed. Additionally, the pro bono ads are typically made on cheaper products that do
not withstand Yakima's winds, leaving them tattered and dangling in the wind. Given these poor
conditions, and given the city's emphasis on cleaning up and enhancing No. 1st Street, staff
requests direction from Council on developing an amortization program for all billboards along
No. 1st Street between Yakima Avenue and within 660 feet of the Yakima/Selah Interchange.
This amounts to 10 billboards, including 3 billboards on City property. If Council wishes to
pursue this option, staff will explore the legal methods and appropriate time period for
amortization. (A likely period would be 5 years with opportunity for extension based on
demonstrable hardships). Staff would then report back to Council with a recommendation on
specific implementation measures and more fully explain the legal considerations of an
amortization program.
Resolution:
Other (Specify):
Contract:
Start Date:
Item Budgeted: NA
Funding Source/Fiscal
Impact:
Strategic Priority:
Insurance Required? No
Mail to:
Phone:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:
RECOMMENDATION:
Ordinance: X
Contract Term:
End Date:
Amount:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this
proposal. However, this proposal is viewed as an
important step in revitalizing city entry corridors and
neighborhoods, which is expected to have positive
impacts on economic development.
Improve the Built Environment
City Manager
Based upon the attached report, findings and the unanimous recommendation of the Planning
Commission, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission's
proposed ordinance.
Because the ordinance will not be effective until 30 days after adoption and publication, and
because the current billboard moratorium expires April 1, 2014, staff further recommends that
the Council extend the current moratorium to the effective date of the proposed
ordinance, which is April 20, 2014.
Finally, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to explore development of an
amortization program pertaining to billboards on No. 1st Street and to report back to the
City Council with a recommended program to implement amortization in this area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type
Staff Report & Recommendation to Council 3/12/2014 Cover Memo
Proposed Ordinance w/ Exhibits 1-A & 1-B 3/11/2014 Ordinance
YPC Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Recommnedation
Summary of Comments - Billboards 3/11/2014 Backup MI ate Hi a II
3/11/2014 Backup MI ate Hi a II
ii,jjj111111111111111flip,1,1.1.1,, 1111,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
1 1111111111
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
' "I"i"°Y DI: 171:1., :ii"",1V E1 iN1' D'i!"i""1 R i"Mi.`:V1
129.% RI-th See() (1 Street 'irara , Yakima, W(/shin 98901
i 1r a le (509) 575-611 i °rr:: (509) 576.6576
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
Billboards — Proposed Ordinance
March 18, 2014
I. Introduction/Background Information
There are currently 119 billboard faces on 71 structures throughout the city. The
Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council the attached proposed
ordinance regulating billboards. The ordinance (a) provides a specific definition of
"billboard" and for other terms associated with billboards (b) allows existing legally
installed billboards to be retained as legal non -conforming structures, and (c) prohibits
installation of any additional billboards. To ensure consistency in code language and
purpose, and to avoid legal challenges associated with code purpose, the ordinance
maintains current allowances for off -premise directional signs for businesses, but
prohibits off -premise advertising signs that may be similar to billboards except for
associated contracts and advertising fees.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is based upon the following considerations:
1. A comparison of how other cities in Washington State regulate billboards
2. Consideration of the aesthetic impacts of billboards
3. Information on the safety impacts to drivers
4. Information on the economic and fiscal consideration of billboards
5. Revenues to local government
6. Consideration of the legal implications to local government
7. Input provided by the public and industry representatives
8. Implications of current billboard stock
The above considerations are more fully described as follows:
1. Billboard Regulations in Other Washington Cities
Staff conducted a comprehensive review of sign regulations in 47 cities in Washington
State pertaining to billboards. The review included 31 cities in Western Washington, and
16 cities in Eastern Washington. The results of that research are shown in Appendix I,
Billboard and Digital Sign Regulations in Washington State. 91 percent of Washington
cities surveyed have chosen to ban installation of additional billboards within their
Adnunt5a5/60/ (SSIi 575-6/26 • Manners Y �SSIi 575-S Q S SSa�a° aai.5'a�i k5iraac aaaaai / a,�,a�iaa�ra aa� . �° ata°,� (SS Ii 57
jurisdictions. Looking at just Eastern Washington, the percentage of cities banning new
billboards is 87% (excluding Yakima), which is very similar to the statewide average.
Those choosing to ban new billboards include our closest neighbors of Selah, Union Gap
and Toppenish. That doesn't mean they don't have billboards; they have simply chosen
to not allow any additional billboards.
A few cities that yet allow some form of billboards have so restricted their size and
location as to effectively ban then, such as Wenatchee, which limits billboards to 60
square feet at 30 feet tall, or 100 square feet at 8 feet tall. The only cities in the survey
that still effectively allow billboards are Ellensburg, Grandview, Port Angeles and
Yakima. Among those cities, Grandview is the least restrictive (relying solely upon
compliance with the building code) followed by Yakima that is less restrictive than
Ellensburg and Port Angeles in terms of the permitting process, allowed locations, and
minimum spacing between billboards. (Yakima's spacing is 500 feet minimum compared
to a 1,000 foot minimum in Ellensburg and Port Angeles).
Staff made every effort to include all major cities and other cities that commonly come to
mind for both Eastern and Western Washington and welcomes suggestions for inclusion
of cities that may have been overlooked.
2. Aesthetic Impacts of Billboards
While the Planning Commission took a number of issues
into account in making its recommendation, a principle
consideration was aesthetics. Most of the negative
comments pertaining to billboards from both the public
and individual commission members were based upon
what many referred to as "visual clutter". There were a
number of comments on how billboards create a negative
image of the city due to their dominance along the city's
entry corridors like Yakima Avenue and No. 1st Street.
But the aesthetic concern was heightened when industry
representatives suggested at the hearing that they would
like to expand billboards into West Valley neighborhoods
as that area further develops.
Particularly noteworthy was the derelict condition of
many existing billboard in the city. These included
billboards with exposed and weathered plywood faces,
billboards and their structure bases tagged with graffiti,
and most prominently, billboards with peeling copy and
wind -ripped canvases snagged up on surrounding
structures. This problem was brought to the attention of
CBS Outdoor Representative Rob LaGrone during a
PowerPoint presentation to the Council back in October
11111111111111111111 IN
'11,00010 10000001
o 010111,000
loy,P1,1011,
Mor
�' 111111111010111111111111111111111��
0000000 10 0 10000
rr(jg
[ 1111 1111'11'1' 11'111111011111111111111111111ferp
AMM enN0�
liv1II0
�u�
y nJy1�)DyI I1r%5.:,!1!i�rr 111155
2013. Mr. LaGrone stated that the industry has
representatives that regularly visit the area to correct
such conditions, and he then had the problems
identified in the October presentation corrected.
However, in a short period of time, the signs went back
to their tattered condition, remaining that way for
months. Staff again identified this as a problem at the
Planning Commission's February 26 hearing, sharing
earlier and updated photos of the same signs. Mr.
LaGrone again had the billboards refaced the following
day, which was appreciated. But with the next wind
just one week later, one billboard sign was again ripped
and left dangling, with other signs also showing
evidence of wind stress.
One Planning Commission member commented that the
on-going condition of these signs contribute to the
"broken windows" syndrome that affects many
struggling neighborhoods. The broken windows theory
is a criminological theory on the effect of urban
disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-
social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and
monitoring urban environments in a well -ordered
condition may stop further vandalism and escalation
into more serious crime.
3. Safety Impacts to Drivers.
There has been significant research on the topic of
driver distraction associated with billboards, and more
recently pertaining to electronic billboards. While
industry -sponsored studies find that no direct
correlation has been documented between billboards
and the incidents of crashes, its two most oft referenced
,0000000000000,
pH
elyongerea
feet
�r N
1111111p11
1111111111 1
11111
iii N' 11,1110111 I,1111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 00000
��� 1111111 Bf�AG1�1N1ty 1111u1
11111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111„„
11111111111
1111111000010 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111(111111 „,!„1111111101.„1.111111111,111,111,111.11011„11111.....„ 111111V1A
studies have been harshly criticized in peer review and both have been rejected for
presentation or publication by Transportation Research Board.' Conversely, a well
regarded Virginia Tech study commission by the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration (NHTSA)2, found that driver distractions totaling more than 2
See particularly:
• Study 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
• Study 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."
2 The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk, An Analysis Using the 100 -Car Naturalistic
Driving Study Data, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2006
3
seconds increases near-crash/crash risks by at least two times. A Swedish study
(commissioned by the Swedish Transportation Administration) 3 built upon the NHTSA
study and found that digital billboards in particular keep drivers attention off the road for
more than two seconds. The study further found that nearly 80 percent of crashes involve
driver inattention within 3 seconds of the crash. Finally, it also confirmed what a study
commission by the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education found —
that digital billboards seem to attract more attention than static billboards due to the
lighting, animation and sequential messaging techniques. The results of the study
prompted the Swedish government to require removal of all digital billboards.
The Planning Commission attended a Webinar4 that included expert testimony on this
topic from Jerry Wachtel, CPE, President of the Veridian Group, Inc. out of Berkeley,
California. Mr. Wachtel was commissioned by the Maryland State Highway
Administration (MDSHA) to provide independent peer review of each of the two industry
studies referenced above. He found that, "[s]ince neither of these two studies had
received public peer review at the time of their issuance, it was premature, at best, for the
[Outdoor Advertising Association of America] to make any claims of the validity of the
findings." He further concluded 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."5
The Planning Commission acknowledged that even on -premise signage can result in
driver distraction, but further acknowledged that they serve a vital purpose. The
Commission determined that since some distractions are to be expected, we should not
encourage more distractions than necessary to serve local businesses needing signage to
get patrons to their specific locations. The Commission concluded that on -premise local
business is the most important reason for signage and that any distractive element of
signage should be reserved for that purpose.
4. Economic and Fiscal Consideration of Billboards.
a. Value to Local Economy. The staffs inventory of existing billboards in Yakima
found that 29% of billboard ads represented local businesses.6 The industry has
refuted this finding, stating that between 78% and 90% of Yakima's billboards
represent local businesses. The principle difference between staff's figures and those
3 Traffic Injury Prevention, Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Distraction; Journal Traffic Injury
Prevention; Dukic, Tania; Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute , Ahlstrom, Christer;
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute , Patten, Chris; Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute , Kettwich, Carmen; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Light Technology
Institute Kircher, Katja; Swedish National Road and TransportResearch Institute, (July 8, 2012)
4 "Digital Signs and Billboards, Crafting and Enforcing Local Regulations", Stafford Webinars, (2013)
5 Jerry A. Wachtel, A Critical, Comprehensive Review of Two Studies Recently Released by the Outdoor
Advertising Association of America. Prepared for the Maryland State Highway Administration (October
18, 2007).
6 Note: The recent staff report to the Planning Commission incorrectly stated that this figure was 25%.
The correct and intended figure is 29% as stated in staff's original reports.
4
of the industry is that staff figures included billboards that specifically advertized
businesses located within Yakima City limits, whereas industry figures included ads
for products that might be found on the shelves of local stores. For example, a high
percentage of ads were sponsored by MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch. But since
their products are widely available at retailers across the country, and since their ads
did not direct the buyer to a local outlet, they were considered product brand
promotions rather than local business promotions.
The only way to determine if a billboard ad for a given product increases local
consumption of that product would be to compare its per -capita consumption in areas
allowing billboards to the per -capita consumption in areas where billboards do not
exist. That has been the topic of numerous studies, made easy by the fact that there
are specific states that do not allow any billboards (i.e., Maine, Vermont, Alaska and
Hawaii). The research concludes that while product ads may create rivalry among
brands, they do not necessarily correlate to how much of a product type is locally
consumed. For example, Jon Nelson, Professor of Economics at Pennsylvania State
University, researched the effects that advertising bans have on alcohol consumption,
and he included the impact of billboard bans in his research.' His findings have
particular relevance to Yakima and to industry concerns that alcohol ads on billboards
were not considered pertinent to local business promotion. Essentially, the industry
suggests that less beer would be consumed locally were it not for local billboard ads;
therefore beer ads promote local business. However, Professor Nelson found that,
"[s]tudies of state -level bans of billboards and publicly visible displays fail to
demonstrate that selective bans reduce consumption." He made the same findings for
other product brand ads, stating that "[s]tudies of international bans that cover more
media and beverages reach the same conclusion for more comprehensive bans."'
These findings are consistent with recent reports of increased alcohol consumption in
Vermont, where billboards are prohibited statewide. In a 2012 USAToday article9,
Vermont was identified as the leading state for increased consumption and the
second -fasted growth rate of beer consumption in the country. Conversely, North
Dakota experienced a 4.5 percent decline in beer consumption between 2003 and
2012 even with billboard allowances in that state.
It is therefore evident that product brand ads have little bearing on local consumption
of a given product type and more to do with product rivalry. The Planning
Commission acknowledged this, stating that a given product may be available in the
local grocery story or local restaurant, but reasoned that if every article on the shelf
was tied to a billboard, "that is not getting us where we want to go."
Jon P. Nelson, Alcohol Advertising and Advertising Bans: A Survey of Research Methods, Results, and
Policy Implications. Department of Economics, Pennsylvania State University (2001)
8 Ibid.
9 Michael B. Sauter, Alexander E.M. Hess and Samuel Weigley, (2012, October 11), 10 States That Sell the
Most Beer are Surprising. USAToday
5
b. Impacts on Redevelopment. Billboards have been problematic for jurisdictions
wishing to do redevelopment projects due to underlying easement restrictions and
restrictive lease provisions. Property owners typically enter into lease agreements
with billboard operators to generate additional revenue from their property, but the
lease provisions may be more burdensome than many owners anticipate. For
example, the City of Yakima's property at the corner of Lincoln Ave. and No. 1'
Street is fully encumbered by a billboard lease agreement entered into by its previous
owner. The site now has three billboards. The agreement allows CBS unrestricted
rights to install, maintain, service and even reposition the billboards to ensure their
full visibility. The agreement also includes a "no obstruction" clause that allows CBS
to remove at the city's expense any "obscuring improvement, structure, advertising
display or object" on the site, and further allows CBS to "cut and/or remove any
obstructing or obscuring vegetation". (See copy of lease agreement in Appendix II).
These provisions prevent the City from any development activities that would
interfere with any of the described allowances to the billboard owner. It would be
difficult to develop the property in any way that would not conflict with the lease
restrictions.
Also common in billboard leases are provisions that result in automatic renewals for
additional terms of 10 years if the property owner either fails to provide advance
notice that the owner does not intend to renew the lease, or forgets to not tender the
first installment of a second term period. That was the clause in the City's lease with
CBS that resulted in an additional 10 -year lease commitment. Specifically, the lease
states that, "[CBS] Outdoor has the right to extend the Principal Term for an
additional term of 10 years on the same terms beginning upon expiration of the initial
Principal Term which shall be deemed exercised by tendering the first installment of
the rent due for second term." The "same terms" of the extended lease lock the City
into the same monthly lease rate of $41.67 per month per billboard in exchange for
the great burden the lease imposes on the property's development potential.
Obviously, property owners have responsibility to monitor the terms of their own
lease agreements. But these types of lease burdens combined with other recorded
restrictions and billboard easements have inhibited redevelopment efforts across the
country. An example comes from Salt Lake City, where Utah -based Reagan Sign
Company complained that light poles in a new hotel parking lot blocked views of
Reagan's billboard and reportedly wanted more than $1,000,000.00 in compensation.
