Although I have been concentrating on finding a way to abate the illegal LED sign at Pacific East Mall, the proposed sign at Hilltop looms in the future. It would require either a variance or an amendment to our existing ordinance to incorporate LED into it. I haven’t taken a position on a Hilltop sign yet, except to note that the overwhelming majority of people who have communicated with me about it are not in favor of LED anywhere in Richmond.
Below is an email form Amit Patel, manager of Courtyard by Marriott, advocating for an LED sign and detailing his support more than anyone else who has communicated to me on this subject. Click here for the attached pdf. Some questions and issues:
· Who would pay for the construction?
· What would it advertise? Hilltop business only? Richmond business only? Who would pay for the ads, probably a cost of $800,000 a year if it’s anything like Pacific East Mall.
· What would the City of Richmond make in money from the sign and how would that work?
· How many other billboards in Richmond would be removed in exchange for its approval?
· I did not advocate for the sign in My E-FORUM. I copied a reader’s advocacy as a submitted comment.
· An expert on LED signs, Jerry Wachtel, has taken issue with much of the science quoted by Mr. Patel (see his email following that of Patel).
Councilmembers and Mayor,
I do not know if you have seen the study that the Federal DOT did on digital billboards. The study was released on 12/30/13, and addresses concerns such as distraction and brightness of signage.
It can be found here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/practitioners/oac/visual_behavior_report/review/cevms2.pdf
The non pdf version is here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/practitioners/oac/possible_effects/cevms00.cfm
A complete list of federal studies can be found here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/practitioners/oac/
As the discussions regarding digital signage takes place in Richmond, I urge you to consider the recent peer-reviewed studies conducted by the federal government into account. The study is long, but is currently the most complete dataset available for review. The conclusion is summarized here: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/194654-dot-study-finds-digital-billboard-dont
With all the discussion about LED signs, I would like to clarify a few details regarding the Hilltop sign. This is the perspective of a resident of Richmond who does not stand to personally gain from any form of signage or advertising in Richmond or elsewhere. I am not affiliated with any sign construction company, advertising company, or any related industry. I am simply a resident of Richmond who wants to see the city succeed, and has chosen to make my career here. I do not gain any sort of personal benefit from the decisions made, but I do strongly believe that the City of Richmond will benefit by making an informed choice.
The proposed sign at Hilltop would like to be an example of signage done right. The billboard will not be a standalone advertisement board, as the pylon sign static panels would have function for the entire business district, including the mall, the auto plaza, and other businesses in the district. The height of the sign was selected to extend above foliage on the highway. Despite the billboard being high above the foliage, we do not want to use a bigger size screen, such as the signs off the Bay Bridge. This will give the impression that the sign is smaller than others, making it look less obtrusive to the area. The sign would not block any scenic views, as the sign will be placed on top of a hill mound off of the freeway. The proposed sign would feature backlit panels, while the current sign features inefficient spotlights directed onto the sign. The Hilltop sign would also be coupled with an auto plaza, which makes it different from the study below referencing the Pacific East Mall sign. The uniqueness of this situation is further illustrated by looking at what normal billboards look like in the Bay Area. Looking here (https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200480377098469227590.0004ea84fa3bbdbc2f2a9&msa=0&ll=37.833649,-121.621399&spn=1.906696,3.56781&dg=feature), by clicking on the “D” for digital billboard, you can see that all the others in the Bay Area are standalone advertisements low to the freeway. These digital billboards can be found in San Francisco, Rohnert Park, Berkeley, Oakland, Santa Clara, and Palo Alto. Please note, these are all cities capable of hosting conventions, just like the City of Richmond. Digital signage is often useful in convention cities for the purpose of attracting higher profile conventions and events. This list does not include nontraditional/unregulated LED signage, such as the one found in front of City Hall in Richmond.
For reference, here is a link to view of the current pylon sign, which is also the location of the proposed new sign (the sign can be seen off to the side of the freeway):
Side 1, Westbound 80: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.978896,-122.317634,3a,90y,189.95h,88.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWtJU1whGhVxpE2gxFkxo8g!2e0
Side 2, Eastbound 80, https://www.google.com/maps/@37.976752,-122.318161,3a,75y,24.29h,85.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srCDx4PziqZA_s9CUeo99Tg!2e0
The City of Richmond agrees with the idea of a Hilltop Pylon Sign, as it is in the Capital Improvement Budget for 2013-2014. Found here on page 128 (http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/27798), the city has allocated $1,530,000 for a Hilltop Pylon Sign. We as a district understand that the city is cash-strapped. As much as possible, we do not want the city to pay for the sign. In our proposed plan, an outside company would pay 100% of the costs associated with the pylon sign (including construction, maintenance, and upkeep), and pay the city a percentage of sales. This money could be used elsewhere in the City of Richmond, meaning a digital billboard will have an immediate net benefit to the citizens in Richmond who need it most right away. The LED portion of the sign is simply the subsidy for the sign, and is not the focal point. The Hilltop district was willing to accept the sign passed through Design Review Board in 2008 (see attached pdf). The DRB concluded that the sign had economic benefit to the City of Richmond. Back in 2008, the City was going to front the construction cost of the sign. Once the funds were cut for economic development, we had to turn to alternative funding to construct a pylon sign. This led to us considering outside sources of funding, which is how we have ended up at this point.
