PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council approve a zone text amendment that would prohibit the use of electronic signage and additionally �cleanup� the existing sign ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

At the City Council meeting of February 21, 2006 a staff report was presented detailing the City of Burbank�s regulation of blinking and flashing signage.  At that time, staff was directed by the City Council to prepare a zone text amendment prohibiting the use of electronic signage, specifically those signs using light emitting diode (LED) technology. 

Section 31-1013(11) of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) generally prohibits signs that �blink or flash on or off or vary regularly in luminescent intensity�.  The BMC allows exceptions to this restriction for holiday decorations and signs indicating time and/or temperature.  Electronic message boards, defined as, �any sign that uses changing lights to form a sign message or messages wherein the sequence of messages and the rate of change are electronically programmed and can be modified by electronic processes,� are allowed solely for hotels having 250 rooms or more. 

The term �regularly� is not defined in the BMC.  Signs that continuously blink or flash would be in clear violation of Code requirements.  However, the Code does not otherwise specify how frequently an electronic sign may change its copy through variation in luminescent intensity and/or text movement.  Based upon the definition of electronic message boards, it may appear that any type of electronic sign with changeable copy might be prohibited for businesses other than hotels with 250 rooms or more.  However, if the text on an electronic sign does not change, it could be argued that such a sign would be permitted.  For enforcement purposes, staff worked with the City Attorney�s office to develop a guideline for the meaning of �regularly.�  For code enforcement purposes only, staff has interpreted �regularly� to mean no more than once in a 24-hour period, meaning that an electronic sign is deemed not to be in violation of Code so long as it does not use variation in luminescent intensity and/or text movement to vary its text more than once a day.  Staff stresses that this interpretation is for enforcement purposes only and is not contained in the Municipal Code.

BMC Section 31-1013(12) prohibits signs having �visible moving, revolving, or rotating parts, or visible movement of any kind�.  This may be achieved by wind, electrical, electronic, mechanical, or any other means.  The BMC allows exceptions to this restriction for movable hands on clocks, signs indicating only time and/or temperature, hotel electronic message boards pursuant to Section 31-1013 (11), media district displays pursuant to Section 31-1008(10), and holiday decorations specifically allowed pursuant to Sections 31-1007(8) and 31-1008(8). 

While the City�s sign ordinance (Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, attached as Exhibit A) regulates the size, placement, and operational characteristics (e.g. blinking, flashing, movement) of signs, it does not generally address the material used for signs.  No restrictions are placed on the technological components of static signs.  As such, the City would permit the installation of an electronic message board or light emitting diode (LED) display, which could be programmed to have blinking or flashing elements, or vary in luminescent intensity in excess of what is allowed.  This presents an enforcement concern, as discussed later in this report.

During the process of reviewing the current sign standards to make the changes as directed by the Council, staff additionally identified typographical errors, duplicative language, and items in need of clarification in the existing sign standards.  In addition to these �cleanup� items, staff is also recommending that the Council consider a multitude of minor but substantive changes.  These modifications would eliminate the differentiation between business, advertising, and building identification signs and would integrate sign standards, for the Media District and Magnolia Park areas, which are currently located elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance, into the existing sign ordinance. 

The Evolution of the Electronic Signs

The definition of an electronic sign is constantly changing, in large part, because technology is constantly evolving.  In recent decades, the electronic sign has evolved to include a variety of displays: the time and temperature sign, �ticker� or �zipper� displays using regular lights, electronic message boards, LED technology, and video displays.

In the 1920�s one of the first message boards was installed along the 800 foot base of the New York Times building in New York City.  The board was an immediate success and the following year it first announced the polling results from the Herbert Hoover-Al Smith presidential election; it would later scroll President Roosevelt�s fireside chats.  However, in an era when television, email, and cellular phones were absent from society, the electronic message board provided an invaluable public information service.  Electronic message signs are no longer used solely to provide news and information.  Instead, they are utilized by businesses to promote special activities, sales, films, clothing lines, and network programming. 