On another site in Salt Lake City, zoning laws permit a 375 -foot -tall office building,
but the combination of a billboard easement and laws against blocking views of
billboards limited development of the lot to a one-story strip mall. Many of these
easements are created under lease terms that give the billboard company the right of
first refusal on properties it leases. When the properties eventually come up for sale,
the billboard company buys the properties, records easements against them, and puts
them back on the market with permanent development restrictions.
c. Costs of Compensation. A cost associated with billboards that jurisdictions are now
more fully realizing is the cost of compensation when billboards have to be removed
6
or relocated to facilitate public projects such as street widening, or bridge or over pass
construction. The most recent example of this comes from the Minneapolis / St. Paul
area where a bridge project over the Mississippi River required the relocation of a
digital billboard. The cost to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, payable to
Clear Channel, was $4,321,000.00. (See copy of invoice to Clear Channel in
Appendix III). This amount was required to cover the cost of not only the structure,
but also projected future revenue, even though little revenue was lost because the sign
was quickly reinstalled a short distance away. Other costs to the DOT included
$3,000.000.00 to remove 4 conventional billboards ($750,000.00 each), for a total of
$7,321,000.00 paid to Clear Channel from Minnesota's highway construction budget.
These billboards were along State highways, but the same situation could affect road
projects at the local level. While billboards in Yakima may not be as valuable or
costly as the billboard in Minneapolis, the proportional impact to the City's budget
could be just as burdensome.
d. Impacts on Property Values. A landmark court decision in Washington State
regarding billboards was Ackerley Communications of the Northwest Inc. vs.
Krochalis (Seattle). This case involved an industry lawsuit against the City of Seattle
over the city's ban on new billboards. Seattle's ban was based upon its findings that
"the proliferation and location of billboards in the City can contribute to visual blight,
traffic hazards and a reduction of property values". Ackerley argued that Seattle
made no factual showing that the ordinance advanced its goals to a material degree.
The court ruled in favor of Seattle, stating that Ackerley's challenge is virtually
identical to Metromedia case out of San Diego10, wherein the court declared, "It is not
speculative to recognize that billboards by their very nature, wherever located and
however constructed, can be perceived as an "esthetic harm."11
The Yakima Planning Commission concluded that billboards do impose an aesthetic
harm on the community, and it also considered whether such harm decreases property
values as Seattle otherwise attested in the Ackerley case. The Commission
considered the findings of a report prepared by Jonathan Snyder out of Philadelphia.
Snyder found that properties located within 500 feet of a billboard have a decreased
real estate value of $30,826. Homes located further than 500 feet but within a census
tract/community where billboards are present experience a decrease of $947 for every
billboard in that census tract'2.
The industry has responded to the Snyder study with two separate rebuttal studies
conducted by Econsult Corporation, which concluded that billboards actually increase
home values. While the Econsult studies provided an interesting approach to the
topic, staff found that one of the studies attempted to answer the wrong question
while the other study was based upon questionable if not flawed methodologies (e.g.,
failing to demonstrate how their conclusions were derived, and referencing data from
10 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981)
11
Ibid
12 Jonathan Snyder, Beyond Aesthetics: How Billboards Affect Economic Prosperity, December 2011,
Funded by the Samuel S. Fels Fund.
7
sources that provide no such data). Staff concluded that the study does not provide a
sound basis for decision-making for reasons more fully explained in Appendix IV —
Staff Response to Econsult Report.
e. Socio -Economic Indicators. The above -referenced Snyder study focused also on 20
major US cities, including those with non -strict billboard controls, and those with
strict billboard controls, finding that (1) The median income for strict control cities is
higher than that for not -strict cities; (2) The mean poverty rate for cities with stricter
sign control is lower than for cities without strict sign controls; and (3) The mean
home vacancy rate is lower for strict sign control cities.13
Whether by causation or association, the presence of billboards is often an indicator
of neighborhood instability, and that may reflect on Yakima, where over 90% of
existing billboards are located in neighborhoods east of 16th Avenue. In any event the
decision to prohibit new billboards reflects the efforts of many communities to
stabilize neighborhoods and improve their overall economies. Over 90% of
Washington cities surveyed have made that decision.
5. Limited Local Revenue from Billboards
Revenues from billboards in Washington and/or Yakima go primarily to Clear Channel,
based in San Antonio, Texas; Lamar Advertising, based in Baton Rouge Louisiana; CBS
Outdoor Advertising, based in New York, New York; Metro Outdoor, based in Scottsdale
Arizona. Yakima's billboards are managed by regional representatives based in
Scottsdale, Arizona; Post Falls, Idaho; Eugene, Oregon; and Chelan, Washington.14
Some revenue may go to individuals that maintain the signs and/or change sign messages,
who may be local. However, maintenance has been sporadic on many existing static
billboards, and the newer digital billboards are designed to minimize local labor by being
remotely programmable.
Billboards may indirectly benefit local coffers via businesses that proffer from use of
billboard media. However, this appears to be quite limited. In Yakima, only 29% of
billboard ads are for local tax -paying businesses, and only 12% of those are retail
oriented. Under WAC 458-20-204, billboards are considered "outdoor advertising",
which is subject to B & 0 taxes on the gross income from the advertising services, but
none of that revenue comes back to the local jurisdiction. Moreover, unlike other local
businesses, advertisers are not required to collect retail sales tax, except for any actual
product purchased locally to manufacture the sign. Most sign components are
manufactured elsewhere.
One of the questions discussed at the Planning Commission level was how much property
tax revenue is generated from billboards. Following the last Planning Commission
13 Ibid.
14 One representative may have a field office in Yakima, but there is no business license on record to
confirm that.
8
meeting, staff met with County Assessor Dave Cook to get more information on that
topic. Mr. Cook confirmed that in Washington, billboards are taxed as personal property
rather than real property. He explained that personal property is self -reporting and that
billboard owners are required to file a Personal Property Listing with the County
Assessor each year. He further stated that it is up to the billboard owners to provide
estimates of the billboards' values. According to Mr. Cook, not all billboard companies
have filed Personal Property Listings with Yakima County. It appears that many
billboards in Yakima have actually been assessed as real property, meaning that the
underlying property owner pays the tax. It is not yet clear what the implications of that
apparent anomaly are, but the decision to assess billboards as real property was
apparently made prior to current County staff.
6. Increased Risk of Litigation.
Billboards are becoming an increasing liability to local government. The likelihood of
litigation against cities increases in relation to both the number of billboards permitted
and the cities' efforts to regulate them. The industry has filed lawsuits against the city of
Seattle in 1980, 1997, and 2002, and against the City of Tacoma in 1997, 2007, and 2011.
Lawsuits were largely based upon efforts to remove existing billboards and efforts to ban
digital billboards. The current Tacoma lawsuit is based on city efforts to remove
billboards city-wide. This comes after the city's ban imposed in 1997 which came with a
10 -year phase out provision. Clear Channel is pushing for $72,000,000 in compensation.
Outside of Washington State, an example comes from Los Angeles, where CBS Outdoor
sued the city for $2,300,000 over the loss of two billboards on a building demolished
twelve years prior to make way for the Hollywood & Highland entertainment and
shopping complex. Another example comes from Rapid City, South Dakota where
Lamar filed suit in federal court seeking over $10,000,000 in compensation for its losses
because of the city's new codes. Epic Outdoor similarly filed suit against Rapid City for
the same code provisions. A final example comes from Salt Lake City, where Reagan
Sign Company filed a $1,000,000 lawsuit against the city claiming that the parking lot
lights of a new hotel blocked visibility of one of Reagan's billboards. That comes even
after the City required the relocation of the hotels sign to avoid blocking the billboard.
One news article quotes Randal Morrison, a San Diego lawyer specializing in billboard
litigation cases, stating, "[T]here is a "gigantic mother lode" of more than 8,000 cases
around the country since the early 1980s -- and the total number of lawsuits is still
soaring. The industry's tactics, he adds, include what he calls the "billboard ambush," in
which corporations simply keep putting up billboards that violate regulations, daring
local governments to take them to court." 15
That was the situation in Houston, Texas, where the city recently won a long-running
battle at the U.S. Supreme Court level to eliminate 59 billboards that had been illegally
15 Ray Ring, High Country News, Bozeman Montana, Billboard Companies Use Money and Influence to
Override Your Vote, January 23, 2012
9
installed and in violation of the Houston's billboard ban.16 Although the city originally
filed suit against the industry to have the illegal signs removed, this case was a
countersuit against the city, challenging the constitutionality of its laws.
In his comments to the Yakima Planning Commission, Peter Grover of Metro Outdoor
expressed concern that staff was "cherry picking" lawsuits from large cities that are not
relevant to Yakima. It is true that many lawsuits involve larger cities. The likely reason
is that the billboard industry has resources that few small cities can compete with. Most
cities have neither the staff expertise nor the financial resources to risk litigation, so they
simply give in to industry demands. But Yakima may currently be in much the same
situation as Houston and many other cities in terms of billboard permits. There are no
records of permits for upwards of 62% of Yakima's billboards, meaning that many may
have been installed illegally.
7. Input provided by the Public and Industry Representatives
A summary of public input received by the Planning Commission on this topic is
separately attached. While concerns expressed varied, the two principle concerns of the
public focused on (1) aesthetics and (2) whether billboards represented local concerns.
One local business provided input on the value of billboard ads to that business. The
proposed ordinance will allow that business owner and others who rely on current
billboard stock to continue to use that form of advertising.
8. Adequacy of Current Billboard Stock
During the Planning Commission's hearing, the Commission questioned industry
representatives on market demands and whether they had adequate billboard stock to
meet consumer demands. Both Lamar and CBS representatives acknowledged that they
are currently not lacking in billboard space. In fact, Lamar stated that while they would
like to be in other areas of Yakima as those areas build up, there are too many billboards
on lsl Avenue both currently and long term and that they can't sell everything they have.
This oversupply and inability to sell current stock is evident in both the number of pro
bono ads being displayed and also in the derelict condition of many billboards. The
cheaper materials that have been most prone to wind damage are those used on the pro-
bono ads. It therefore appears that many of the expressed aesthetic concerns are the
result of this oversupply.
II. Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission's recommendation is based upon and reflected in the
separately attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation.
16 RTM Media, L.L.C. v. City of Houston
10
III. Staff Recommendation:
It is clear that some billboards in Yakima advertise local businesses and also provide
helpful public awareness ads. The proposed ordinance allows existing legally installed
billboards to be retained, so any reliance on existing billboards for these purposes will not
be affected. Moreover, there are other code provisions for signs that may just as
effectively serve local businesses, including off -premise directional signs. But there are
new technologies that are arguably far more effective than traditional off -premise signage
in both advertising and wayfinding to local businesses. The use of GIS and turn -by -turn
navigation is now commonplace to just about anyone owning a cell phone or newer
vehicle. As businesses and their customers continue adapting to these emerging
technologies, the public's reliance on billboards and other off -premise signs will likely
diminish considerably. If this occurs, the current oversupply of billboard space identified
by industry representatives will likely increase.
Based upon the above considerations, findings and the unanimous recommendation of the
Planning Commission, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning
Commission's proposed ordinance.
Because the ordinance will not be effective until 30 days after adoption and publication,
and because the current billboard moratorium expires April 1, 2014, staff further
recommends that the Council extend the current moratorium to the effective date of
the proposed ordinance, which is April 20, 2014.
11
Appendix I
Survey
of
Billboard & Digital Sign Regulations in Washington State
Billboard / Digital Sign - Regulations in Washington Cities
V\apolloAshared \PlanningVApplications-Planning\2013 Planning ApplicationsVCity Planning - Billboards & Digital Signs-TXTO05-13VCOUNCIL PKT - Billboard text amdt\Spreadsheet of City Regulations - Revised 01.02.14.doc
Page 1
City / Jurisdiction
Billboards
Allowed
with Size/ Location
Restrictions
Prohibit New
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
premise Signs
(including
billboards)
Allow New
Billboards Only
with Relocation
Permit
Prohibit Digital
Billboards / Signs
Digital Design Restrictions
Allow Digital
Only with
Reduction
Provision
Eliminate Existing
Billboards By
Amortization
Eastern Washington
Ellensburg
1' TC zone only, CUP
required, 288 sq.ft.
max.
One digital sign per frontage,
3 sq.ft. max, 64 sq.ft. 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
nits daytime; 1000 nits
nighttime.
10 -second rule.
No white background
Pasco
✓ (with exceptions
for directional signs)
Pullman
✓
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 no guaranteed
right. 200 sq.ft. max.
Prohibited along
designated entryways.
1' (with very limited
exceptions)
✓
V\apolloAshared \PlanningVApplications-Planning\2013 Planning ApplicationsVCity Planning - Billboards & Digital Signs-TXTO05-13VCOUNCIL PKT - Billboard text amdt\Spreadsheet of City Regulations - Revised 01.02.14.doc
Page 1
Page 2
City / Jurisdiction
Billboards
Allowed
with Size/ Location
Restrictions
Prohibit New
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
premise Signs
(including
billboards)
Allow New
Billboards Only
with Relocation
Permit
Prohibit Digital
Billboards / Signs
Digital Design Restrictions
Allow Digital
Only with
Reduction
Provision
Eliminate Existing
Billboards By
Amortization
Eastern Washington
Toppenish
✓
Allows digital only if no
more than 40% of sign face.
No moving images, 5000
nits day, 500 nits night
Union Gap
✓
Walla Walla
✓
✓
✓ (No changing
message centers)
Allows electronic text only.
Wenatchee
✓ Limited to 60 sq.ft.
@ 30 feet tall or 100
sq.ft. @ 8 ft. tall.
(Effectively)
Yakima
1 Ml, M2, CBD, GC
and RD zones. 35 ft.
tall, 500 ft. spacing.
Western Washington
Auburn
1
Illumination limit - 8,000
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
1.5 second rule applies, 5
second scroll allowed.
Bellevue
1
✓ (Allowed for non-
commercial use only)
4 minute rule applies.
8 hour rule applies. No
motion or animation.
Limited to text only.
1
Bellingham
1
1
Bothell
1
Bremerton
1
1
✓
Burien
1
1
✓
Limited to 50% area of free-
standing sign.
Centralia
1
1 (90 days)
Des Moines
1
Illumination limit - 5,000
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
2 -second rule applies.
No animation.
Page 2
Page 3
City / Jurisdiction
Billboards
Allowed
with Size/ Location
Restrictions
Prohibit New
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
premise Signs
(including
billboards)
Allow New
Billboards Only
with Relocation
Permit
Prohibit Digital
Billboards / Signs
Digital Design Restrictions
Allow Digital
Only with
Reduction
Provision
Eliminate Existing
Billboards By
Amortization
Western Washington
Everett
1 20 ft. above street
grade, 1000'
separation, subject to
removal clause.
1 Requires removal
of any
nonconforming
billboard owned by
that company, and
remove/conform
when sold.
✓
Federal Way
1
1
Fife
1
Gig Harbor
1
1
Kent
1
1 (prohibition
applies to off -
premise only)
Lacey
1
1
Lakewood
1
1
1
Marysville
✓
No animation. 20 second
rule applies. 30% of sign
area max. Dimming
mechanism required.
Mill Creek
1
Olympia
1
1
(3 minute rule (very
limited).
Port Angeles
✓ CA and Industrial
Zones only.
1000 ft. spacing.
30 second rule applies.
Port Orchard
1
1
✓ (billboards)
1
Poulsbo
1
1
Puyallup
1
2 second rule applies.
Renton
1
Page 3
Legend — Cities highlighted in yellow are those that permit the typical bil board 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
City / Jurisdiction
Billboards
Allowed
with Size/ Location
Restrictions
Prohibit New
Billboards
Prohibit Off-
premise Signs
(including
billboards)
Allow New
Billboards Only
with Relocation
Permit
Prohibit Digital
Billboards / Signs
Digital Design Restrictions
Allow Digital
Only with
Reduction
Provision
Eliminate Existing
Billboards By
Amortization
Western Washington
Sea Tac
1
1
Illumination limit - 8,000
nits daytime;
500 nits nighttime.
1.5 -second rule applies.
Requires dark background.
1
Seattle
1 (subject to removal
clause).
1 (except under
removal clause).
1 (within 660 feet of
highways)
1
1 (billboards)
2 second rule, with 20
second pause.
Sequim
1
1
Shelton
1
1
1 (except for
10 -acre
shopping
center)
Shoreline
1
1
20 -second rule applies. No
moving messages.