Attractive visual signage will help attract visitors to Richmond, as studies have shown (http://www.signs.com/blog/the-benefits-of-signage-infographic/). An improved pylon sign will allow a district that already features 12 of the top 25 tax paying businesses in Richmond to strengthen. One of the concerns expressed was that a new sign would have little influence on the ability of Hilltop Mall to attract a higher tier developer. Marketability of a business is one of the primary concerns when choosing a location, and with an improved pylon sign, we expect to be able attract businesses with brand recognition to the area. A developer will consider this issue when deciding whether or not to make an offer on the mall. Just like in construction where it is easier to build on flat land rather than having to excavate, it is easier to develop a business where visibility and marketability are not an issue. Each choice we make to improve the potential for the area brings us one step closer to attracting a developer whose vision matches both that of the City and of its residents. The goal is not to resurrect the current mall; the sales model is outdated and inefficient, the building is not attractive, and its interior businesses have a high failure rate. The goal for all of this is to influence the future, to show potential developers that Richmond can be the home of a Bay Area attraction, and to boost the other current businesses in the district.
The sign will also serve to improve the look of the Northern entryway into Richmond, as the current pylon sign no longer matches a modern world (as can be seen from the Google Maps links above). As you may recall, the panels were replaced during emergency repairs in 2010; these panels were intended for temporary, short-term use (http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3212, page 6). In 2010, Councilman Butt listed the temporary improvements to the Hilltop Pylon as one of the positive stories in Richmond, and the delay of the Hilltop Pylon reconstruction as one of the big disappointments of the year (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/New_Year_2011_e-forum.pdf, page 23 and 31, respectively). The delay of the pylon sign construction was in reference to this item in the redevelopment budget, which was slated to be completed 6/1/2010 (http://ca-richmond2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4531, page 39). Please note the justification for the project in 2009/2010, which is the same as it was from DRB in 2008, and is still relevant today. “The existing pylon sign has fallen into visible disrepair and is a major eyesore to people who pass through Richmond on Interstate Highway 80. The proposed pylon sign features an attractive sleek, steel modern design with a state-of-the-art LED message center, and will replace the existing sign at a key city gateway in need of beautification.” Years later, nothing has changed here at Hilltop.
All of these points lead to a single discussion – isn’t it about time we do something to put the Hilltop Pylon Sign behind us, either by allowing an outside funding source or by investing capital funding into economic development? This issue has stirred in the City of Richmond long enough, the economic benefits have been explored, safety concerns have been addressed by the DOT and FHA. We do not want multiple billboards in Richmond, we want a single standalone pylon sign that is capable of generating multiple forms of revenue for the City of Richmond. We want an attractive pylon sign which benefits many entities in the City of Richmond at the expense of an outside source of funding. We want the ability provide increased resources to the City of Richmond. And most of all, we want the City of Richmond to be the best city it can be, where its residents can look to quality parks and a beautiful, unobstructed shoreline as a source of pride, and where residents and visitors are excited to come and spend their time, and hopefully contribute to our tax base rather than El Cerrito’s or Pinole’s.
Thank you for considering the details in this email, and for taking the time to read through the FHA study on digital freeway signage.
Amit Patel
General Manager
3150 Garrity Way
Richmond, CA 94806
T + 510.262.0700 ext. 601
F + 510.262.0927
Reply to: apatel@richmondcourtyard.net
Visit our Virtual Tour at: http://hotelvideos.us/ctyrichmondfin13.html
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have been sent a copy of an email from Mr. Amit Patel, dated March 25, 2014, and titled: “Hilltop Pylon Sign,” and asked to reply.
By way of background, I have studied traffic safety and driver distraction issues for more than 30 years. I was the senior author on the first U.S. study of the safety and environmental impacts of digital billboards (published by the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] in 1980, and I was a consultant in the early phases of the recently issued FHWA report to which Mr. Patel refers.