Recent advances in display technology and declining costs have resulted in outdoor advertising with sharper resolution and imaging capabilities than the message boards of years past.  LED�s are semi-conductors that emit a narrow spectrum of light.  Electronic message and LED signs can vary in intricacy.  Some signs are small, light emitting matrices presented against a dark background.  Others have the capability to present images that are rich in realistic motion, with fine detail and an assortment of color, such as video boards. Advantages of LED technology include their small size, lower power requirement, high efficiency, variety of color, and increased brightness.  Although electronic message boards are not required to use LED technology, these advances have resulted in more sign professionals electing to do so. 

There are currently two (2) LED message signs in the city (aside from signs on Burbank Unified School District property, which are not subject to regulation by the Sign Ordinance) (Exhibit B).  The first is located at an auto lube facility at the intersection of Hollywood Way and Chandler Blvd.  The second is located at the IKEA on San Fernando Blvd.  To reiterate, under the City�s current code provisions, these signs cannot blink, flash, or vary regularly in luminescent intensity. 

The LED signs located at the auto lube facility and IKEA had been programmed to blink, flash, or regularly change text throughout the day.  Enforcement action was taken against both businesses, and the issues were resolved.  However, the use of these signs inconsistent with Code requirements brought to light the enforcement concerns discussed in this report.  An electronic message board was formerly located at the Hilton hotel on Hollywood Way.  It is believed that the Code provisions allowing electronic message boards for hotels having 250 rooms or more stemmed from the desire of this business to have an electronic message board.  Electronic message boards at hotels are permitted to deviate from these standards, except that they are not permitted to continuously roll or move messages across the board.  This sign no longer exists at the Hilton hotel.  Additionally, there are several time and temperature displays in the city.  These are also allowed by Code to blink, flash, and regularly vary.  The Colony Theater Company has inquired about the possibility of using an LED sign.  Staff has informed the theater that if this type of sign were to be installed it would not be allowed to blink, flash, or regularly change its text. 

ANALYSIS:  

Proposed Changes to Municipal Code

This report provides a detailed analysis of changes proposed to all aspects of the sign development standards.  However, this report addresses the standards topically and while detailed, it only represents a summary of the proposed standards.  The full text of the proposed changes to the BMC, as they would appear in the proposed ordinance, is attached hereto as Exhibits C-1 through C-5. 

The changes proposed in this report address not only the concerns of the Council regarding the regulation of electronic signs, but the desire by staff to improve the organization and comprehensibility of the existing sign code.  Staff believes that, at this time, an opportunity exists to better integrate and organize applicable sign regulations (located in other BMC Articles), clarify existing regulations and remove any ambiguities, and make the sign ordinance more reader friendly.  The proposed ordinance attempts to remove duplicative and confusing language and incorporates tables to replace text and allow for easier comparison of standards applicable in certain areas of the city.

Prohibition of Self-Illuminating and Electronic Signs

At the February 21, 2006 City Council meeting, staff presented a report to the Council detailing the current regulations applicable to electronic signs, the approaches utilized by neighboring communities to regulate electronic signs, and a discussion of the enforcement, aesthetic, and safety issues associated with electronic signage.  Given this information, the Council recommended that staff proceed with a zone text amendment to prohibit all electronic signage, specifically LED signs, in the City.  As with the current sign regulations, the ban would not be applicable to signs installed by government agencies for public information purposes such as information on road conditions, or high school and other public services facilities where the signs either currently exist or where they may need to be placed in the future. 

The BMC already prohibits captive balloon and inflatable signs, pennant signs, and temporary signs.  The BMC also prohibits signs from blinking, flashing, moving or varying regularly in luminescent intensity.  However, the aforementioned regulation does not prohibit the sign type so much as it regulates the capability of the sign once it is installed.  Given the direction of Council to ban all electronic signage, staff proceeded to generate a list of sign types that may employ electronic or LED technology.  Additionally, staff listed sign types not specifically mentioned by the Council for prohibition, but that may also result in many of the code enforcement, aesthetic, and safety concerns posed by electronic signs.  Finally, staff attempted to qualitatively describe prohibited technologies so as to make the ordinance as proactive as possible in identifying new and future sign types that should be prohibited. 

Signs, or portions thereof, using any light source (e.g. incandescent bulbs, neon-filled tubes, light emitting diodes) to constitute the sign text, image, or border would not be permitted under the proposed ordinance.  Specific signs subject to this prohibition include: projected signs, time and temperature displays, holographic displays, televisions screens, plasma screens, digital screens, flat screens, light emitting diode screens, video boards, electronic message boards, and other types of electric and electronic display boards and screens. This provision is not intended to prohibit internal or external illumination where light sources are used only to illuminate the sign and do not constitute the text or image of the sign.