Tacoma
1 (subject to removal
clause).
1 (except under
removal clause).
1
1
Vancouver
1
1
4 / 8 second rule applies.
Illumination limit - 8,000
nits daytime;
1000 nits nighttime.
Requires ambient light
monitor
Woodinville
1
1
✓ (Allowed only in
Public/Institution
Zone)
32 sq.ft. max. Single color
only (warm tone).
4 second rule applies.
Legend — Cities highlighted in yellow are those that permit the typical bil board 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
Appendix II
Lease Agreement to Place /Maintain Billboards on City Property.
Sep 26 07 1 0 : '2'a ("1'; EIS', 1,11111',A1‘,,riCADI
6(11 -62 7211616111
195 Siillver Lane
Ei(geroce Oregon 97404
Feracele',.. (541) 697-9355 F'(ex:. (541 ) (301-9394
D te: 9/26/2007
To: Gary Sybouts
COrnpany:
ax (509)452J955
From: Heather Ramos.
RE: Lease #901520
P'ages: 2 r,oVt- Y
Per your re,,quest, attached is a copy Of .the current Lease AeArEe merit
Sep 26 07 C..): 520 C C'ttEdtpor
Finn 52EN Env L101
541 -607-005'1 2
00000 tiiieretiCOti../0 ;it
STANDARD 1,,EASE RENENV.A.1„.
VIACOM aUTDOOlt.
Tun AGREEME,Y,rt, rimed Ihis alst. day of ,"),V,NY by and bdwear. (","LESSOR"), &ad VIACOM OCTOCKDR. Rqe
Dal aware, carpool:km, doing, truttinegt tit 'Vilitte014 OLTrDOOR, 2502 N. 1344. Cznyon Hwy,
.—PROPERTY LESSOR the owner Or totaitorietted lestoor) ilrat ttett, Fivp.mk,,,,,f (the -ProTcrty") etaire 4,HOte itt of
ieltriggittli on "the S jssl, for displiky(s) facing, S. being pd t of Om LESSOR'S prr..vany kekev.,,n v:itauked '"ri the, Tinoirattnip ter
1"i'; County iiiifyiesKiiii,;,tit Slott Tit is dirps,y(s) are intended to 'LK. eireireid them itiDgin, wtroe,t ur" iffit. a y,
siZ4; 244 ';',41rolgs ,of
" Theadvwx,e yeady metal Ili'UyinentS all fl be mathe tirigtai whoar .iont 500,50
SY,,,ETCH APPR.,OXLMATE I,OCATION oF our DOOR ADVERTISING ,STRrn)C.",11,JRE, CoN PRDPSRT'r,'
- • — ,„
2, TERM I.ESSOR 3li‘lutoz to Vizoom (hadow Ind Vineurn Ouzdwe acccos the warn dein It2,934:5 ritinin LESSOR rhe
thypeitirey to have Mil
w hold opon tho ter= wind °mahout ihigiggitied thi3 team,. ?riir24-44Tni. .egavilld., end Yemr.i.e-Yeer Term die
golitentiouly dine 'nem" of tint itoreite
t,,,,ter06,1,7,00EurprmitilsttELTh rinatipai in6E11 be RA, y rind lava COT1/11,21= pi e prior Lewin tio4nectioi EMS
and VoM Ouiddrxicfl Mils the Pmpetty„ ViAorynt Oute,Dot ben the Tien enataini the Term En an iiithiginal of 10 yeArr, 00 r3e
terms beiOrtrriog von, expixotion of Ciao Principal Terr w2 i44 attell be dientined et:invited IL,A I daring Or fish lunar ibnerd of Or due bin tuning
.Igalik,,JOgi1i11.61.111.12,M. 'Edon tho expiration otithe thentigisi Tel Tr, otratiortol, thin irottion CLO11.11/.,X ':,' ri,rn inv.; insigained CANT.Ti!, kW! M 011
yeal`1,C,,yeat
1 LESSOR OT "O ACO &KW teatii teetriiinte 016 1„2cse tiffernier din Eel of tiny lode Tun of iiin ininiodnini Stem hie giving ;in
iiiong 4 PO) da wriu.,01, t5e6t.e prim to thd0 *Id a due., hose yemt
a. RENT. . Tinged. Outdone abidi po,y "tu, oath/ r tb,2 g amount Ein teediTini VAT,
E,R,Rtait41E141l2fl4gat a YEAR.TO,YEAR. 'T FRIT 1,7101.1/0,. Rota niterbt be J/t224Ljni23 32L 1 CAI One eiders flditiedt) nun fier Si 1,U:g
0O4921 LA' tIAM1-f 212 4/ 1pNymeot, Vieinorn Chadic/Er ahalli hopA5r23i11e4 Entity dayn Enna rinidist of :lir ine dinnortidi to make sob tinit mien
dth Ma lading in dietitian of thia Wave
T. LEASED 4 22412Pe.. V illIVOM Suldebir shall be critibled ta use the Pr waning 1,0 , not ll436/3 inereirrin„ rano ve end rcp,o,:,'/I
.344 aniu arr.v.losary) 412 outdcxx advertising straw,u,re Erholuding.neciestary igintitt, oral, ketingti deeitorit hoover tones and toterrioctions) ion the 4' 4324/
52.1kil mei or uses aa perreitirid by bete, Tut iodised pisitioni of the 43 o3' Ural:idea ithaternantrit 4' .34 ttNeS un 101 the Nerd141 y 4 1pnineida fr,:* 11.1V
V.X0303C144, hatinenierone, servier or advertising envy, 3444 11 and removal adveirlising int'oetiont irent to pitrie'rk for 01 OP 413144 44 2 04
t„ed tidephrinin 5.4:3N Or,:4 . advertising struniture, 43neicennery,
5, 1.1i1T16E PROSISMNS. Thin ituttei irationan 434: pdocr,; m tiitiA pogo. hitO 1e. Ever in ruiner. J'• 14424 'hint !inn end inentionionts
bon nonnin end provisiona„
Exe.o.,;,k10 touk.l." the Ilmnd 4124 .34444 .1.11.11e. attit,%9 ,on 4.1444344412144 3444444413 88434444
Offen( Dalai 1,111.911,
Efitox443.44
""
L.
atty scy!c Ans,
ihird Numel'ait, covolit."Thoo, or Partnashi;
422 N, St
Ad; b44
'W Eh pun 089.0
einditent
,
443444421
01)
/
„...,,'S ,'I .4, _
7" ,
12344 341 rwrTEETER OF "FEAT ESTATE
WELETERhil EEGiOTT
" menu tanionnindin
J441 r..)
/
Sep 2'6 0 7 1 0:522 C B S 0 Li
Petro tddrisi Rev thel
6, LES102,""S COVENANT& OS AUTItORfl Y OF LESSOR LESSOR. estsourtt and wax rata/ hen LiderSOR is steno the mush/ 'gigot tt
the owner, or ss. autboristss kriste of the property and Start LESSOR has ftV toms- sad entstisy w tow into and ttrttrm undst the corentrra of t.tts
Lwow,.iv1uki& watt*l torts/ the Property sod sudstrisin $be sot sirestot Otto advertising antrum otUw tossatot pv4624. LESSOR
agrees to provide Viacom Outdoor ltb triton proof ofratit tsr boritrion. 1...ESSOR maks is Viacom Otrdow quirt atjorttat aut. Ptsperty and
wernitted and agrees to &shod Mamma asionos in the quits asioynart of she trupety during the Two. stasis 1st LLSSOR std. Visuals Csrdow agY,M
thnt this 1.,„mse maybe rtordst at the ttpteptialt trusty stt ts,
7. ACCESS/NO OBSTRUCTION, LESSOR extressants and warrants Ott Viattas Outdoor ist, have sews:watts masts of
,
saves wit tag/wits hoptsly, and asq" asttlidiss c spistuttsettps txty ownod cost:toted by I,ESSORto eters,. iturinetw snaistsin, t tram restato
dIspositse ottsints advertising stsuthrts LESSOR sttsrstars #611.1 Veatranta n to art, &sr, 4:06Lilt,Ma r mainlair tiny improvamear, antrum,
adsrstking.
Lorittlion Sindudite hog Lo, thnLo uittlihm Aim), or ant othsr (Stied ors the 'tideripaity,. itsit ir uv djuring ne, stputratt
rotsserty owrod or tostrated by LESSCSR,„ nslich ratedd in arty matance, pahisily mcomiithely„ obscure et obtertne the nattmathisdimey 'silage) of Viacom
Ouldnenat advertising Cutiontre na the 'Etehanty, trpermit' ray third pasty to do rt. Vito= Outdoor Ists ;VS, (t) to mm0,, obsoning
ebeituding improssinest„, gnaws, advetiring disittyes the olsjftt LESSOR's expoott, ;R:tj 0.1) ,eas„1.rtstoye sn'y obstsutug or ds,,,thretwk,,,
Viste.st, ()Wiper's estreitert
8, ..t.t.DEMNITY AND rostmuNcE East pasty apses to indemnify tad bobS harmless Ow sststli u.any Rind 1 dD'irrV,L 0P, 1E1(11E4(6 00.
312aArdlt ‘of bodily jut y x l property damage mused by or Vididdliinti ibipin any n slit/ or vet 44 f 4P r
CLLtrurpknorts CXW691,34011%, VI,NOCK0 01O,Or agrOVS, to tarry,. st4 ar and exp:rirkt, LOYAII:), gorge= in nui among of (re Srlititin
Dollar/ ("S5,0:450000) on g arty such otattingetecr thatin: 8, die Tam tenths Lassa
9, lti14itiati14A,710:0 WORE If anghtne (d) tiderastrinat 14n 1Vu argit:kN:TT's obscured or attabracteds
(lii) the the or ratellarion suer advertising stuture11ptestsyss0 sest toted by Sew or by arivicat Otaitietaint baltilityl. meagre any
notestry permit or twists; ,or 04) Oridera is untible, fun tiny hated aurae (44)4 evetreatuti es duet or retiste„ ins deaths and maintain a tcheine
advertising tmeativa for the a divas:tint, sustain's; Vistula Outdoor rndy„ et it/ ophtem tarminste this 1 ty gran LF SSCIR Eftem (1 5) them arum
maim it in the trasosabts ii 10,41 ViRM9M 04.4door„ iitiy art a &bow eSiiidiiiisidd tads itin snip eche ran/ Mon Vitithite Osmium may, el ists ticlien„
braced Orthilintinating,thiS 4MOW is pay indoratai Ron isensi tat .4 oomn, het gat dating Me untied unit itivana ens 'ier any or room sp,
tat y tersttatios ante 1,„rass, or restsdist it, 4004 tor one 11114 o, LESSOR afidtsid4 o1w 4 41Eittemit Otteres s tit:esti si ergo , 10:000
18410, 41 athearising, strumuse is a doottttistri adwarng„ 01 -smut std. any a tat oteditur1 h die
areitelitiag histiantes Viacom 'Outdoor Ma Ire riatitst to reduce144 1'i,nt (intekteing, yir1did's) Lh. "1, , 1AV l'11101111. thez
entire letritte
11 CaRthEtillihilditOE. This Mem idetti be 10441 )4 icon ham, itanstuitem agNIM
sad Ltwor mg= w Amity Leuze or any drAst 44 ortraship of tr. petOrs 11441404 herrn or11 Lessor's sis ting, witt st. within tr SCA 47 1
Stant Lessor tarts t) bald Lotto:Mutt= tom wry adieu resulting "from faihrel.o provide sok! toter Shall ildX. Miss imment under het
Lease of any pat bettorexcept to a party sett humdrum thid underlying 401 4111 to the preadeess and 10141444 41111 stia iigh 14ireetheon 14 this lissom ds
any hut thereof /rapt to a party who pcschates. tiro to the ralitiest ,ttpo strentotee(s); provided lainvands Val/WU= &hail not Irstitdr a /chained.
so ignitors of Lasser's or itattiora itheneth whir this lam to Is lender ea path of bora fi des loan 410010 1.111041
IL CONDEMiattlititrah, In thitt mart 44414 41)1 Or tipsy pun of die Regary 11 samirch 41 44 4144,41. 14 4114 1.4411! "411 4 any tatity harm& er
didegeted tin pats irt al aninent donut; 'tisessm Chtdeor shalt, 411 its 4100 )1044 and its sok 1 14 <64A 100 0 4h.brX11. ); 41 44 etei sitataisnints tiogind
11441)1444 4.144 taking st Viosstm, Outioseg itrest% 14 114 Properly; (iii) minchis the natiliser tiderhaing stnatems and '44.l4.414444414414 1411 ream any hoar= of tie
Empathy nut acquirer ear to 411 4114144104) :sitelkas (i)i) be oratopmmeted firm any sward 41' 21.424441141411)1.44 1.44441111. by tts. 14 Katt% entity far cues, damages
snd 'bo lots intaareil by. Viacom Chadeste stifiating to its leautsienid„ as inignietted wish the eintavir torture, LESSOR avay 4441 1411114414141 41111
ststo Under any nigla or cireurnmentic dam, Preparty has been taken or a direstrued 41I)1114441414 by tubsem &traits, or rthe troptry it conveyed 11.0 my
away or he agora with 1441441111411141141411441144 instischlyt ?ski maintragionny 04 sittraginta assailant/tam of this 4 cast crt the fwtsting settestr shall be ettillahisd
wham :it 414144111±4'4411ly 4141000141144 4.1141 peragtaph arid hot foregoing sartows.
12. IMPROWMENtS„ AlAthe outliers advettitsrgantitintut 41.1411111 44414,,, 44144114141141 444144 anntimitati 141 12)11' Property 44R4'4144) rsat ruts 'W,.tl the
property al ViE"AX11 Outdoor ono strybst roamed by SCOW Othitkiai toy tits s prior to or tv Shit Randy (90) ds sitt Olt seristnaten t this Ler st
any rem -4A 1CTIM (INS Lunt,. ViStraM ditabOr 141421,414141441.4444414 tiles ativriditing sistErturth hsistslidsied of Res/ingy 41414.444144141411voo isitt nag atici 44ristsght,
itaded) and maws Ott steam so 14444414441104 sonditat,
13. ENTIRE AGREENENT, This 1 44.4: 410'*11.41106'4.111 tia4t Aa'reAtntlet% bdwMX OW pH41,114end 4,1.1 1.0 2%] 4), wriutm
aspessruat sigssed by dm hard= i'%111 rthormitations 1141 agreatimas 144111) kINVe 1140 ire peg to her s: 440401 Or the tantrum ht: tint math sd,
Irani- party may .sttatit Of plot WO jt.414 a latits
1). 14414. 4.4,,)) Ail isha ea al it otrecii 444444 44444(41141 ro u be in ett I it) 4 I"t , rot [in tit:vitt .1( 4' x
1 ES'S OE and hiecten bdiaticer tut hie rhatective midterms ara 4sI144 shott,
sK olliii:5,(71,14;1211 ulk; 7:1:1113y o;:ti'tttott ,
ozot2,514;4„titridi
1, Oki, Widsiddiped siiiiidtiti
1444. 414,,44141, ,:,iii ,iii:, d d, / iid di. , - i '":r 4l4(41
rpr Courtly of ' ,242)18 sataiglowy pro 4,40 i:.? he hie harm whir e a etas it statscrihai iv ilia of att in,v„,ity,
stortattei ittl rad ithiddidirilildi SaiiiiikliStiViSi illid he OS Side 4144 411141(4 hi 14121" 1.1'4'd , iit',6Siit fild&'5'' '4'l,,,iiiids
,,,,,
t,, atatainedi In whams arum& 1 ham bereanto net my hand rid offictit it (fl
My Convoistioo ENrioa_1:2:_s21,,,L' 01,e, _ 1,Stt ..„
otvtottatt !1F0441444)
Ps t011 tdarittation Itirshtc
1..t4411 Dorriptirs 1444444 syntarty (Fess Thestraing d'usposery_,
44444111111414 4.4114444 4441414411CO", 1ace Our din i4thri
Appendix III
Invoice of Payment to Clear Channel
from
Minnesota Department of Transportation
62 -CV -10-6746
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Filed in Second JudicialDistrict Court
9/2612013 11:45:22 AM
Ramsey Counly Civil, MN
CONDEMNATION
IN DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.: 62 -CV -10-6746
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation,
Petitioner,
vs.