In response to some of the statements made by Mr. Patel concerning the FHWA study, let me raise certain points:
1. The study was not peer reviewed as Mr. Patel claims. An earlier (unpublished) draft of the study was peer reviewed. The criticism by the peer reviewers was so harsh that the study was withheld for nearly two years before a revised version was published. There is no indication that the latest version received peer review, or that the original peer reviewers were given an opportunity to determine whether their criticisms had been satisfactorily addressed.
2. The prior studies on this topic prepared by FHWA and mentioned by Mr. Patel were also not subject to peer review. (I served as a consultant on some of these earlier studies as well).
3. Mr. Patel claims that the FHWA study “is currently the most complete dataset available for review.” Although I do not know what he means by this, I should point out that there is considerable recent published research, worldwide, that demonstrates the adverse effects of roadside advertising signs on driver behavior and performance. (Most of this research has been peer reviewed. I have cited some recent examples at the end of this email. A study conducted by me on behalf of AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), which discusses all of the relevant research prior to 2009 is included in this list. Note that, after a recent study of such signs in Sweden, the government removed all digital billboards from their roads.
4. One of the documents cited by Mr. Patel refers to a memorandum in his discussion of a sign that “passed through (the) Design Review Board in 2008.” A quick review of this memo indicates that its author identified the proposed replacement sign at Hilltop as “Categorically Exempt” from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §15311(a): On-premise signs. My reading of the description of the proposed sign in this same memo suggests that this exemption was applied erroneously. Specifically, the memo states: “the message center will be used to display local and national ads as well as to promote citywide events and attractions.” This language suggests that the proposed sign would, in fact, be considered an off-premise sign, or billboard, and thus subject to far more stringent regulation and control than if it was strictly an on-premise sign. (I note here that the existing sign at the Pacific Mall (to which Mr. Patel refers) is ostensibly an on-premise sign, but it is currently operating as a billboard by advertising off-premise businesses and services).
5. Mr. Patel claims that the proposed sign will feature “backlit panels.” This is not correct. LED signs, which is what is proposed, use thousands of individual “light emitting diodes” (LEDs) to create the image and manage its colors. Each LED is considered “self-illuminating,” and depending upon the number of LEDs and the density with which they are assembled into the sign substrate, such a sign can have far greater luminous intensity (i.e. brightness) than can any other form of signage. Lighting experts are at odds with industry representatives about: (a) how this brightness should be measured; (b) how much brightness is necessary at night; (c) how such signs should be dimmed, and to what degree; and (d) what to do about sign display brightness when any component of the lighting or dimming system fails. Current LED sign owners/operators typically set their signs, at night, to luminance levels 2-5 times greater than lighting and traffic safety experts recommend. Further, the proposed sign, given its proposed height and elevation, will likely create high levels of nighttime luminance and glare directly into the windows of the nearby Tides apartments and Extended Stay America hotel. This does not seem to have been addressed by Mr. Patel or other reviewers of the proposed sign.
6. Mr. Patel cites a sign industry study to show the advantages of such signage. Of course, studies conducted by those not tied to the sign industry demonstrate that drivers and citizens are strongly opposed to digital roadside advertising signs, and find them generally useless for obtaining information relevant to their needs. A summary of some of this research is shown in the Reference list below.
I am not opposed to digital billboards. I have served as a consultant to each of the “big 3” owners of such signs and the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), as well as to city, county, and state government agencies throughout the country, in an effort to help craft regulations and guidelines that support traffic safety while not infringing on the right of sign owners and operators to conduct their business. I believe that there are straightforward ways to design, locate, and operate roadside digital advertising signs that can serve their clients while mitigating traffic safety concerns. Sadly, my experience has been that manufacturers and operators of such signs too often insist on maximizing profit at the expense of traffic safety and environmental concerns.
I am available to assist the City as it considers the issues surrounding such signs, the effects of which will be felt for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Jerry Wachtel, CPE
President, The Veridian Group, Inc.
Berkeley, CA
510-848-0250
jerry@veridiangroup.com
REFERENCES:
Backer-Grøndahl, A., & Sagberg, F. (2009). “Relative crash involvement risk associated with different sources of driver distraction.” Proceedings of the First international Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University.
Belyusar, D., Reimer, B., Shoup, A., Jokubaitis, B., Pugh, B., Mehler, B., & Coughlin, J.F. (2014). “A Preliminary Report on the Effects of Digital Billboards on Glance Behavior during Highway Driving.” Presented at: 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
Divekar, G., Pollatsek, A. & Fisher, DL. (2012). “External-to-Vehicle Distractions: Dangerous Because Deceiving,” Fifth International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Psychology. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Dukic, T., Ahlstrom, C., Patten, C., Kettwich, C., & Kircher, K. (2013). “Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Distraction.” Traffic Injury Prevention 14(5).
