111721 TA2018001 BOS REPORT_PART1.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
150741 characters
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 1 of 12
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date:
November 17, 2021 (Continued from October 6, 2021)
Case #/Title:
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Supervisor District:
All
Applicant:
Becker Boards Small, LLC
Requests:
Text Amendment to amend Chapter 2, Definitions, Section
1112.7.1, Section 1301.1.21, and Chapter 14, Articles 1403 and
1404 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO)
relating to Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards).
EROP:
This item is being processed through the County’s Enhanced
Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP). This matter was most
recently discussed at the May 21, 2021 Stakeholder meeting
and the July 22, 2021 ZIPPOR meeting.
Municipal Comments:
Opposition received from City of Phoenix, City of Glendale,
the Town of Gilbert, City of Tempe, and the Town of Cave
Creek
Support/Opposition:
Approximately
500
documents
(including
some
duplicate/multiple
comments
from
individuals)
of
opposition/suggested changes to the proposed text, includes
both citizen and industry comments, to date. There are also
30 documents of support received.
Additional
Comments:
Following the 9/9/21 Commission hearing, staff notes the
following discussion points for consideration with provided
leg-edit language as applicable:
Section 201: For definition of a freeway, consider
updating language to remove the connections, and
on and off ramps as part of the freeway. This could
cause determination issues with measurements of
billboards (including digital) from freeways:
“FREEWAY
(REGARDING
OFF-SITE
ADVERTISING
(BILLBOARDS)):
For the purpose of the location of Off-Site Advertising
Signs (Billboards) only, Interstate 17 (I-17) south of
Carefree Highway, I-10, Arizona State Route (SR) Loop
101, SR Loop 202, SR Loop 303, SR 24, Northern Parkway,
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 2 of 12
and U.S. Highway 60 (U.S. 60 – Superstition Freeway),
and their connections, and on and off ramps.
Billboards are a prohibited use on any other freeway
now existing or to be constructed within the County.”
Section 201: it may be appropriate to remove listed
specific scenic corridors (although this is consistent with
the listed freeways) since new ones can be added in
the future, or to add verbiage that speaks to “existing
and any future scenic corridors adopted by the Board”
and noting the listed scenic corridors as “i.e.”. Also,
consider the inclusion of preservation for Sonoran
Desert National Monument and/or wilderness areas
along I-8 east of Gila Bend. Perhaps no billboard
permitted within a certain distance of the boundary of
a
national
monument
or
federally
designated
wilderness area.
“SCENIC CORRIDOR:
For the purpose of the location of Off-Site Advertising
Signs (Billboards), scenic corridor shall refer to the
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning Districts (as set forth in
Chapter 10) and scenic corridor district policy
guidelines (i.e. Carefree Highway, Castle Hot Springs,
McMickem Dam, Olive Avenue, El Rio, I-17 North of
Carefree Highway, and 7th Street/New River Road).
including any future scenic corridor overlay zoning
districts and policy guideline scenic corridors.”
Article 1112.7.1: keep language that is proposed to be
removed regarding automatic shut-off for upward
lighting. Consider language to read:
“Bottom-Mounted Outdoor Advertising Lighting: Any
billboard
with
lawfully
existing
bottom-mounted
upward lighting is shall be permitted to remain. but
shall be equipped with an automatic devise which
shuts off the fixture between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
sunrise. However, any future alteration to said billboard
sign or support structure shall will require the upward
lighting to be removed and replaced with downward
lighting in conformance with Article 1112.3.2. All new
billboards are required to be in conformance with
Article 1112.3.2.”
Article 1403.3.1.A.1.a & b: the final sentence of these
articles
has
grown
unnecessary
since
the
recommended language is prohibiting billboards
within scenic corridors:
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 3 of 12
“Measurement shall not cross any freeway, except
within scenic corridors.”
Article
1403.3.J.1.ii:
The
language
should
be
considered to be updated to clarify the 300’
measurement of digital billboards from freeway travel
lanes just like non-digital billboards, as well as the
orientation towards the freeway:
“Digital billboards shall be permitted if along and within
300’ of and oriented towards an existing freeway’s
main travel lanes as classified by Maricopa County as
of (DATE of Ordinance).”
Article 1403.3.J.2: The louvre technology to prevent
vertical illumination could still allow for illumination at a
15-degree angle which will enter into the nighttime
skies and is arguably more harmful to astronomical
observations than conventional external lighting
downward, shielded, etc. Consider updated methods
or verbiage to ensure that digital illumination is
directed downward below the 15-degree angle:
“Digital billboards shall include optical down angled
LED’s, and horizontal louvers (as well as vertical louvers
if within 500 feet of a residential zoning district
boundary or a residential use in a rural zoning district)
extending past the diode at a minimum of .480” to
minimize light trespass and louvers directed downward
below the 15-degree angle.”