Randall R. Gritz, Sharon Gritz, Donald M. Grilz, Union Pacific Railroad Company,
successor in interest by merger to the Chicago and North Western Railway Company,
Maytag Corporation, successor in interest to Chicago Pacific Corporation and to
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, Northern States Power Company,
doing business as Xcel Energy, Qwest Corporation, successor in Interest to U S West
Communications, Inc. and to Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Unknown
successors in interest to Pier Foundry & Pattern Shop, Inc., a statutorily dissolved
Minnesota corporation, City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, CHS Inc., Donerly, Inc.,
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., J;M. Keefe Co., doing business as Keefe Co. Parking, 444
Lafayette, LLC, State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, LaSalle Bank,
National Association, NGP Lafayette Portfolio Owner Corp., Meritex Enterprises, Inc.,
Holiday Stationstores, Inc®, Naegele Realty of Minnesota, Inc., formerly known as
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc., a statutorily dissolved Minnesota corporation, J -
Mont, Inc., Anchor Bank, National Association, successor in interest by corporate
merger, consolidation, amendment, or conversion to The Bank of Saint Paul, Judith A.
Kaufman, Jay W. Montpetit, Michelle Montpetit, Port Authority of the City of St. Paul,
BNSF Railway Company, formerly known as The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Company, and as Burlington Northern Railway Company successor in interest
to the Northern Pacific Railway Company, and to The First Division of the St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad Company, and to The St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba Railway
Company, City of Minneapolis, also all other persons unknown claiming any right, title,
estate, interest or lien in the real estate described in the Petition herein,
Respondents.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF
CERTAIN LANDS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY PURPOSES
REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS
62 -CV -10-6746
REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS
To the Court above named:
The undersigned Commissioners appointed by this Court in the above entitled
matter by Order of the Court, do hereby report as follows:
We met at the time and place appointed by the Court, in the office of the Court
Administrator, and took the oath prescribed by law.
We make the following award for the damages sustained by the several
respondents by reason of the taking.
2
62 -CV -10-6746
As to the property interests described as Parcel 251E, C.S. 6283 (94=392) 901.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
)
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. )
Naegele Realty of Minnesota, Inc.,
formerly known as
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
State of Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Northern States Power Company,
doing business as Xcel Energy
City of St. Paul
J -Mont, Inc.
County of Ramsey
$441,840.00
$4,321,000.00
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
The above award is made on the basis and condition that the date of passage of
title and right of possession and the date of valuation is October 8, 2010, pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 117.042.
The above award of commissioners is based on the condition that the real estate
taxes due and payable 2010 or in prior years on the lands acquired by the State and all
unpaid special assessments and future installments thereof, as well as pending
assessments, are the responsibility of the owners or lessees herein, except that
petitioner is responsible for and will pay real estate taxes, if any, payable in 2011 on the
real estate acquired herein by petitioner.
As a further basis and condition of this award, Holiday Stationstores
acknowledges the receipt of $160,000.00 on or about October 8, 2010, Clear Channel
Outdoor, Inc. acknowledges the receipt of $500,000.00 on or about October 8, 2010.
Said funds were paid to owners pursuant to Minn. Stat, § 117.042. These previous
payments will be credited against full payment of the above amounts.
•
OC.
62 -CV -10-6746
•
The above award is made on the basis and condition that the State of Minnesota
and the owners have agreed to said award and that interest shall be paid on said award
at the statutory rate.
The commission has not considered the impact of pollutants, contaminants, or
hazardous materials on the subject property, if any, in its assessment of damages.
We further report that in the performance of our duties as Commissioners we
were occupied for day(s).
Dated: (22 d -a43
SIGN
es
tephiriie Warne
ch.8rd Black
4
COMMISSIONERS
Appendix IV
Staff Response to Econsult Report
- Impact of Billboards on Property Values -
Staff Response to Econsult Report
- Impact of Billboards on Property Values -
A representative from Lamar Advertising submitted to the Yakima Planning Commission
a report prepared by Econsult Corporation regarding the economic impact of billboards
on property values in Philadelphia.' The report was prepared as a rebuttal to a report
prepared by Jonathan Snyder on the impacts of billboards on property values in
Philadelphia.2 Snyder found that properties located within 500 feet of a billboard have a
decreased real estate value of $30,826. Homes located further than 500 feet but within a
census tract/community where billboards are present experience a decrease of $947 for
every billboard in that census tract.
The Econsult report attempts to estimate the impact of the billboard industry on the
economy of Philadelphia proper and at the broader Commonwealth level using Input -
Output (I/O) modeling. I/O modeling is a method of representing the interdependencies
between different segments of a national or regional economy. It uses "multipliers" to
estimate the amplified effect of an initial economic stimulus after all of the secondary
effects of the stimulus have worked their way through an economy. The Econsult report
claims to draw upon RIMS II data, which breaks down industries into specific categories
used in input-output modeling. However, at its most finite level, RIMS II data as
published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) does not provide multiplier
figures specific to the billboard industry. That is one of the problems with I/O analysis —
it assumes that each industry has a single homogenous product. Billboards fall under the
broader Industry Code 339950 titled "Sign Manufacturing". (See attached excerpt from
Industry List A. RIMS II 406 Detailed Industry Codes) Therefore, the only conclusions
one could draw under standard Input -Output modeling using available RIMS II figures
pertain to the effects that the total sign manufacturing industry has on an identified
regional economy. But that is not even the question here. The impacts that sign
manufacturing has on a region's economy is a completely different level of analysis than
the specific impacts of billboards.
The Econsult report appears to address this limitation by stating that it utilizes "industry
data and industry -recognized input-output modeling techniques". However, that
customized level of analysis is not defined in the report. First, the report does not reveal
what "industry data" is applied to the model as opposed to data available through BEA,
and it does not provide the coefficients applied to its model or state how they were
derived. Moreover, it defines terms that are not otherwise defined in any study
referenced by, or in the users handbook developed by, BEA. Finally, with all of its
technical terms and jargon, Econsult provides no information on what additional
assumptions it applies to its I/O modeling to come to its more finite conclusions for
'Econsult Corporation, Economic Impact of Billboard Locations on Property Values in Philadelphia,
Econsult Corporation, (April 2012). The Econsult report was submitted to Duane Morris LLP, who is part
of a law firm in Philadelphia representing corporate interests.
2 Jonathan Snyder, Beyond Aesthetics: How Billboards Affect Economic Prosperity, December 2011,
Funded by the Samuel S. Fels Fund.
billboards. Obviously, the sign industry is far more diversified than billboards, so to
attribute all the functions, products, services, employment and other impacts of the sign
industry to just the billboard component would be a gross exaggeration of that
component's impact on the local economy. We simply don't know how Econsult derived
billboard -specific multipliers from available RIMS II data or how input and impacts from
the broader signage industry were discounted to avoid those kinds of errors.
But even if the BEA provided RIMS II data specific to the billboard industry, the
Econsult study reveals the same limitations and potential flaws of any I/O analysis. First,
it assumes that the input is constant and that conditions and technology will not change
over time. That represents a significant limitation if not flawed premise of the Econsult
study, for its conclusions are based on the premise the billboards provide 400 jobs to the
Philadelphia economy, even as the industry shifts to digital billboards that significantly
reduces the amount of local labor required to change billboard messaging. So while the
Econsult report predicts job creation through billboards, the industry is implementing
technological changes that significantly impact, displace and/or eliminate jobs. Second,
it assumes that the jobs created put monies back into the local economy, which further
assumes that monies earned in the region are spent in the same region.
Additionally, it does not account for what economist call "opportunity costs". First, it
claims that property taxes will increase due to the increased value of properties on which
billboards are placed, but it does not take into account any decreased values associated
with properties in the vicinity of billboards. Second, billboards are clearly not the sole or
most up-to-date means of advertising, and resources spent on this medium could negate
resources spent on developing newer and potentially less controversial technologies.
Opportunity costs might also apply to monies spent to mitigate impacts associated with
products advertized on billboards. For example, it is estimated that for every dollar
acquired for sales associated with alcohol (a significant portion of billboard ads) 10
dollars are spent addressing the social costs of this product. Moreover, there are other
less tangible benefits that standard input-output analysis does not even attempt to
measure including economic development objectives affected by aesthetics, such as
tourism or redevelopment of declining neighborhoods. Again, without a statement of
assumptions that Econsult put into its analysis, the study is suspect to abuses common to
many input-output analyses.
Finally, it is difficult to ignore the purpose for which the Econsult study was conducted.
It was sponsored by the billboard industry in response to a study that was obviously
concerning to the industry. Economist Jonathan Q. Morgan warned against too much
reliance on advocacy reports, stating, "Economic development professionals may provide
a basic assessment of a project's economic or fiscal impacts, or both. But the analysis of
such a professional might not be purely objective since his or her job performance is
dependent upon making projects happen. Project boosters and other advocates may not be
the best source for independent and unbiased analysis of development impacts".3
3 Jonathan Q. Morgan, "Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Economic Development Projects," Community
and Economic Development Bulletin No. 7 (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC School of Government, April
2010).
Industry List A. RIMS II 406 Detailed Industry Codes
Detailed industry code end the
Household appliance manufacturing
335210 Small electrical appliance manufacturing
335221 Household cooling appliance manufacturing
335222 Household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing ...
335224 Household laundry equipment manufacturing
335220 Other major household appliance manufacturing
Electrical equipment manufacturing
335311 Power, distribution, and specialty transformer
manufacturing
335312 Motor and generator manufacturing
ufactufacturing
335313 Switchgear and switchboard apparatus manufacturing
335314 Relay and industrial control manufacturing
Other electrical equipment and component manufacturing
335911 Storage battery manufacturing
335912 Primary battery manufacturing
335920 Communication and energy wire end cable manufacturing
335930 Wiring device manufacturing
335991 Carbon and graphite product manufacturing
335999 Ali other miscellaneous electrical equipment and
component manufacturing
Motor vehicle manufacturing
336111 Automobile manufacturing
336112 Light. truck and utility vehicle manufacturing
336120 Heavy duly tnrdc manufacturing
Motor vehicle body, trailer, and parts manufacturing
336211 Motor winds body manufacturing
338212 Truck trailer manufacturing ..
338213 Motor home manufacturing
338214 Travel trustier end camper manufacturing
336300 Motor vehicle parts manufacturing
Aerospace product and parts manufacturing
338411 Aircraft manufacturing
336412 Aircraft engine end engine parts manufacturing
336413 Other aircraft parts and au dllary equipment manuraduring
336414 Guided missile and spaces vehide manufacturing
33641 A Propulsion units and parts for space vehicles and guided
rniser'tes
Other transportation equipment manufacturing
336500 Railroad rolling stool: manufacturing
338811 Ship building and repaving
336612 Baat building
336991 Motorcycle, bicycle, and pada manufacturing
336992 Mil tory armored vehicle, tank, and lank component
manufacturing ......... ...........»...,»,
336999 Alt other Transportation equipment manufacturing
Furniture and related product manufacturing
337110 Wood kitchen cabinet and countertop manufactaing
337121 Upholstered household furniture rnanufadurtng
337122 Nanupholstered wood household furniture manufacturing
33712A Matal and other household furniture (except wood)
manufacturing ,......,,,..,,.,,,..,.....
337127 Institutional fumiture manufacturing
33721A Wood television, radio, and sewing machine cabinet
manufacturing..................................................................
337212 Office furniture and custom architectural woodwork and
337215 Showcase, partition, shelving, and locker manufacturing
337910 Mattress manufacturing
337920 Blind and shade manufacturing
Related 2002
NAICS Codes
33521
335221
335222
335224
335226
335311
335312
335313
335314
335911
335912
33592
33593
335991
335999
338111
336112
336120
336211
338212
336213
338214
3363
338411
336412
336413
336414
336415,338419
3385
336611
336012
336991
336992
336999
33711
337121
337122
337124-5
337127
337129
337211,337212,
337214
337215
33791
33792
Detmled industry code and title
Medical equipment and supplies manufacturing
33911A Laboratory apparatus and surgical appliance end supolia
manufacturing .......„,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1339111. 339113
Related 2002
NAICS Codes
339112 Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing
339114 Dental equipment and supplies manufacturing
339115 Ophthalmic goods manufacturing
339119 Dental laboratories
Other miscellaneous manufacturing
339910 Jewelry and sdvenvare manufacturing
339920 Sporting and athletic goods manufacturing
339930 Doll, toy, and gain manufacturing
339940 Office supplies (except paper) manufacturing ...,
339950 Sign mamdectudng
339991 Gasket, packing, end sealing device manufacbuing
339992 Musical instrument manufacturing ..........
33999A All other miscellaneous manufacturing ... „
WHOLESALE TRADE
Wholesale trade
420000 Wholesale trade
RETAIL TRADE
Retail trade
4A0000 Retail trade-
-TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUSING, EXCLUDING POSTAL
SERVICE
Alr transportation
481000 Air transportation
Rail transportation
482000 Rail transportation
Water transportation
483000 Water transportation
Truck transportation
464000 Truck transportation
Transit and ground passenger transportation
485A00 Transit end ground passenger transportation
Pipeline transportation
Scenic and sightseeing transportation and support activities
48A000 Scenic and sightseeing transportation and support
activities for transportation ..........................................
carriers and messengers
492000 Couriers and messengers
Warehousing and storage
493000 Warehousing and storage
INFORMATION
Newspaper, periodical, book, and directory publishers
511110 Newspaper publishers
511120 Periodical publishers
511130 Book publishers
5111 A0 Directory, marling list, and other publishers
Software publishers
511200 Software publishers
339112
339114
339115
339116
33991
33992
33993
33994
33995
339991
339992
339993,339995,
339999
339994
42
44.45
481
482
483
484
485-
486
487, 488
492
493
51111
51112
51113
51114, 51119
51121
AN ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -
relating to regulation of signs, amending Chapter 15.08 of the
Yakima Municipal Code regarding regulation of billboards and off -
premises signs.