This provision is additionally not applicable to those buildings having signs (e.g. electronic message boards, televisions screens, etc.) occurring on the interior of the premises, intended to be viewed only by those persons inside the building.  Prohibited signs may not occur on the interior of the building if they are intended to be seen from the exterior of the structure or from an adjacent public right-of-way.  Historically, this has not been much of an issue.  However, with the new prohibitions and the increasing presence of technology available at low costs, it becomes more critical to carefully define which signs are and are not subject to regulation per this Article. 

These types of signs, regardless of whether they remain static or blink, flash, move, or vary regularly in luminescent intensity, would no longer be permitted.  As aforementioned in this report, time and temperature signs would no longer be permitted, nor would electronic message boards for hotels having 250 rooms or more.  Existing electronic signs would be grandfathered and considered legal nonconforming, but would still be subject to existing code provisions against blinking, flashing, and changing text, and would still be subject to code enforcement actions if deemed to be in violation of those provisions.

To more effectively illustrate those types of signs that will be prohibited, proposed BMC Section 31-1004 will list and describe them.  

Applicable Sign Regulations in Neighboring Cities

Staff conducted a great deal of research regarding the regulation of electronic message and LED signs.  However, the majority of available literature on electronic message and LED signs is in reference to their use in conjunction with or as billboards.  This is not applicable to the City of Burbank.  BMC Section 31-502 prohibits advertising signs and structures (billboards) in all zones in the City of Burbank.  

In the absence of relevant research, staff surveyed a number of adjacent communities to see if and how their sign codes address electronic signs.  It should be taken into consideration that communities may define their signage very differently from one another.  For example, the definition of an electronic message board in Culver City may be similar in definition to an animated sign in San Gabriel.  However, all of these signs fall within the broad category of �electronic signs� discussed in this report. 

Anaheim

The City of Anaheim defines an electronic message board or electronic reader board as, �a changeable copy sign where the copy is displayed or changed by electronic means�.  These signs may be permitted with a conditional use permit for amusement facilities, theaters, lodging facilities, automobile dealerships (minimum three (3) acre site), commercial retail centers (minimum 25 acre site) or uses identified as being for community and religious assembly.  Electronic message or reader boards are prohibited for all other uses.  The City of Anaheim also prohibits signs that blink, flash, or vary in color or luminescent intensity resulting in glare, momentary blindness, disability, or discomfort to persons on adjacent properties or driving by. 

Culver City

Culver City defines electronic message sign as, �a sign with a message comprised of letters, numbers, or other characters that are electronically changed to display different messages.�  Culver City allows electronic message signs to be displayed only if the information displayed is public information.  Public information displayed may contain no brand, trade, identification, promotion, advertising, or operation information related to the business. 

Glendale

The City of Glendale does not have a definition for the electronic message or LED sign.  The City of Glendale includes electronic message and LED signs in their definition of animated signs, which are �designed and constructed to give a message through a sequence of progressive changes of parts by action or motion, flashing or color changes requiring electrical or manual energy.�  The City of Glendale prohibits animated signs.  Time and/or temperature displays and public service signs are excluded from this prohibition.  The City of Glendale does have an electronic message sign that can be easily seen from the adjacent freeway.  According to Glendale staff, this sign was permitted by a variance.  Furthermore, following installation of the sign, there was concern about the brightness of the sign, and it was required that the brightness level be reduced.

Monrovia

The City of Monrovia does not have a definition for the electronic message sign.  However, according to planning staff, they do have provisions in their municipal code permitting freestanding �public service signs�, similar to electronic message signs, with approval of a conditional use permit.  Monrovia has three (3), double faced electronic message signs.  They are located adjacent to the freeway and owned by automobile dealerships.  The signs are not to exceed 35 feet in height and 125 square feet per face. 