Edquist, J., Horberry, T., Hosking, S. & Johnston, I. (2011). “Advertising billboards impair change detection in road scenes.” Paper presented at the 2011 Australasian Road Safety Research, Education & Policing Conference.
Gitelman, V., Zaidel, D., & Doveh, E. (2012). “Influence of Billboards on Driving Behavior and Road Safety,” Fifth International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Psychology. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Herrstedt, L., Greibe, P. & Andersson, P. (2013). “Roadside Advertising Affects Driver Attention and Road Safety.” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University.
Milloy, SL; and Caird, JK. (2011). “External Driver Distractions: The Effects of Video Billboards and Wind Farms on Driver Performance.” Handbook of Driving Simulation for Engineering, Medicine and Psychology. Edited by: D.L. Fisher, M. Rizzo, J.K. Caird, & J.D. Lee. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Young, MS, Mahfoud, JM, Stanton, N. Salmon, PM, Jenkins, DP & Walker, GH. (2009).
“Conflicts of Interest: The implications of roadside advertising for driver attention.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 12(5), 381-388.
Wachtel, J. (2009). Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs.” American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. NCHRP Report No. 20-7(256). Berkeley, CA: The Veridian Group, Inc.
Wachtel, J. (2011) “Public Attitudes Toward Roadside Advertising Signs: Forty Years of Surveys, Interviews, and Unsolicited Opinions. Presented at: 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
Finally, although the Pacific Park Plaza sign is not related to Hilltop, except as a precedent, we received the following letter from the owner of the Pacific East Mall. He is mistaken about the process. The City Council is not going to act on April 1 to take his sign away. If the resolution passes, which is unlikely, it will be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing at a future date where there will be ample time to comment.
To: Members of the Town Council, City of Richmond
From: Terry Kwong and Terry Long, Owners and Operators of an Electronic LED Sign
at Pacific East Mall, Richmond, California
Date: March 25, 2014
Re: Proposed Resolution Submitted by Councilmember Tom Butt to the Town
Council for Consideration and a Vote on Adoption at the Forthcoming Open
Council Hearing on April 1, 2014
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Councilmembers:
I write to you as an owner/operator of the Pacific East Mall located along Route 80 in the City of Richmond and in behalf of myself and Terry Long, the two of us operating the joint venture that owns and operates the electronic LED sign. I was surprised and dismayed upon learning through an email by an informal email contact that a councilmember, Tom Butt, has been agitating to secure revocation of the permit which the joint venture that owns and operates the sign obtained nearly five years ago from the Planning Commission. To put the matter bluntly, neither Councilmember Butt, nor the Town Council (acting through staff members or the Secretary of the Council or any other official) gave me any notice that resolution by Councilmember Butt would be considered at a forthcoming April 1 hearing of the Council. It is simply fortuitous that I learned about this matter only on Tuesday, March 25, 2014, and then only through an informal source who asked me whether I had heard about this matter. I had not!
Simple due process ideas embedded in principles of fairness and in constitutional principles require that a party affected by proposed official action should be given adequate notice so that party can respond to charges that affect his interests. The resolution of Councilmember Butt's implicates forfeiture considerations that are heavily disfavored in the law.
More particularly, the revocation of the permit nearly five years earlier would serve to forfeit and utterly destroy a significant investment that my joint venture has put into this sign and impact the shopping center as well. The amount of the forfeiture would be considerable; the harm to the shopping center would be considerable.
I would like an opportunity to respond to the unwarranted and incorrect factual allegations made by Councilmember Butt; an opportunity to rebut his legal conclusions; and an opportunity to show to the Council that Councilmember Butt's resolution is a form of ambush, a sandbagging of an important constituent member of the local business community.
Having been, finally, put on notice that Councilmember Butts seeks to have the Council vote on findings of irregularity, when those proposed findings are erroneous, I request that the matter before the Council on Councilmember Butt's resolution be continued for a 45-day term. This continuance will allow me an opportunity to gather a team to put together a compelling showing as to why the predicate showing by the Councilmember is mistaken; why continuation of the sign is in the interest of the City of Richmond; and why such a resolution should be voted down altogether.
The request is modest. Simple fairness – notice and adequate opportunity to present an opposition – overwhelmingly supports the reasonableness of the request.
I or my representative will appear at the hearing on April 1 to support this request for a 45-day continuance.
Terry Kwong
|