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted ordinances establishing
criteria for location, licensing and maintenance of off -premises advertising signs and
signs commonly known as billboards, all as codified at Chapter 15.08 YMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a moratorium on April 2,
2013 pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-013 prohibiting the receipt of applications,
permitting, installation, erection or construction of (a) any new off -premises static
billboard greater than 72 square feet in area, including billboards displaying static printed
message and material, within all zoning districts of the City, and (b) on -premises and off -
premises digital billboards greater than 72 square feet in area, consisting of or including
changing electronic, digital, or changeable message billboards in all zoning districts
within the City, and (c) the alteration, modification, or replacement of any existing
billboard, so that the existing billboard (as altered or modified) uses changing electronic,
digital or video display or flashing, motion, animated, or changeable electronic variable
message copy and providing that static copy on existing billboards may continue to be
changed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 21, 2013
concerning the moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-013, and adopted
findings of fact supporting the moratorium as originally enacted, all as set forth in
Resolution No 2013-065; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-
046 extending the moratorium implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-013 for an
additional six months, through April 1, 2014. In addition, on October 1, 2013, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-047 imposing a moratorium through April 1, 2014
on the receipt of applications, permitting, installation, erection or construction of on -
premises and off -premises digital signs 72 square feet or less in area, consisting of or
including changing electronic, digital, or changeable message billboards in all zoning
districts within the City, and further prohibiting the alteration, modification, or
replacement of any existing sign, so that the existing sign (as altered or modified) uses
changing electronic, digital or video display or flashing, motion, animated, or changeable
electronic variable message copy and providing that static copy on existing signs may
continue to be changed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 15, 2013
concerning the moratorium extended pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-046 and the
moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-047. Following such public
hearing, the City Council adopted findings of fact supporting such moratoria as originally
approved, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2013-132; and
1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima has held meetings
and special meetings to receive public comment, testimony and evidence, including but
not limited to, meetings on December 11, 2013, January 8, 2014, January 15, 2014,
January 22, 2014, January 29, 2014, February 5, 2014, and February 12, 2014, together
with public hearing on February 26, 2014, all pursuant to notice; and
WHEREAS, having considered all testimony, comment and evidence presented
during such meetings, special meetings and public hearing, has adopted on February
26, 2014 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to the City Council
for adoption of an ordinance pertaining to the regulation of billboards within the City of
Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having received the findings, conclusions and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, together with the record herein, and
having received and considered all evidence, testimony and comment presented at a
public hearing conducted March 18, 2014 pursuant to notice duly published, hereby finds
and concludes:
(a) The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the
Planning Commission, dated February 26, 2014, are hereby received and
adopted by this reference as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the
City Council;
(b) All procedural provisions of the Yakima Municipal Code pertaining to
amendment of Title 15 YMC have been met and satisfied;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that such Chapter 15.08 YMC
should be amended to add new provisions regulating billboards within the City of
Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that YMC 15.08.020, YMC
15.08.050 and YMC 15.08.130 should be amended as shown and set forth in Exhibit "1-
A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and that Table 8-1 set
forth in YMC 15.08.060 should be repealed and new Table 8-1 adopted as set forth in
Exhibit "1-B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and that such
amendments are in the best interest 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. Sections 15.08.020, 15.08.050 and 15.08.130 of Chapter 15.08 of the
Yakima Municipal Code are each hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "1-A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2
Section 2. Table 8-1 set forth in Section 15.08.060 of the Yakima Municipal Code
are each hereby repealed, and new Table 8-1 adopted and approved as set forth in
Exhibit "1-B" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 3. Except as amended above, Chapter 15.08 YMC shall remain
unchanged.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this
ordinance.
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 18th day of March, 2014.
ATTEST: Micah Cawley, Mayor
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
3
EXHIBIT "1-A"
15.08.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, certain abbreviations, terms, phrases, words and derivatives shall be
construed as specified herein.
"Abandoned sign" means any sign located on property that is vacant and unoccupied for a period of six
months or more, or any sign which pertains to any occupant, business or event unrelated to the
present occupant or use.
"Banner" means any sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole or building at
one or more edges. National flags, state and local flags or any official flag at an institution or business
will not be considered banners.
"Billboard" means any sign face, the primary purpose of which is to lease, rent, let or otherwise allow
sign space for a fee or other compensation to the underlying property owner or tenant, and/or to the
sign face owner. Billboards primarily advertise, identify or promote off -premises businesses, products,
services, organizations and/or entities. Billboards may occasionally provide ad space on a pro bono
basis, and may, on a compensatory basis to the property owner or tenant, advertise products or
services that are minimally and/or coincidentally available on the site.
"Canopy sign" means any sign that is part of or attached to an awning, canopy or other fabric, plastic
or structural protective cover over a door, entrance, window or outdoor service area.
"Changing message center sign" means an electronically controlled sign where different automatic
changing messages are shown on the lamp bank. This definition includes time and temperature
displays.
"Construction sign" means any sign used to identify the architects, engineers, contractors or other
individuals or firms involved with the construction of a building and to show the design of the building
or the purpose for which the building is intended.
Directional Sign. See "off -premises directional sign" and "on -premises directional sign."
"Electrical sign" means a sign or sign structure in which electrical wiring, connections, and/or fixtures
are used as part of the sign proper.
"Flashing sign" means an electric sign or a portion thereof (except changing message centers) which
changes light intensity in a sudden transitory burst, or which switches on and off in a constant pattern
in which more than one-third of the nonconstant light source is off at any one time.
"Freestanding sign" means any sign supported by one or more uprights, poles or braces in or upon the
ground.
"Freeway sign" means a freestanding sign designed and placed to attract the attention of freeway
traffic.
4
"Grand opening sign" means temporary signs, posters, banners, strings of lights, clusters of flags,
balloons and searchlights used to announce the opening of a completely new enterprise or the
opening of an enterprise under new management.
"Multiple -building complex" is a group of structures housing two or more retail, offices, or commercial
uses sharing the same lot, access and/or parking facilities, or a coordinated site plan. For purposes of
this section, each multiple -building complex shall be considered a single use.
"Multiple -tenant building" is a single structure housing two or more retail, office, or commercial uses
sharing the same lot, access and/or parking facilities, or a coordinated site plan. For purposes of this
section, each multiple -building complex shall be considered a single use. (See YMC 15.08.140.)
"Off -premises directional sign" means an off -premises sign with directions to a particular business
located within the city.
"Off -premises sign" means a sign advertising or promoting merchandise, service, goods, or
entertainment sold, produced, manufactured or furnished at a place other than on the property where
the sign is located. Off -premise signs include but are not limited to billboards, and exclude off -
premises directional signs.
"On -premises directional sign" means a sign directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic to parking,
entrances, exits, service areas, or other on-site locations.
"On -premises sign" means a sign incidental to a lawful use of the premises on which it is located,
advertising the business transacted, services rendered, goods sold or products produced on the
premises or the name of the business or name of the person, firm or corporation occupying the
premises.
"Political sign" means a sign advertising a candidate or candidates for public elective offices, or a
political party, or a sign urging a particular vote on a public issue decided by ballot.
"Portable sign" means a temporary sign made of wood, metal, plastic, or other durable material that is
not attached to the ground or a structure. This definition includes sandwich boards, and portable
readerboards (also see "temporary sign") if placed on private property. Signs placed on public or street
right-of-way, including public sidewalks, require review under YMC 8.20.055.
"Projecting sign" means a sign, other than a wall sign, that is attached to and projects from a structure
or building face.
"Real estate sign" means any sign pertaining to the sale, lease or rental of land or buildings.
"Roof sign" means any sign erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a
normal roof structure of any design. See YMC 15.08.090.
"Sign" means any medium, including its structural component parts, used or intended to attract
attention to the subject matter that identifies, advertises, and/or promotes an activity, product, service,
place, business, or any other thing.
"Sign area" means that area contained the smallest circle, triangle, square, rectangle or parallelogram
that will contain a sign. For cabinet -type signs, the sign area includes within a single continuous
perimeter enclosing the entire sign cabinet, but excluding any support or framing structure extending
beyond the outer edges of the sign cabinet that does not convey a message. For individually mounted
letters and symbols, sign area is based upon the entire area of a single message; not the collective
area of individual letters or symbols. For example, "Quick Car Wash" is calculated as a single
message; not three individual words or 12 individual letters.
5
"Sign cabinet" means the module or background containing the advcrtising mcssagc box that supports
a sign face or sign panel, but excluding excludes sign supports, architectural framing, or other
decorative features extending beyond the module or box which that contain no written or advertising
copy.
"Sign height" means the vertical distance measured from the grade below the sign or upper surface of
the nearest street curb, whichever permits the greatest height, to the highest point of the sign.
grt Frith
'a 0 r)
Figure 8-1
"Sign setback" means the horizontal distance from the property line to the nearest edge of the sign
cabinet.
"Static" means without motion.
"Street frontage" means the length in feet of a property line(s) or lot line(s) bordering a public street.
For corner lots, each street -side property line shall be a separate street frontage. The frontage for a
single use or development on two or more lots shall be the sum of the individual lot frontages.
Figure 8-2
"Structural alteration" means any change that enlarges, expands, widens, reconfigures, or otherwise
causes visually discernible changes to a sign or any part of a sign or its supporting structure, or that
replaces any part of a sign or its sign structure with parts that are visually, structurally, mechanically,
6
and/or functionally different from original parts, except that replacing sign panels, letters or other forms
of copy with like type, kind and quality of copy are not considered structurally altered changes.
"Temporary sign" means any sign, banner, pennant, valance, or advertising display constructed of
cloth, paper, canvas, cardboard, or other light nondurable materials and portable signs as defined in
this section. Types of displays included in this category are: grand opening, special sales, special
event, and garage sale signs.
"Use identification sign" means a sign used to identify and/or contain information pertaining to a
school, church, residential development, or a legal business other than a home occupation in a
residential district.
"Wall sign" means any on -premises sign attached to or painted directly on, or erected against and
parallel to, the wall of a building. See YMC 15.08.100.
"Window sign" means any sign, pictures, symbol or combination thereof, designed to communicate
information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale or service placed inside a window or
upon the window panes or glass and visible from the exterior of the window.
15.08.050 Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited:
1. Signs on any vehicle or trailer parked on public or private property and visible from a public
right-of-way for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this chapter. This provision shall
not prohibit signs painted on or magnetically attached to any vehicle operating in the normal
course of business;
2. Signs purporting to be, imitating, or resembling an official traffic sign or signal; could cause
confusion with any official sign, or which obstruct the visibility of any traffic/street sign or signal;
3. Signs attached to utility, streetlight and traffic -control standard poles;
4. Swinging projecting signs;
5. Signs in a dilapidated (i.e., having peeling paint, major cracks or holes, and/or loose or
dangling materials) or hazardous condition;
6. Abandoned signs;
7. Signs on doors, windows or fire escapes that restrict free ingress or egress; and
8. Billboards and structural alteration of existing billboards:
9. Off -premise signs except off -premise directional signs and signs on legally non -conforming
billboards; and
810. Any other sign not meeting the provisions of this chapter.
7
15.08.130 Off -premises directional signs .
A. Billboards are:
1. Class (1) uses in the M 1 and M 2 districts; and
2. Class (2) uses in the CBD, CC, and RD districts.
B. Billboards may be permitted in these districts after the required level of
criteria:
1. The maximum sign area does not exceed three hundred square feet per sign face;
2. There is no more than one product displayed per sign face;
3. There are no side by side panels;
Required front yard setbacks are met;
5. Billboards between a one hundred fifty and three hundred foot radius of a residential district
shall be restricted to one hundred sixty square feet per sign face and may not be lighted;
5. No billboard shall be located within one hundred fifty feet of a residential district;
7. The billboard is not within fivc hundred lin al fcct of another billboard having the same,
street frontage;
8. Billboard height standards shall not exceed that permittcd for freestanding signs as
provided in Table 8 3;
9. The total number of combined freestanding signs, off premises signs and billboards docs
not exceed the number of freestanding signs allowed for the property.
G. Off -premises directional signs are:
1. Class (1) uses in the M-1 and M-2 districts;
2. Class (2) uses in the B-2, CBD, GC, and RD districts.
Off -premises directional signs may be permitted in these districts after the required level of
review, provided they meet the provisions of this chapter and the specific standards for the
district in which they are located.
8
EXHIBIT "1-B"
Table 8-1
SIGN TYPE
ZONING DISTRICTS
SR R-1 R-2
R-3
B-1 HB
B-2
SCC LCC
CBD GC AS RD
M-1 M-2
PERMITTED SIGNS
On -Premises
Signs
Nameplate
Permitted as an Accessory Use to an Approved or Existing Use
Subdivision Identification/ Project
Identification2
Changing Message Center Signs
(Reserved)
Roof/Portable Signs
Not Permitted
Class (1) Use
Freestanding'
Subdivision/Prof. I.D. Only
On -premises signs meeting the standards of this chapter are considered Class (1) uses requiring Type (1) review.
On -premises signs not meeting the standards of this chapter shall follow the procedures of YMC 15.08.170, and are
otherwise not permitted.
Projecting
Not Permitted
Freeway
See YMC 15.08.150
Off -Premises
Signs
Directional
Not Permitted
CL (2)
Use
Not
Permitted
CL (2) Use
CL (1) Use
Advertising
Not Permitted
Billboards
NUMBER OF SIGNS PERMITTED
On -Premises
Signs
Nameplate
1 Per Dwelling
Subdivision Identification/
Use Identification2
1 Per Street Frontage
Freestanding'
Changing Message Center Signs
(Reserved)
Projecting
Not Permitted
1 Per Street Frontage
Wall/Roof/Portable Signs
Wall: YMC 15.08.100/ Roof: YMC 15.08.090/ Temporary: YMC 15.08.110
Freeway
Freeway: See YMC 15.08.150
Off -Premises
Signs
Directional
Not Permitted
Directional: See YMC 15.08.120(B)
Advertising
Not Permitted
Billboards
NOTES:
1. YMC 15.08.140 has freestanding sign provisions for multiple -building complexes and multiple -tenant buildings.
2. Nameplates and subdivision identification signs permitted in the residential districts may be placed on a wall—See Table 8-2.
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA
In the matter of:
Proposed Regulation of Billboard
Signs and Off -Premises Signs
City of Yakima
Public Hearing: February 26, 2014
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER, having come before the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima
(hereafter "Planning Commission") upon public hearing on February 26, 2014, and the
Planning Commission having considered the record herein and all evidence and
testimony presented, hereby makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 26, 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 April 2, 2013, the City Council of the City of Yakima adopted Ordinance No.
2013-013 prohibiting the receipt of applications, permitting, installation, erection
or construction of (a) any new off -premises static billboard greater than 72
square feet in area, including billboards displaying static printed message and
material, within all zoning districts of the City, and (b) on -premises and off -
premises digital billboards greater than 72 square feet in area, consisting of or
including changing electronic, digital, or changeable message billboards in all
zoning districts within the City, and (c) the alteration, modification, or replacement
of any existing billboard, so that the existing billboard (as altered or modified)
uses changing electronic, digital or video display or flashing, motion, animated, or
changeable electronic variable message copy and providing that static copy on
existing billboards may continue to be changed.
4. The City Council conducted a public hearing on May 21, 2013 concerning the
moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-013, and adopted findings
1
of fact supporting the moratorium as originally enacted, all as set forth in
Resolution No 2013-065.
5. On October 1, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-046
extending the moratorium implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-013 for
an additional six months, through April 1, 2014. In addition, on October 1, 2013,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-047 imposing a moratorium
through April 1, 2014 on the receipt of applications, permitting, installation,
erection or construction of on -premises and off -premises digital signs 72 square
feet or less in area, consisting of or including changing electronic, digital, or
changeable message billboards in all zoning districts within the City, and further
prohibiting the alteration, modification, or replacement of any existing sign, so
that the existing sign (as altered or modified) uses changing electronic, digital or
video display or flashing, motion, animated, or changeable electronic variable
message copy and providing that static copy on existing signs may continue to
be changed.
6. The City Council conducted a public hearing on October 15, 2013 concerning the
moratorium extended pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-046 and the moratorium
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-047. Following such public hearing,
the City Council adopted findings of fact supporting such moratoria as originally
approved, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2013-132.
7. The Planning Commission has been directed to receive and consider evidence,
testimony and comment from the public and the sign industry, studies conducted
by traffic safety agencies and professionals, to consider sign code regulations
adopted by other jurisdictions, and to make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding proposed regulation of billboards and digital signs.
8. The Planning Commission has held and conducted public meetings, study
sessions and public hearings to receive and consider such evidence and
testimony, which meetings include meetings scheduled and held on December
11, 2013, January 8, 2014, January 15, 2014, January 22, 2014, January 29,
2014, February 5, 2014, and February 12, 2014, together with public hearing on
February 26, 2014, all pursuant to notice.
9. During such meetings, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed
reports from city staff, sign code provisions from other cities within the State of
Washington, comparisons of sign regulations from other jurisdictions. The
Planning Commission has also viewed a video seminar entitled "Digital Signs
2
and Billboards: Crafting and Enforcing Local Regulations," produced by Strafford
Webinars, and conducted field views of digital signs.
10. The Planning Commission has received and reviewed scientific studies and
reports concerning economic impacts of signs, traffic safety issues associated
with billboards and digital signs, and aesthetic considerations associated with
billboards and digital signs, as referenced and described in staff reports of
record.