Pasadena

The City of Pasadena does not have a definition for the electronic message or LED sign. The City of Pasadena prohibits animated or moving signs, defined as, �a sign that uses movement, lighting, or special material to depict action or create a special effect to imitate movement.�  The City of Pasadena prohibits signs that blink, flash or move in any manner.  However, the City of Pasadena allows time and/or temperature displays.  Planning staff stated that, in many cases, LED technology is being used to replace neon tubing or channel letters as the primary light source, but the sign must remain static. 

San Gabriel

The City of San Gabriel does not have a definition for the electronic message or LED sign.    The City of San Gabriel prohibits animated signs, defined as, �any sign which has any visible moving part, flashing lights, visible mechanical movement of any description, or other apparent visible movement achieved by any means.�  Time and/or temperature and public service displays are excluded.  As with Pasadena, planning staff stated that LED technology is being used to replace neon tubing or channel letters, but the sign must remain static, with no blinking or flashing. 

Santa Ana

The City of Santa Ana does not have a definition for the electronic message board or LED sign.  In addition, the City of Santa Ana does not specifically prohibit electronic message board, LED, or animated signs.  The City of Santa Ana, like most of the aforementioned municipalities, prohibits signs that move or give the illusion of movement (excluding time and/or temperature or public service displays).  However, the City of Santa Ana has two additional safety provisions in their municipal code deterring these types of signs.  Signs may not be dangerous or confusing to motorists on the public right-of-way or cause a condition that presents a danger or injury to the public.  These provisions may be used as needed to prohibit the placement of electronic message or LED signs.

West Covina

The City of West Covina defines a reader board sign as, �a sign designed to allow the changing of copy through manual, mechanical, or electrical means.�  In order to install a reader board sign, one must receive approval through a sign exception review process and file for an administrative use permit. 

It would seem that many communities do not allow for electronic message and LED signs.  However, the signs are still present in many communities.  That is because many communities do allow these signs through some discretionary process such as a conditional use permit, variance, or planned development.  The City of Glendale is an excellent example; as noted above, they have an electronic message sign permitted by a variance.  An applicant could apply to have a moving or flashing sign in Burbank through the sign variance process.  In addition, many communities use master sign or unique sign programs to allow for signs that might not normally be permitted.  Such programs can be used for signs that are unique in nature, aesthetically pleasing, compatible with the land uses, or providing a public service.  Burbank has used the master sign program in conjunction with some planned development projects in lieu of the sign variance process to allow special or unique signage for unique development projects. 

Enforcement of Electronic Signs

The City of Burbank currently has two electronic message or LED signs that are specifically prohibited by Code from blinking, flashing, or varying regularly in luminescent intensity.  As mentioned earlier in this report, both of these signs had been programmed by their owners to blink or flash in contrast to Code provisions.  From an enforcement perspective, this creates cause for concern.  While the City of Burbank currently restricts certain activities of the sign (flashing, blinking, moving, etc.) the City would still permit the installation of an electronic message or LED sign which has the potential to be programmed to perform operations contrary to Code. 

The underlying technology of electronic message and LED signs provide for the same elements the Municipal Code currently prohibits (blinking, flashing, movement).  Subsequent signs could be permitted and conditioned not to blink or flash, but they would still have the technology to do so.  This could result in a major code enforcement issue if allowed to persist.  Existing businesses with electronic message or LED signs have been observed to be in violation of BMC provisions.  As previously mentioned in this report, as sign technology has improved, costs have declined.  As the use of this technology increases, so too may code enforcement issues.

Code enforcement is also complicated by signs indicating time and/or temperature that are allowed to blink flash, and regularly change their text and electronic message boards that are permitted for hotels having 250 rooms or more. The hotel previously having an electronic message board has since replaced the electronic message board with an alternative sign.  To provide greater consistency throughout the sign ordinance and to minimize code conflicts, it is the recommendation of staff that these signs no longer be exempt from the provisions of the sign ordinance.  They would subsequently be prohibited in addition to all other forms of electronic signage. 

Aesthetics and Electronic Signs

In many communities, even in those where electronic message and LED signs are prohibited, the illumination of signs is regulated to mitigate negative impacts on surrounding rights-of-way and adjacent properties.  This is done by regulating the colors used in signs and the allowed brightness of the light source.  Even when electronic message or LED signs are static, and in compliance with current code provisions, they may continue to constitute an aesthetic burden upon the adjacent area due to their brightness and/or colors used.  Electronic message boards and LED technology utilize a variety of colors.  Of greater concern than color variety is the brightness of signs and the ability of that brightness to be directed onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. 