11. The Planning Commission finds that regulation of billboards and digital signs
should be analyzed individually, as general differences between the two types of
signage consist of static message versus changing message, static lighting
levels versus changing levels with color modulation, driver's perceptions and
effects on traffic safety, and effects on the surrounding environment. Therefore,
with regard to billboards:
Billboards
(a) Billboards serve primarily as advertising platforms for goods and
services available at another location, not on the premises on which the
billboard is located. Thus, billboards are categorized as "off -premises"
advertising.
(b) As stated in staff reports, and as cited in studies referenced in such
reports, billboards produce adverse impacts and costs at the local level,
including but not limited to, reduced property values, negative socio-
economic indicators, lack of tax revenue to local government, minimal
advertising of local businesses, increased risks of litigation and costs to
local government, inhibition of local renewal projects, distraction of drivers,
contribution to visual blight and increased code enforcement costs to
achieve correction of dilapidated or tattered billboard sign faces.
(c) Staff surveys of billboard regulation by forty-seven (47) cities within
the State of Washington (sixteen (16) Eastern Washington cities, and
thirty-one (31) Western Washington cities) reveal that 91 % of such cities
have chosen to ban installation of additional billboards.
(d) Current provisions of the Yakima Municipal Code allow placement
of billboards in the M-1, M-2, CBD, GC and RD Zones, with a limitation of
35 feet in height and subject to 500 -foot spacing requirements. There are
currently 119 billboards on 69 structures within the City of Yakima. Eighty-
four percent (84%) of existing billboards lie east of 16th Avenue. Sixteen
percent (16%) of the billboards lie west of 16th Avenue, but 55% of those
3
lie along Fruitvale Boulevard. Under current municipal code provisions,
there is significant potential for locating more billboards, thus increasing
points of distraction for drivers with deleterious effects on traffic safety,
increased incidents of visual blight, and additional public costs of code
enforcement.
11. 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."
12. On January 31, 2014, the City of Yakima issued a notice of application pursuant
to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) concerning the proposed
regulation of signs described herein. The notice advised that the city anticipated
issuing a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), but that comments could be
submitted through February 20, 2014, with issuance of the proposed DNS on
February 21, 2014.
13. The Planning Commission finds and determines that Chapter 15.08 YMC should
be amended to prohibit additional billboards within the City of Yakima, regulating
off -premises directional signs, and stating definitions applicable thereto, and that
amendments are in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima, will
promote economic development, reduce visual blight, promote traffic safety, and
promote the general health, safety and welfare.
14. 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
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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
4
arise out of the appearance of fairness doctrine or provisions related to conflict of
interest are hereby deemed waived.
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. 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
the record herein, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Yakima
APPROVE the proposed legislation entitled "An Ordinance relating to regulation of
signs, amending Chapter 15.08 of the Yakima Municipal Code regarding regulation of
billboards and off -premises signs," as included and incorporated into the record herein.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 26th day of February, 2014.
By:
�L 7'
Dave Fonfara, Chai
5
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Zoning Text Amendment — Chapter 15.08 Signs
TXT#005-13, SEPA#002-14
EXHIBIT LIST
111111111M HI M
11111111, ,
mom ii mq,
1pp
���'�111111 k u
11m 111IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII
A-1
m
Letter from James Carpentier,
Mr. Carpentier's letter provided several
consideration in developing regulations
severability clause, and time limits on
regulations for on -premise and off -premise
center, brightness levels for electronic
Vm11� ,I111111I 1111
International
recommendations
for
permit
display
,�
11111111, llllllll'
signs
approvals,
signs,
signs.
!�
I
Sign
such as
maintain
definition
for
a substitution
Association
commission
for
separate
electronic
111
(ISA)
and staff
clause,
and distinct
message
II!
11/12/2013
10 pPI11111111
11 1
III IIII
A-2
E-mail Comment from Suzanne Noble
Ms. Noble shared her idea of including a requirement that billboard messages be
accompanied by a sponsored image on a billboard of a beautiful view of Yakima's
surrounding landscape or for a non-profit organization in Yakima. Otherwise, she does
not support additional billboards.
12/09/2013
A-3
Letter from James Carpentier, International Sign Association (ISA)
As a response to Steve Osguthorpe's memo dated December 11, 2013, Mr. Carpentier
provided additional suggestions to the proposed regulations for on -premise electronic
message centers; such as automatic dimming, allowable percentage of freestanding sign
to be used as a digital sign, definition of digital sign. He also offered to do a
demonstration of brightness level on a digital sign.
12/10/2013
A-4
E-mail from Heather Lowe, Keep Washington Beautiful
Ms. Lowe's comments support a ban on billboards, reduction of existing billboards,
and strict regulation of on -premise signs in Yakima in order to become one of the best
places to visit in Washington State, like Walla Walla and Leavenworth. She pointed out
the tourism opportunities available in this community.
12/11/2013
A-5
E-mail from Heather Lowe, Keep Washington Beautiful
In a follow-up e-mail copied to the City, Ms. Lowe expressed concern regarding a news
article which made no mention of reason for the low attendance at the public meeting
held by the Planning Commission was perhaps due to the busy holiday schedules. She
also noted that the Commission Chair's comments to the press, in reference to the lack
of public attendance being an indication that the citizens were not interested in hurting
businesses or limiting property rights, was not a neutral view in her opinion.
12/12/2013
A-6
E-mail from Barbara Cline, Traho Architects
Ms. Cline reiterated her support for prohibiting off -premise signs and banning new
billboards in Yakima because of decreased property values, discouraged economic
activity, and visual chaos. She stated that the chart outlining regulations from
Washington cities overwhelmingly showed the number of cities that prohibit new
billboards.
12/12/2013
A-7
E-mail from Barbara Cline, Traho Architects
As a follow-up to her previous e-mail, Ms. Cline referred staff to the international study
of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) which may assist staff
in their research. This study relates to the general idea that environments that don't
look cared for generate crime.
12/19/2013
A-8
E-mail from Andrea Prentice
Ms. Prentice stated her belief that the city should have strict regulations on billboards
and concurs with Barbara Cline's statements that such advertising detracts from the
community and causes visual chaos.
12/30/2013
A-9
E-mail from Heather Lowe, Keep Washington Beautiful
Ms. Lowe urged staff to provide to the Planning Commission several links, included in
her e-mail, that include additional key information regarding digital billboards.
01/08/2014
A-10
E-mail from Sean Cleary
Mr. Cleary stated that he and his wife support most projects aimed at beautifying
Yakima and strongly encouraged the Commission to permanently ban billboards.
01/13/2014
A-11
E-mail from Heather Lowe, Keep Washington Beautiful
Additional links to information regarding the vulnerability of billboards.
01/14/2014
A-12
E-mail from Margie Beckman
Ms. Beckman expressed her opposition to billboards stating that they depreciate the
value of Yakima and look terrible.
01/15/2014
A-13
E-mail from Jill Jensen, Scenic Tacoma (Scenic America)
Ms. Jensen encouraged the Commission to become educated and to know all the facts
before adopting a sign ordinance permitting billboards. Being a member of Scenic
Tacoma, she shared her experience against the billboard industry to keep the blight out
of her community. Scenic beauty, energy consumption, safety, noise, and light
pollution are several factors she indicated. She also pointed out the incredible costs to
fight the outdoor industry to stop the proliferation, removal, and monitoring of these
signs.
01/15/2014
A-14
E-mail from Thomas E. Boyd, M.D.
Mr. Boyd stated his concern about the lack of suitable billboard policy and feels
strongly that the city codes need to be revised to take into account the proliferation and
the local quality of life in Yakima.
01/16/2014
A-15
E-mail from Ralph Call
Mr. Call would like to see a sign ordinance that enhances the gateways in to our city.
01/22/2014
A-16
E-mail from Jill Jensen, Scenic Tacoma (Scenic America)
Ms. Jensen clarified the statements she presented to the Planning Commission about
the citizens of Tacoma being instrumental in stopping digital billboards in their city.
She noted that Tacoma now has a ban on billboards. She also provided links to Central
Neighborhood Council's website, links to the Senate Transportation Committee's video
on the 2013 digital billboard public hearing. She encouraged the Commission to adopt
a code that will make Yakima more aesthetically pleasing.
01/23/2014
A-17
Letter from Peter Grover, Metro Outdoor, LLC
Mr. Grover expressed opposition to a proposed ban on billboards, stating that no new
billboards have been erected since 2009 in the city limits. His letter is in response to
Steve's memo dated January 29, 2014 where he points out several statements he
believes not to be true such as: that the majority of advertisements are for out of town
entities; reduced property values; negative socio-economic indicators; no tax revenue to
local government; minimal return to local economy; litigation; required compensation
to industry; inhibition on city renewal projects; potential proliferation. On the same
note, he indicated that the industry supports regulations that address the maintenance
and upkeep of billboards and adoption of the industry standards on brightness levels.
He urged the Commission to not support a ban on billboards.
01/29/2014
A-18
Letter from Larry Oliver, Eagle Signs, LLC
Mr. Oliver provided several recommendations in response to Steve Osguthorpe's
memo dated January 29, 2014. In regards to brightness levels he recommended to
correlate night time luminance for digital on-premise signs with the zone:
Commercial/Industrial 500 cd/m2, B-1; SCC 300 cd/m2; auto dimming capabilities;
does not agree with static digital signage; hold times should be 3 to 4 seconds with
transition for fade in and out 1 second or less; amend to one digital sign per street
frontage; maximum size based on zone; delete restrictions on color; regulate use and
removal of temporary signs.
01/29/2014
A-19
Letter from James Carpentier, International Sign Association (ISA)
Additional suggestions made by the International Sign Association are that the City
adopt the industry recommended illumination standard foot candle approach; require
automatic dimming; enact hold times for EMCs in the range of 3 to 4 seconds to
restrict flashing; transition time for fade in and out not exceed 1 second; one digital
sign per street frontage; limit the size for non -digital signs to 50% or 72 sq ft,
whichever is less, in certain zoning districts; do not support elimination of temporary
signs; and electronic message centers located in B-1 or SCC districts not to exceed 32
sq ft.
01/29/2014
A-20
E-mail from Ron Anderson
Mr. Anderson supports limiting the maximum size of electronic and all other types of
signs but does not support limits be placed on types of displays, graphics, or animation
content.
02/01/2014
A-21
Letter from Tom Knaub, Lamar Outdoor Advertising
In response to Steve Osguthorpe's memo, Mr. Knaub made the following statements:
disagrees that the majority of the billboards in Yakima are for out of town businesses;
feels offended by the statement that the main reason that the billboard companies offer
public service ads is to generate a tax benefit; states that Lamar Outdoor Advertising
always obtains the necessary permits to trim or cut down any trees; agrees that the
conditions of many billboard structures is appalling; supports regulation that would
require the upkeep of billboards; suggested adopting a cap and replace policy to
minimize the number of billboards on N 1st Street; provided two documents regarding
amortization and just compensation for taking of private property.
02/04/2014
A-22
Letter from James Carpentier, International Sign Association
In addition to their suggestions on January 29, 2014, the ISA commented on the digital
sign regulations: daytime brightness limitations to be 7,500 nits; recommend the
industry standard .3 foot-candle approach; recommend that the applicant or owner
certify that they will comply with the operational and brightness standards that are
adopted by the City; does not support the restrictions on color and dark background.
02/05/2014
A-23
E-mail from David Servine
Mr. Servine provided a depiction of the luminance/ illuminance illustration that he
described at the Yakima Planning Commission meeting on February 5.
02/11/2014
A-24
E-mail from Judith Van Hees
Ms. Van Hees stated that she would like the City to use its resources more wisely and
feels that the City is interfering with free commerce in reference to the billboard and
digital sign issue. She feels that most digital signs are artistically done and in fairly new
condition.
02/12/2014
A-25a
Comment letters provided by Dave Fonfara to the City from:
Peter Grover, Metro Outdoor Advertising — Mr. Grover requested that the City
Council drop the billboard issue as they did for on-premise signs on February 18, 2014.
He was very perplexed that the digital sign issue was dropped due to the lack of
regulations and control for on-premise digital signage. He is opposed to the prohibition
of any new billboards. And indicated support for regulations to require maintenance
and upkeep of billboards and create an overlay district on North 1st Street. He enclosed
two national studies that researched and found no correlation between the use of digital
signs and accident rates. He also stated that Yakima already has strict regulations in
place pertaining to size, height, zone, illumination, spacing, and distance to residential
that prevent proliferation of billboards.
Gravbrot Family Dental Clinic — Mr. Gravbrot stated that the billboard presence is
minimal and unobtrusive and it is not impairing the overall quality of life for the
citizens of Yakima. He mentioned that he utilizes billboards as a marketing method to
promote his business. He would like to keep the current billboard standards.
Nicole Donegan, Field Group Marketing & Advertising — Ms. Donegan commended
the City for its efforts to revitalize downtown. She stated that the issue with billboards
is not the quantity of billboards or the location; it is the lack of effort by some owners
to maintain their billboard properties. She suggested that the best course of action
would be to address those negligent owners by revoking or transferring ownership of
their permits if they do not comply.
Jay Sentz — Mr. Sentz favored the idea of leaving the sign code as it currently reads.
He stated that merchants are dependent on well-placed attractive signs to promote their
businesses.
02/26/2014
A-25b
A-25c
A-25d
A-26
Letter from Barbara Cline, MS, AIA
Ms. Cline stated her support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation
on amendments to the YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of
billboards. She urged the City Council to ban billboards and phase out existing ones.
Visual degradation, visual chaos, derelict conditions of many billboards send the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
02/26/2014
A-27
Memo from Neil Schreibeis, Lamar Outdoor Advertising
02/26/2014
Mr. Schreibeis provided a rebuttal memorandum to the Yakima Planning
Commission's staff report at the public hearing. In his rebuttal he addresses: "off-
premise directional signs for businesses" stating that by definition they are billboards;
that the 25% percent of ads located in the City does not include the national products
sold locally in local businesses or non-profit companies; that the revenue generated
does not take into account money spent for costs such as office space rental, property
rental, entertainment, grocery and restaurant purchases, utilities, care rental services,
and taxes paid to local government; he stated that reduced residential property values
are due to being in or near a commercial or industrial zone not because of a billboard
structure in those zones; stated that there is over $70,000 paid in personal property
taxes by the industry to Yakima County annually; that the minimal return to local
economy does not consider the products, goods, and services provided by corporations
such as McDonalds or Verizon because they are franchises and it does affect the local
economy; stated that there is an economic impact to the community by educating the
public of health benefits, safety awareness, and any other non-profit organization
promoted; and stated that the federal law that requires "Just Compensation" for the loss
of business by the actions of a municipality. If the ordinance allows for the sign to be
moved or rebuilt, typically there is just construction and removal cost, but if the
ordinance does not allow for any new or replacement, then the value of the sing, loss of
income to the landowner and loss to revenue to the billboard company comes into play.
A-28
E-mail from Ken Camarata, AIA
02/28/2014
Mr. Camarata expressed support of the Yakima Planning Commission's
recommendation on amendments to YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the
impact of billboards. Besides the fact that the existing billboards rarely advertise local
businesses, he is opposed to the visual clutter.
A-29
Letter from Duane De Young
03/04/2014
Mr. De Young provided a lengthy response to Al Rose's statement. Mr. Rose made a
comment about being disappointed in the lack of citizen participation at the public
meetings regarding billboards. In his opinion, Mr. De Young stated that the public's
perception is that the decision has already been made up by the commission/committee
regardless of whatever issue is being discussed. In regards to the billboard topic, he
stated that the blight issue is being over exaggerated and undergrounding the utilities
will solve much of the eyesore problems.
I Distributed at the
' Meeting '34-i� (Q
To: Yakima City Councilmembers and Mayor Cawley 3.18.14
From: Paula Rees (Seattle, Washington)
TESTIMONY supporting your passage of the amendments to regulate the impacts of
billboards and digital on -premise signs through the proposed ordinance.
My name is Paula Rees and I am a professional environmental designer specializing in
how cities communicate and how to create great urban streetscapes and public spaces.
I know from working nationally and internationally for over three decades that having
dilapidated old billboards, or allowing more digital on Yakima's streets is not how to
achieve that goal.
I am also a founder of Keep Washington Beautiful, which is a rapidly growing grassroots
group made up of statewide volunteers protecting Washington's scenic beauty and its
cities from the aggressive and stealth lobbying by the billboard industry statewide and
in Olympia. The national billboard and digital industry is wanting to invade and
transform mostly grandfathered units into digital at Washington State's expense and
before their business dies a death like the dinosaurs. Coming from a time of auto -
orientation and parasitic one-way land -use codes, allowing digital billboards is not the
way of the future. The future is in our hands with personal devices and smart phones,
and we get to choose what we want to view in exchange for receiving content. These
digital billboard and signs give us nothing in return for using our "eyeballs" and as
they like to promote, "you can't turn them off," all while they are using and visually
polluting our valuable common space and streets.
Keep Washington Beautiful and a network of scenic friends across the country, are
hoping Yakima will join us in stopping the cancerous, digital expansion, an usually
achieved nationwide through tribal lands with casinos, and pressures applied on
smaller towns and cities in hopes of breaking down the larger State controls against
digital. We have helped keep a legislative action at bay by the billboard industry for
the past three years in Olympia. Senator King from your region is the main bill sponsor
and we can't figure out why he would think this is a good idea? This legislation would
negate 50 years of the State of Washington protections against advertising on our
highways and scenic byways. It is no wonder that the billboard industry understands
the importance to put their early units in your beautiful community, which is trying to
cakL,:0 YhY/y Fite A-111'3'
establish itself as one of Washington's great tourist destinations and visitor
opportunities!
It is certainly not a good "first impression" to drive into Yakima and see a digital
billboard on the fritz, advertising a rotation of WANTED CRIMINALS, or old billboards so
neglected they have no message at all but are all torn up. Or ads for fast food do not
create a "place" but rather makes Yakima "anywhere USA" (see attached photos).
I was also extremely disappointed to see a manipulated lighting demonstration to your
planning commission by Yakima's own local sign company for an on -premise brightness
test. With the help of an out-of-state sign industry rep, and using a Daktronic `Galaxy
Pro' unit which has full video capability video, which I believe is against Yakima's
current code, they tried to demonstrate the sign at its very lowest lighting level and
do a meter read on the brightness with a tool that doesn't even read that kind of
luminance? Simply unbelievable.
Washington's long -held advertising control protections date back to 1961, clearly four
years before Lady Bird Johnson's act. So, Washington is recognized as an early leader
in protecting against more billboards statewide. Please don't let Yakima break that
commitment to our shared point of view.
Please pass the amendments and let us all stand proud in protecting our beautiful
State for the future. Thank you.
Paula Rees
808 Howell St, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101
206-622-4322
reesseer@mac.com
Distributed at thew
Meeting 3--i2.I'1
TO: Yakima City Council
FROM: Peter Grover, Metro Outdoor
DATE: March 11, 2014
RE: Billboards/Digital Billboards
On April 2, 203, the Yakima City Council enacted a moratorium on all off -premise signs 72 square feet or
larger. This was not done with the encouraging or outcry from the public; it was at the encouraging of
city staff. In fact, at all of the subsequent Planning Commission and Council meetings, there was no
opposition from the public regarding billboards, only groups outside of the city which were brought in
by city staff. The purpose as stated was to address concerns over aesthetics and also the "rapid"
transition to digital technologies and the city's lack of standards to regulate digital signs. The issue with
this statement is the industry hasn't added a digital billboard in Yakima since 2010 and only operates a
total of five digital displays in Yakima. However, during that same time period, dozens if not hundreds of
digital on -premise signs have been installed in Yakima. Staff also made claims that digital signs create
safety concerns because they capture driver attention, however, there haven't been any conclusive
studies anywhere in the country that show digital signs are unsafe to public in any way. There have been
however, studies that clearly indicate the opposite. Enclosed are two national studies that unmistakably
show there is no correlation between the use of digital signs and accident rates. The industry also
follows all national standards pertaining to brightness levels and control and has since all displays were
installed years ago. This isn't the case with on -premise digital signs which is why there are several signs
operating at brightness levels which exceed our industry standards.
As the Council looked into this issue more deeply, it was very apparent that the issue at hand regarding
digital signs was not the billboard industry; it was the on -premise signs that had lack of regulations and
control such as the Mel's Diner sign on N. rt Street. This is why the Council passed a moratorium
pertaining to on -premise signs as well last October. What is most perplexing after all of the staff
recommendations and reports, is the Council dropping the on -premise sign portion of the moratorium
on February 18, 2014 when the issue at hand regarding digital signs strictly pertains to on -premise signs,
not billboards. What this leaves is the continued rapid transition of digital on -premise signs without
regulation and continued scrutiny on an industry that has not added a new billboard. since 2009 or a new
digital sign since 2010. On -premise signs may continue to have brightness levels that far exceed national
standards but are now exempt from the signage issue. There hasn't been any proliferation of billboards
or digital billboards in Yakima in the past nor will there be in the future. Of the hundreds of digital signs
in Yakima, only five are digital billboards. Of the 1000's of on -premise signs in Yakima, only 71 are
billboards. This is a very concerning fact as we approach the council meeting next week to hear staff
recommend the prohibition of all new billboards. The reason why there are so few billboards in Yakima
is due to the strict regulations already in place pertaining to size, height, zone, illumination, spacing, and
distance to residential. What other cities are doing in other parts of the state or country has no bearing
on what is being done in Yakima as all cities are unique in their appearance and how they operate.
Prohibiting an industry that hasn't added a new billboard since 2009 will do nothing to stop the increase
in on premise digital signs.
On February 18, 2014, the Council asked for a more comprehensive sign code for the N. 1st Street area. If
this is the intent, there is no need for any changes to the existing billboard ordinance that is already in
place. What can be accomplished to improve the appearance of N. 1st Street is an overlay district which
has its own regulations and prohibitions with the intent of improving the aesthetics. This overlay district
should address all facets of signage, construction, landscaping, and building requirements, not just
billboards. This will solve the issue at hand relating to N. 1n Street. A broader reaching all-encompassing
prohibition of any new billboards or digital billboards is not needed at this time due to the reasons
mentioned above, however, the outdoor advertising would support an overlay district in the "gateway"
areas of Yakima that prohibit any new billboards and have stricter guidelines to aesthetics.
The Planning Commission recently voted to accept staffs draft ordinance which completely prohibits
billboards going forward. What's disturbing regarding staffs proposed ordinance is that we in the
industry had no say or part in the writing of this ordinance, it was at the sole discretion of staff. I
attending several planning commission study sessions and presented evidence quite contrary to what
staff was proposing. I also witnessed the participation and comments made at these meetings which
were primarily from the outdoor industry in opposition to what was being proposed. There was no
outcry or demand from the public for stricter guidelines on billboards at these meetings. So the question
I have is why are we still discussing billboards when they are clearly not an issue now nor will they be in
the future? There was a strong sense that the Planning Commission voted to recommend staffs draft
ordinance to just get it off their agenda as it had been almost a year of discussion. This was confirmed in
conversations I had with commission members following the meeting. In an article following the
commission's decision in the Yakima Herald, here are the online responses from the public for your
review:
Aaron Fowler • Top Commenter • The US Navv
"I seem to recall acity council member saying that the city council isn't in the business of banning
things...perhaps he was speaking out of turn?"
Chris Baughman • Lumber/Building Materials at The Home Depot
"lol, never mind the fact that tuggers turn your building into a billboard most days. How close to Utopian
is Yakima if billboards are an eyesore that just HAS to go?"
Ellen Allmendinger • Top Commenter • Owner at 3rd Eve Access
"Focusing on billboards seemed like a smart way to protect the aesthetic value of the City.." Really? Out
of all of Yakimas issues billboards are what make us ugly? Gee it's not the tagging all over, or the empty
weed and trash filled lots, or the panhandlers etc, rather its the billboards. Wow what a stretch."
Nick Hughes • Top Commenter • Central Washington University
"....because the city would have to compensate the owner for their lost property."
"It sounds to me like they just made a regulation to make another regulation. They aren't doing anything
at all to improve the situation ,especially by not addressing the poorly maintained billboards that in fact
DO cause a visual blight - the only REAL problem I see with billboards, whether they are in good shape or
not.
i
And the very signage that DOES cause problems, especially to driving safely, are the flashing distracting
digital signs like the sign at Westpark. Bad enough that hey have these reader -board signs that one is
invited to read long messages as they drive by but to have those bright almost flashbulb intensity lights
exploding your brain, that is even worse."
There are many more responses very similar to these and this is the general feeling the public has in
regards to billboards in Yakima. Once again, it is not billboards that are at issue but on premise digital
signs.
The industry is in full support of regulations regarding the maintenance and appearance of all types of
signs in Yakima to the point of losing a permit if not maintained. All companies' currently operating
billboards in Yakima have the same desire to keep Yakima a beautiful place to live, work, play and visit.
We will continue to provide a product to our local advertisers which currently account for over 85% of
our advertisers, not 25% as indicated by staff, that helps these businesses get the exposure they need
and to help ensure their success. I have attached letters from our local advertisers, one of the largest
advertising agencies in Central Washington that represent several local companies currently utilizing
billboards in Yakima, and a prominent landowner who has been part of several large land developments
in Yakima with the new Lowe's on Valley Mall Blvd. being the most recent.
Items offered up from staff such as reduced property values around billboards, median income dropping
due to billboards and lack of tax revenue or return to the local economy are simply untrue. Reports from
other parts of country are completely irrelevant to the situation in Yakima. The specific report from Epic
Outdoor in South Dakota is totally misleading as their inventory is spread out over three states, not all in
Rapid City. The claim that we have authority to clear cut trees wherever we see fit is completely false as
well, no business has this authority without grave consequences. We are a part of the Yakima economy
and the success of the city is reliant on the success of the businesses operating in Yakima which we
support in many ways.
Again, at issue the appearance and aesthetics of Yakima's "gateways" such as N. 1st Street. Contrary to
staff reports, crime rates will not go down if there are fewer billboards. The issues on N. 1st Street go far
beyond signage; however, the outdoor advertising industry would be in full support of working with
staff on a visual appearance improvement plan in an effort to help beautify the "gateways" into Yakima.
One way to do this would be to create an overlay district specific to these "gateway" areas. If billboards
are prohibited in these areas, we would be in support of this decision. However, a blanket prohibition
across the city is not needed and is bad for business.
Our industry respectfully requests that the City Council remove the billboard issue as done with on -
premise signs on February 18, 2014 and to create an overlay district on N. 1g Street. We would also be
in support of a text amendment requiring the billboard companies and local businesses to maintain
the appearance of our displays at all times or risk revocation of the permit.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Grover
Metro Outdoor, LLC
02/14/2014 09:39 5094575983
Mark V. Gravbrot, DMD — Director
Cosmetic, Implant, Orthodontic & Sleep Dentistry
DMD: University of Oregon Health Science Center,
Portland, OR
Member: American Dental Association,
Washington State Dental Association,
Yakima Valley Dental Society
Individualized,
advanced dentistry
for beautiful results
• One-stop dentistry
• Complete preventive care
• 30 image -guided implant
placement
• Implant -secured dentures
& bridges
• Lifelike implant restorations
• Orthodontics for kids & adults
• laser gum care
• Bone grafting
• Natural -looking crowns
& veneers
• Teeth whitening
• Tooth -colored fillings
• Cosmetic bonding
• Oral surgery
• Gentle root canals
Combining
soft -touch dentistry &
patient -centered care
• 30 years of experience using
gentle techniques
• Virtually pain-free
sleep dentistry
• Nitrous oxide
• Very friendly staff
• Competitive tees
• Insurance accepted
• No -interest payment plans
• Visa, MasterCard & Discover
• Emergency & same-day
services
Very convenient hours
Short reception area waits
• Se habla espo of
February 13, 2014
City of Yakima
Planning Department
129 N 2nd St
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: Billboards and Digital signs
GRAVBROT DENTAL
PAGE 02/03
CiRAVBROT �AMILY SANTgL
COSMETIC, IMPLANT, ORTHODONTIC & SLEEP DENTISTRY
Leading the way in gentle, personalized high-tech care since 1975
Attention: Planning Department and Steve Osguthorpe
It has come to my attention recently that the city is currently considering further
restrictions or possible prohibitions on Yakima's billboard presence. My business has
utilized a static billboard for almost 18 months and added a digital billboard about 6
months ago. We utilize a variety of marketing techniques, and billboards are one of
the methods we employ for our business.
Whileit is commendable that the planning department is seeking ways to improve the
community of Yakima, the billboard presence is not "overbearing," Unlike many larger
cities, which have high-density areas of office buildings and multi -unit residential units
where billboards may create additional "visual interference," Yakima's billboard
"community" is rather minimal and unobtrusive. The -visual atmosphere_created by_
hese billboards is not impairing Yakima's overall quality of life or enjoyment for our
citizens.
3700 Fairbanks Avenue 1 Yakima, WA 98902 1 (By 40th Avenue exit off Highway 12)
Call 509.965-5009 1 Fax 509-457-5983 1 www GravbrotFamilyDental com
02/14/2014 09:39 5094575983
Mark V. Gravbrot, DMD — Director
Cosmetic, Implant, Orthodontic & Sleep Dentistry
DMD: University of Oregon Health Science Center,
Portland, OR
Member: American Dental Association,
Washington State Dental Association,
Yakima Valley Dental Society
Individualized,
advanced dentistry
for beautiful results
• One-stop dentistry
• Complete preventive care
• 3D image -guided implant
placement
• Implant -secured dentures
& bridges
• Lifelike implant restorations
• Orthodontics for kids & adults
• Laser gum care
• Bone grafting
• Natural -looking crowns
& veneers
• Teeth whitening
• Tooth -colored fillings
• Cosmetic bonding
• Oral surgery
• Gentle root canals
Combining
soft -touch dentistry &
patient -centered care
• 30 yeors of experience using
gentle techniques
• Virtually pain-free
sleep dentistry
• Nitrous oxide
• Very friendly staff
• Competitive fees
• Insurance accepted
' No -interest payment plans
Visa, MasterCard & Discover
Emergency & same-day
services
Very convenient hours
Short reception area waits
Se habta espatol
GRAVBROT DENTAL
PAGE 03/03
SRAVBROT LZMILYENTAL
COSMETIC, IMPLANT, ORTHODONTIC & SLEEP DENTISTRY'
Leading the way in gentle, personalized high-tech care since 1975
Yakima does not have the same small-town community environment like Selah, for
example, and therefore, area businesses may not be as well known throughout the
community. Marketing then becomes an important, integral factor for many
businesses in order to establish their presence and continue public awareness of their
services or products. As previously mentioned, we utilize billboards as just one of our
marketing methods to help maintain public awareness and promotion of our dental
services; marketing is imperative in our ever-changing economic climate.
It is our hope that the billboard industry, as is currently established In Yakima, will be
allowed to remain intact so that my business as well as the many others who employ
this marketing strategy will be free to utilize this business -friendly form of marketing.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Mark V Gravbrot, D.M.D.
3700 Fairbanks Avenue 1 Yakima, WA 98902 1 fay 40th Avenue exit off Highway 12)
Call 509-965-5009 1 Fax 509-457-5983 1 www,GravbrotFamilyDental corn
2-21-14
Planning Commission
Yakima City Council
I'm in favor of leaving the sign code exactly as it is. Yakima is not a "boutique" city and never will be.
Merchants are dependent on well-placed attractive signs to promote their businesses. I would like to
see non -anecdotal evidence that property values are lowered by property owners because they have a
right to put a sign on their property. Most property owners are smart enough not to lower their own
property values with an unbecoming sign.