A number of factors impact how brightness of electronic message and LED displays is measured and regulated, making enforcement more difficult.  Glendale staff indicated that they had no means of measuring the brightness of their electronic message board sign.  In one instance a sign was qualitatively determined to be too bright and the owners of the sign were asked to reduce the brightness, but not by any specific quantitative degree.  Specific brightness levels were not discussed.  This type of negotiated brightness level may be possible through a variance process where the City can qualitatively control brightness through conditions of approval.  Signs could be prohibited from shining light onto adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.  However, for signs that are allowed by-right, staff believes that some brightness standards would have to be developed to allow for effective enforcement. 

Even with such standards in place, enforcement would likely prove difficult.  According to License and Code Services staff, while it is not entirely impossible to take quantitative measurements as to the brightness electronic sign, it would likely involve the retention of a consultant with the technological capabilities necessary to make accurate measurements of luminescent intensity.  With the City Council direction to entirely prohibit LED and other electronic signs, these issues would not be of concern.

Potential for Driver Distraction

The Police Department was contacted to seek input regarding electronic message and LED signs.  Police staff states that, in the broadest sense, electronic message and LED signs are a distraction to drivers.  Although staff did not have any accessible facts or figures upon which to base that opinion, staff stated common sense would imply that they are a source of distraction to already pre-occupied drivers.  Police staff further stated that their foremost objective is to provide as safe a driving environment to the citizens of Burbank as possible. 

The Public Works Traffic Engineering Division was also contacted to seek input regarding electronic message and LED signs.  Traffic staff stated their belief that electronic and LED signs are generally distracting to drivers due to their brightness and their ability to blink and flash.  Staff stated that if electronic message and LED signs, (1) could be guaranteed to remain static, and (2) their luminescent intensity could be closely monitored so as to ensure compliance with  quantitative code regulations relating to brightness; then only would they prove not be a distraction.  However, there are many determinants affecting the brightness of a sign including the size of the sign, type of materials used, the distance occurring between the vehicle and the sign, and the angle between the vehicle and the sign.  Staff believes that it would be very difficult to attempt to regulate the brightness of electronic and LED signs so as to ensure that the acceptable brightness level was maintained once the sign was installed. 

Much of the literature available for study is inconclusive about the role of electronic message or LED signs in causing auto crashes.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stated that distraction by sources external to the vehicle accounted for 3.2 percent of vehicle crashes.  The study, however, did not identify the external objects at fault, nor did it contend that electronic billboards were to blame, but generally stated that external sources can distract drivers so much so as to result in a crash. 

In conclusion, although the Police Department and Public Works Traffic Engineering Division are concerned about impacts to motorists from electronic signs, there is an absence of applicable research to support these findings.  In addition, enforcement of brightness requirements, which is one of the major distraction concerns, could prove immensely difficult for staff.  Staff believes that the code enforcement issues, negative aesthetic impacts, and potential for driver safety together constitute just cause to prohibit these types of signage. 

Clarification of Sign Use

As noted above, the proposed ordinance would make other changes to the sign ordinance aside from prohibiting electronic signs.  The BMC generally defines signs as:

 �any structure, device, writing, name, number, figure, pictorial representation, illustration, emblem, etching,  mural, symbol, display, billboard, signboard, flag, banner, pennant, bunting, clock or appliance which is used or designed to announce, declare, demonstrate, display, or otherwise identify or advertise, or attract the attention of the public, and shall include all parts, portions, units, and materials composing the same, together with the frame, background, and support or anchorage thereof.�

 The BMC further identifies three sign types: advertising, building identification, and business. 

Advertising signs are defined as �signs used to identify a business, service, or product not sold, rented, distributed, or manufactured on the premises.�  Advertising signs are more commonly described as billboards.  Although there are a multitude of references to advertising signs in the existing sign ordinance, advertising signs are actually no longer a permitted use per BMC Section 31-502.  Because advertising signs are no longer permitted, staff recommends that any additional references to advertising signs be removed from the existing sign code so as to remove any ambiguity that exists regarding the ability to locate advertising signs within the City of Burbank.

Business signs are defined as �signs used to identify a business, service, or product sold, rented, distributed or manufactured on the premises.�  Building identification signs are defined as �signs displaying only the name of the building, a tenant of the building, or the address of a building, which is located on the same site as the building.�  Building identification signs are permitted in excess of allowable business signs, on buildings exceeding 26 feet in height.  However, when a building is allowed to have both business and building identification sign area on their frontage, it is difficult to determine what signage is business and what signage is building identification; especially since the definitions of business and building identification sign are so similar and in some cases overlap. 

It is the recommendation of staff that all references to building identification signs be eliminated from the BMC.  Although this would reduce the available sign area of a business, it would only impact those businesses having a building height in excess of 26 feet and not abutting a residential zone or abutting an alley adjacent to a residential zone.  Businesses would still be afforded sign area so as to identify their business, service, or products that are sold, rented, distributed or manufactured on the premises.  Staff believes that the sign standards would still afford ample square footage for businesses to provide adequate signage.

Additionally, because advertising signs are no longer a permitted use and building identification signs would no longer be a valid sign type, it is the recommendation of staff that the definition of �business sign� be incorporated into the general definition for �sign�, and that there no longer be a distinction or difference between the two types of signs.  All signs would then be treated equally and subject to the same set of requirements. 

Relocation of Magnolia Park and Media District Sign Regulations

Regulations applicable to signs occurring specifically in the Media District are currently located in BMC Section 31-2017(k).  Regulations applicable to signs occurring specifically in the Magnolia Park area are currently located in BMC Sections 31-2631 and 31-2632.  Signs located in the Media District and Magnolia Park are subject to both these regulations and the provisions of Article 10.  It is the recommendation of staff that these code sections be relocated and appropriately organized within Article 10.  Doing so would result in all sign regulations being located in a single chapter of the BMC, increasing the ease of comprehension of all applicable sign regulations for properties occurring in the Media District, Magnolia Park, or elsewhere in the City of Burbank.   The draft code text attached as Exhibits C-2 through C-5 reflect these recommended changes

Sign Variance Language

Section 31-2634 contained additional language and findings applicable when seeking a variance for a sign to be located in the MPC-1, MPC-2, and MPC-3 Zones comprising the Magnolia Park Area.  Rather than incorporate the language and additional variance requirements in the Sign Ordinance, they have been integrated into Section 31-1918, which details the sign variance process and findings, as shown in Exhibit C-3.  This incorporation will provide both staff and the public with all applicable variance findings for Magnolia Park signs in one location of the BMC. 

Community Outreach

Staff contacted the Burbank Chamber of Commerce to seek input on the proposed amendment.  Staff additionally provided the Chamber with notice of the Planning Board and City Council public hearings.  Prior to the Planning Board meeting, staff met with a representative from the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the proposed changes and to receive any input from the Chamber. Staff additionally followed up with the Chamber prior to finalizing this report.  The Chamber indicated that it would provide the City with its comments, if any, regarding the proposed changes.   As of the date of publication of this report, staff had not received any input or correspondence from the Chamber.

CEQA Determination:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial study was completed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.  The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts.  A Negative Declaration has accordingly been prepared and released for review (Exhibits D-1 and D-2).  The review period commenced on May 2, 2006 and ended on May 22, 2006.  No public comments were received.

PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION: 

The Planning Board considered the proposed zone text amendment at a public hearing on May 22, 2006 (Exhibit E-1).  There were no public speakers at the hearing who spoke in support of or opposition to the proposed zone text amendment.  It was the consensus of the Board that the proposed changes were appropriate.  Staff affirmed that only billboards advertising off-site products and services are prohibited and that signs would be permitted so as to identify their business, service, or products that are sold, rented, distributed, or manufactured on the premises.  Additionally, Ms. Gabel-Luddy noted that persons who sought to deviate from the proposed standards could pursue a sign variance.  All Planning Board members expressed their support for the action as proposed by staff and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the zone text amendment (Exhibit E-2). 