Sincerely,
Jay Sentz
Yakima
City of Yakima
Planning Department and City Council
129 N 2nd St
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: Billboards and Digital signs
Attention: City of Yakima Planning Commission and City Council
It has come to our attention recently that the city is considering restrictions or possible
prohibitions on Yakima's billboard presence. Our agency frequently contracts for
billboard space on behalf of a number of our clients. We represent a number of local
non-profit agencies that serve underserved population here in the Yakima Valley.
Billboards often provide a cost-effective medium to reach an often hard -to -reach
demographic.
Our agency recently relocated to the downtown area and are participating in whatever
ways possible with'revitilization efforts. We commend the city on their work towards
creating a more welcoming community. I believe the issue with the billboards is not the
quantity of billboards or the location of the boards as much as lack of effort by some
owners to maintain their billboard properties. I believe this reflects poorly on those
companies that work hard to keep their properties filled, up-to-date, and in good repair.
Often billboard companies offer free public service announcement space, to ensure their
boards remain full and appealing, while at the same time providing a valuable community
service. It seems unfair to target the industry for the Inappropriate actions of a few. It
would seem that actions towards the negligent owners and standards tied to permitting
might be a better course of action. If companies do not comply, then their permits could
be revoked or transferred to companies willing to meet the city standards. It would seem
that appropriate billboards with responsible owners would be a benefit to the city and
local businesses. With newspaper rates increasing, consumers turning to satelite and
internet radio, and cable TV offering hundreds of channels, trying to reach local
audiences has gotten extremely difficult. Billboards are a valuable marketing tool for
local businesses.
Again, thank you for your efforts in beutifying our community. I believe well managed.
billboard -space provides a valauble service in our community. I appreciate your
consideration and time. ,
Nicole Donegan, Managing Director
Field Group Marketing and Advertising
1402 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 102 I Yakima, WA 98902 I P- 509 965 1780 I F 509 965 1990 1 1.800 446.4718 I www.thefieldgroup.net
Distributed at thg w
Meeting -LX�� y
Summary of Public Comments Since Packet Went Out:
Jean LaFortune (Yak Back)
Life-long citizen — supports ordinance
Jackie Beard — commented on city pride and the visual degreation and visual
chaos, and poor condition of many billboards detracts from community and -sends
wrong message to shoe we live or are invited to visit Yakima. Supports no more
billboards.
Amelia Rutter, similar message,
Matthew Hargreaves,
Dennis Gayte
Kristen Gayte
Jessica Moskwa, similar message, states that she is a downtown business owner.
Emily Robbins,
Jane Gutting
Pat Reynolds, - commented that billboards are a distracttion to drivers and give city a
cluttered look. Continents on weather damage, leaving pieces fluttering about. Lower
property values
Heather Lowe, Seattle Washington — Comments on her experience as a visitor, stting that
from her perspective there is a disconnect between city's website emphasis on tourism
and -what visitors discover when they get off the -highway. States that sign regulation is
good for business and recommends adoption of the ordinance..
c5L
4_14 2-
i1/57"^ `-k
Page 1 of 1
guthorpe, Steve
From: Schneider, Royale
Sent: Tuesday. March 18. 2014 11:38 AM
To: Osguthorpe, Steve; Claar Tee, Sonya; Price, Cali-
Cc: lbarra, Rosalinda; Stephens, Jodi
Subject: FW: New Yak Back Request ID #3251
I will respond to Jean to thank her and let her know I've forwarded her comment on. But I thought you should
all know that we received this comment on the billboards.
Royale Schneider
Code Inspection Office Supervisor
City of Yakima
(509) 576-6669
From: City of Yakima Web [mailto:web@yakimawa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:31 AM
To: Codes Information
Subject: New Yak Back Request ID #3251
Yak Back Web Response
To manage this request,log into_ Yak Back Admin
Name : Jean LaFortune
Address: 208 S 33 Ave Yakima, WA 98902
Email: jeanlafortune@charter.net
Phone: 248-1598
Type: Code Administration
Message: I am hoping this message will reach the city council as I'm not certain which link to use to
give input into a decision they will be making. I want the council members to know that I am in favor of
the ordinance they are considering to limit billboards in Yakima. I am unable to attend the meeting this.
evening, but want to let them know I support the proposed ordinance and that I am a life-long citizen of
Yakima. Thank you.
3/18/2014
Page 1 of 3
Osguthorpe, Steve
From: Price, Cally
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:22 AM
To: Ettl, Dave, Cawley, Micah; Coffey, Kathy; Lover, Bill, Ensey, Rick; Adkison, Maureen; Dittmar, Tom
Cc: O'Rourke, Tony; Osguthorpe, Steve; Claar Tee, Sonya; Stephens, Jodi
Subject: comments regarding billboards
March -18, 2014
Jackie Beard, Jacqueline.e.beard@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on
amendments to the YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of
billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created
by the placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a
very direct way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to
live or to invite visitors to.
Please, no more billboards.
March 17, 2014
Amelia Rutter, Amelia.rutter@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the
YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct
-
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Please, no more billboards
Matthew Hargreaves, hargrem@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on
amendments to the YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of
billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct
way --sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Dennis Gayte, kirstingayte@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the
YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
3/18/2014
Page 2 of 3
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placement of andderelictcondition of:many.billboards -detracts from our community in a very direct
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Kristin Gayte, kirstingayte@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the
YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placementofand derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct-
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Jessica Moskwa, Jessica@gilbertcellars.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on
amendments to the YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of
billboards.
As a downtown business owner, homeowner, and community advocate, I believe billboards
devalue our community and all new construction of them should be banned.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created
by theplacementof and -derelict condition of many billboards detracts from -our- community -in -a -
very direct way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to
live or to invite visitors to.
Please, no more billboards.
Emily Robbins, ecrobbins82@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the
YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Jane Gutting, ianeg@wabroadband.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the
YUAZO-YMC-Chapter 15:08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
3/18/2014
Page 3 of 3
placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community ih a very direa
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
March 16, 2014
Pat Reynolds, reynoldsp@q.com
am writing in support of the Yakima City Billboard Ban. 1 agree that billboards are a distraction to
drivers and give our city a cluttered look. They are sometimes damaged by weather leaving pieces
fluttering about. I do believe they lower the value of property owners.
I appreciate the research that the planning commission has done on billboards and would like your 'yes'
vote on the ban.
Cally Price
Assistant to the City Manager
City Manager, Mayor, and Council Office
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: 509-575-6040
Fax: 509-576-6335
www.yakimawa.gov
3/18/2014
Stephens, Jodi
Distributed at the
i Meeting
Subject: FW: Written Comment for tonight's City Council Meeting on Amending Ordinance Chapter
15 08
Importance: High
From: Heather Lowe [mailto:heather@heatherlowedesign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:19 PM
To: Beehler, Randy
Cc: 'jodi.stephens@yakimawa.gov'; 'tammy.regimbal@yakimawa.gov'
Subject: Written Comment for tonight's City Council Meeting on Amending Ordinance Chapter 15.08
Importance: High
This comment is submitted to theoYakima City Clerk as part of public comment for tonight's hearing on
the Ordinance amending Chapter 15.08 Signs of the Yakima Municipal Code
I am writing as a concerned resident of Washington State and a visitor to Eastern Washington and the Wine
Country.
The City of Yakima is at a pivotal stage in its 125 year history.
Policy decisions made in 2014 can set the tone for long-term economic and cultural vitality or stagnation.
As a visitor, I wanted to bring to the City Council's attention that the information being promoted on the City of
Yakima's website, specifically the personal note from Mayor Cawley ...
"As mayor, I'm committed to sharing the physical, cultural, and intellectual strengths of our city and transforming
those unique qualities into sustainable and positive developments that will benefit our citizens and visitors alike.
From the ongoing revitalization of our downtown to our wonderfully diverse neighborhoods, Yakima is a great city
with a lot to offer central Washington and the northwest. We have very active community members and visitors who
enjoy bicycling, wine tasting, fly fishing, hiking, river rafting, specialty shopping, fine and casual dining, along with
excellent golfing."
...is a disconnect when visitor leave the highway and enter Yakima and see's tattered, empty billboards,
dysfunctional digital billboards and screaming Mimi on -premise signs. Wine enthusiasts and the outdoor sporting
group the Mayor mentions DON'T LIKE VISUAL BLIGHT. The expectation of what the City will look like and the
pervasive unmaintained signs are a real turn-off. You cannot create destination and repeat tourists if your
messaging does not match your environment.
You never get a second chance to make a good first impression — Will Rogers
The key question in setting planning;policies is "what kind of city does Yakima want to be known as"? What
character, what experience do you want visitors to savor, what quality of life do you want for your workers and
residents? If you do not manage your signs, you will become the cheesy "Las Vegas" of the Central Valley.
1
It is no accident that Leavenworth, Winthrop and Walla Walla come up in internet searches for best places to
visit in Washington State. Being recognized as an outstanding destination year after year takes commitment to
high standards.
Those municipalities have earned their distinction because of the strong commitment to a single vision of
quality that permeates each place. They each transformed their cities from mundane to extraordinary through
careful planning.
The way your billboards and other signs look now you are encouraging travelers to use Yakima as a fast food
and toilet pit stop. Not what you hadllin mind? How do CBS, Lamar, Metro and the other outdoor advertising
companies have the guts to send their representatives to your meetings given what the state of their signs? Out
of state companies are only interested in your city for one thing MONEY/PROFIT. You are the host and the
profit goes out of state. What a deal!
With over 70 wineries beckoning visitors, will you have an authentically unique and beautiful Yakima or a
helter-skelter mess of visual pollution around every corner created and managed by the sign and outdoor
advertising companies reaping profits 24/7.
Your Central Washington location on the road to Walla Walla provides a comprehensive opportunity to attract
the ever-expanding number of tourists passing through and turn them into satisfied destination tourists in
Yakima.
since you already identify on your website that "tourism is the fastest growing segment of the economy".
In order for your city to live up to your promise of `a premiere place to live, workandp/ay"you must reduce
current traditional billboards and institute strict oversight of on -premise digitals.
Opponents of sign management will cry foul and call the planning actions ANTI -BUSINESS. In small towns and
cities opposition factions will intimidate businesses and residents from speaking out. The truth is the better
managed the signs the better the municipal's economy. The only place that might not be true is Las Vegas.
I would like to see the intention of what Yakima wants to be marry with what Yakima is and someday find you
listed in
Best Tourist Towns in Wa State
http://nwescapes.king5.com/best/tourist-town/local-excursions/northwest
Please pass the Ordinance amending Chapter 15.08 Signs of the Yakima Municipal Code.
OCsfeadet
Heather Lowe
Linkedin Profile
Ph: 206.854.3936
"If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success
unexpected in common hours" Henry David Thoreau
2
Distributed a
Meeting
Stephens, Jodi
Subject: FW: comments regarding billboards
Written comments relating to Item 10—Public Hearing relating to signs, amending Chapter 15.08 of the
Yakima Municipal Code regulation of billboards and off -premises sighs.
March 18, 2014
Jackie Beard, Jacqueiine.e.beard@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the
YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Please, no more billboards.
March 17, 2014
Amelia Rutter, Amelia.rutter@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the YUAZO
YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the placement
of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct way- sending the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite visitors to.
Please, no more billboards
Matthew Hargreaves, hargrem@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to
the YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the placement
of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct way- sending the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite visitors to.
Dennis Gayte, kirstingayte a Rmail cn.
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the YUAZO
YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the placement
of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct way- sending the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite visitors to.
1
W.-\NiNA,2_1,-W 0 3/k5A1 Arte,A.pi
Kristin Gayte, kirstingayte@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the YUAZO
YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflectsour pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the placement
of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct way- sending the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite visitors to.
Jessica Moskwa, Jessica@gilbertcellars.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to
the YUAZO YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
As a downtown business owner, homeowner, and community advocate, I believe billboards devalue
our community and all new construction of them should be banned.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the
placement of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct
way- sending the message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite
visitors to.
Please, no more billboards.
Emily Robbins, ecrobbins82@gmail.com
This is a letter in support of the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the YUAZO
YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the placement
of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct way- sending the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite visitors to.
Jane Gutting, ianeg@wabroadband.com
This is a letter in support of theI Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to the YUAZO
YMC Chapter 15.08 Signs, to further regulate the impact of billboards.
The built environment reflects our pride as a city. Visual degradation and visual chaos created by the placement
of and derelict condition of many billboards detracts from our community in a very direct way- sending the
message that we don't care enough to value an attractive place to live or to invite visitors to.
March 16, 2014
Pat Reynolds, reynoldsp@q.com
2
I am writing in support of the Yakima City Billboard Ban. I agree that billboards are a distraction to drivers and
give our city a cluttered look. They are sometimes damaged by weather leaving pieces fluttering about. I do
believe they lower the value of property owners.
I appreciate the research that the planning commission has done on billboards and would like your 'yes' vote on
the ban.
Cally Price
Assistant to the City Manager
City Manager, Mayor, and Council Office
129 North 2"d Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: 509-575-6040
Fax: 509-576-6335
www.yakimawa.gov
3
MAR -17-2014 15:37 FROM:THE AUTO MART
March 17, 2014
Yakima City Council
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
5094521175
TO:5756037
P. 1/1
RECEIVED
CITY OF YAKIMA
MAR 1 e 2014
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
Dear. Yakima City Council,
It has come to my attention haat the City Council is trying to put in a ban on billboards.
This would be a mistake for several reasons. Businesses in our area need to have the ability
to advertise to grow. Taking away or limiting billboards reduces local businesses ability to
advertise.
You are also infringing on local landowner's property rights. As more and more laws arc
established, it ,limits property owner's ability to make a profit on their properties. That is
money that is spent here in Yakitna which helps the local community.
I understand that there is a need to have some controls is place, but by banning you arc
squashing it business tint helps other business, which hurts everyone, T am asking that you
do not ban the billboards.
Sincerely,
Feliciano Escai ila
MAR -17-2014 15:37 FROM:THE AUTO MART
March 17, 2014
Yakima City Council
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
5094521175
Distributed at the
Meeting Lf
P. 1/1
RECEIVED
CITY OF YAKIMA
MAR 1 C 2014
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
Dear. Yakima City Council,
It has come to my attention that the City Council is trying to put in a ban on billboards.
This would be a mistake for several reasons. Businesses in our area need to have the ability
to advertise to grow. Taking away or limiting billboards reduces local businesses ability to
advertise.
You are also infringing on local landowner's property rights. As more and more laws act
established, it limits property owner's ability to make a profit on their properties. That is
money that is spent here in Yakima which helps the local community.
I understand that there is a need to have some controls in place, but by banning you arc
squashing a business,, that helps other business, which hurts everyone, Tam asking that you
do not ban the billboards.
Sincerely,
Feliciano Escaruilla
!NWouch3 Sirdly
Distributed at theti.
Meeting 3-0<'
'ck
pv-11 1 c
j.pd•juoiliel
•
w0.11 panatileod`
;snt5ny `(9.96 L -OZ 01.H6:
pauieal suossai :spie. •
e}i6 ,„ ` a pc 4 JWa :epi
, . .i _ -
ni
E
s
AIM
E 10 feet
tree +
pavers/no curb streets
Street/Alley
X Pavilions
BUSINESSES
r'i■i
r
INN
North 2nd Street
Sgt
Pendleton
Way
??? Plaza
Courthouse Parking
K&K FURMI CURE
LIBERTY BUILDING
Is
immi
mal
mm
mow
mu
imm
mmu
mma
muill
mom
mm
mm
mm
0
�r - MEM MMUMMUM
MMEMMEMIMMEMMEM
MMINIMMEMEMMEMEMMEMMEM
MIMMEMEM Parking Lot =.•
MEMMUMMMEMINIMMMUMM
MIUMMIMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEME
MMEMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEM
AIIMMUMMINIMEMMEMEMMIMM
MEMEMMUMEMMUMMUNIMMEMMEMMUMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEM
AM11114123
LIBRARY iiU...
Bank
Drive In