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed zone text amendment would prohibit electronic signage, specifically light emitting diode signs, and make additional minor changes to the existing sign development standards.  The changes would not change the overall scope or complexity of the standards and as such would not require any additional staff time or resources to administer. The proposed zone text amendment would prohibit signs that are not currently prohibited, but are restricted from blinking, flashing, moving, or varying in luminescent intensity.  To have these sign types, a sign variance would now be required.  As such, it is not anticipated that a large number of sign variance applications would result.  Signs utilized by the City of Burbank and other applicable public agencies to convey emergency and other information to motorists would be exempted from any regulations or prohibition.  Signage utilized by the City for these purposes would continue to be permitted for use. 

CONCLUSION:

If a business maintains or operates a sign in contrast to Code requirements, enforcement action can be brought against the business.  However, current Code does nothing to physically prevent blinking, flashing, or signs having constantly changing text, since the underlying technology would still allow this to occur. 

Even if the BMC were modified so as to define the extent to which sign text or images could be varied on a daily basis, enforcement provisions would remain a concern as the technology would continue to be permitted.  Furthermore, this would not mitigate traffic and driver safety concerns that may result from the use of electronic signage, nor would it remedy the aesthetic impacts that may result from excessive brightness and color or electronic signs. 

Prohibiting electronic signs ensures that the sign technology impacting the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and the community landscape would not be permitted.  If any such signs were permitted through the sign variance process, brightness could then be dealt with through the conditions of approval in a qualitative manner rather than through quantitative brightness standards.

The recommendations of staff exceed those changes originally directed by Council.  However, it is the assessment of staff that, by prohibiting a broader array of sign types now, the City can avoid having to make additional amendments to the sign ordinance in the future, as technology allows for new sign types and capabilities that pose code enforcement, aesthetic, and safety concerns.  For example, although holographic displays are not frequently utilized as a means to identify or advertise a building or business, future technological advances may allow for this sign type to be utilized with greater frequency at a lesser cost.  However, it is the assessment of staff that holographic displays would result in code enforcement, aesthetic, and safety issues similar to those which prompted the Council to prohibit electronic signs.  Rather than having to periodically return to the sign ordinance to prohibit these sign types, once they have become an issue or cause concern, the proposed recommendations seek to �future-proof� the sign ordinance, so future enforcement, aesthetic, and safety issues do not arise.  The sign variance process would continue to be available to those persons who desire to have an electronic message, neon, or LED sign in conjunction with their business.  Sign variance findings are generally not as difficult to meet in comparison to traditional variance findings.

Staff notes that signs used by the City of Burbank and other public agencies to convey emergency and other information to motorists would be exempted from any regulations or prohibition.  These signs, termed changeable message signs (CMS) are located in the public right of way, where zoning regulations are not applicable.  Furthermore, BMC exempts �directional, warning, or informational signs authorized by federal, state, or municipal authority or public utility.�  Because the foremost purpose of these signs is to convey information to motorists, driver distraction is not a concern with these types of sings.  Although the brightness and location of these signs could result in what some consider an aesthetic impact, the benefit and necessity of the signs to provide important driver information outweighs any potential impacts. 

In conclusion, although the current BMC contains language prohibiting blinking, flashing, and regular varied luminescent intensity, the potential exists for the permitting of signs with these capabilities.  Prohibiting electronic signs ensures that concerns relating to electronic sign enforcement, aesthetic and motorist safety are mitigated. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Project No. 2005-126, a Zone Text Amendment that would prohibit electronic signage and �cleanup� the existing sign ordinance. 

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A           Existing Sign Ordinance (Article 10)

Exhibit B           Photographs of Electronic Message and LED Signs in Burbank 

Exhibit C-1       Draft Ordinance / Municipal Code Text (Article 2)

Exhibit C-2       Draft Ordinance / Municipal Code Text (Article 10)

Exhibit C-3       Draft Ordinance / Municipal Code Text (Article 19)

Exhibit C-4       Draft Ordinance / Municipal Code Text (Article 21)

Exhibit C-5       Draft Ordinance / Municipal Code Text (Article 26)

Exhibit D-1       Proposed Negative Declaration for Zone Text Amendment 2005-126

Exhibit D-2       Public Notice on Environmental Decision for Zone Text Amendment 2005-126

Exhibit E-1       Planning Board Minutes from May 22, 2006 meeting (not approved)    

Exhibit E-2       Planning Board Resolution No. 3025 dated May 22, 2006

go to the top