Articles 1403.3.1.J.3 & 1403.3.1.J.5: digital images to run
a minimum 20 second duration rather than 8 seconds:
“Network time shall be made available on all digital
sign faces to federal, state, and local public safety
agencies for emergency messaging. Such messages
shall override all copy for one hour and shall then be
displayed for no fewer than eight twenty seconds in
every minute as long as needed.”
“Display time shall not change-message more than
once every eight (8) twenty (20) seconds. There shall
be no animation, flashing, blinking or moving lights. In
the transition between copy changes, there shall be
no sense of movement from one image to the next.”
Article 1403.3.1.J.6: maximum of 200 nits for digital
illumination rather than 300 nits:
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 4 of 12
“Dimmers on all digital billboards shall be set in the
evening hours (from sunset to 11:00 p.m.) not to
exceed 300 200 nits.”
Commission
Recommendation:
On 9/9/21, the Commission voted 3-2-1 to recommend
approval of TA2018001 with staff recommended changes per
paragraph 12 of the Commission staff report:
Section 201 – DEFINITIONS
FREEWAY (REGARDING OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS)):
For the purpose of the location of Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards) only, Interstate 17 (I-17)
south of Carefree Highway, I-10, Arizona State Route (SR) Loop 101, SR Loop 202, SR Loop 303,
SR 24, Northern Parkway, and U.S. Highway 60 (U.S. 60 – Superstition Freeway), and their
connections, and on and off ramps. Billboards are a prohibited use on any other freeway now
existing or to be constructed within the County
SCENIC CORRIDOR:
For the purpose of the location of Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards), scenic corridor shall refer
to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning Districts (as set forth in Chapter 10) and scenic corridor
district policy guidelines (Carefree Highway, Castle Hot Springs, McMickem Dam, Olive Avenue,
El Rio, I-17 North of Carefree Highway).
SIGN (BILLBOARD), EMBELLISHMENT:
Letters, figures, characters, or representations in cutouts, irregular forms, or similar ornamentation
attached to or superimposed upon a billboard to provide a three-dimensional effect.
SIGN, OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS):
A freestanding sign portraying information which directs attention to an idea, issue, point of
view, candidate, entity, business, commodity, service, entertainment, product or attraction sold,
offered, or existing elsewhere than upon the property where the sign is located. Billboards as
used in this this Ordinance without a modifying word shall mean both static and digital.
SIGN, OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS) – DIGITAL:
A billboard, utilizing digital message technology capable of changing the message or copy on
the sign electronically, such that, the alphabetic, pictographic, or symbolic informational
content can be changed or altered electronically on a fixed display surface composed of
electronically illuminated or electronically actuated or motivated elements. This includes
billboards with displays that have been preprogrammed to display only certain types of
information (i.e., time, date, temperature) and billboards whose informational content can be
changed or altered by means of computer-driven electronic impulses.
SIGN, OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS) – Static:
A billboard with a fixed message that changes no more than once in a 24-hour period.
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 5 of 12
SECTION 1112.7.1
1112.7.1. Bottom-Mounted Outdoor Advertising Lighting: Outdoor advertising sign boards which
exceed 301 square feet per sign face and are illuminated by an approved bottom-mounted
outdoor advertising fixture shall be equipped with an automatic device which shuts off the
fixture between midnight and sunrise. Any lawfully existing bottom mounted upward lighting is
permitted to remain. However, any alteration to said billboard will require the lighting to be
removed and replaced with downward lighting in conformance with Article 1112.3.2. All new
billboards are required to be in conformance with Article 1112.3.2.
SECTION 1301.1.21
1301.1.21. Signs for off-site advertising or for directing attention to a business, profession,
commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the
same premises (bBillboards) provided that either:
1.
The sign is a lawfully existing structure made legal-nonconforming as of [DATE] with
regard to the requirements of Chapter 14 of this Ordinance.
1.
The sign is located in a C-2, C-3, IND-2 or IND-3 zoning district.
2.
The sign may be modified or converted to digital display with special use
approval.
3.
If illuminated the sign shall be digital or lighting shall be mounted at the top of
the sign face so that it is directed downward and shielded so that it is only
illuminating the sign face.
4.
The special use may be approved without an expiration date or validity period.
1.2.
The sign is relocated from a parcel of property, located within the perimeter boundary
of Maricopa County or within the corporate boundary of a city or town located
partially within Maricopa County and partially within an adjacent county, that is
acquired by a public entity for public use by condemnation, purchase or dedication.
2.1.
The sign must be removed due to that governmental action.
3.2.
The public entity has not paid just compensation for the sign.
4.3.
The standards of the C-2 Zoning District shall apply, except that the sign shall be
permitted to remain the same size and height as the original sign to be
relocated.
5.4.
The standards of the C-2 Zoning District shall apply, except as noted above. No
further variance to the C-2 standards may be granted by either the Board of
Supervisors or the Board of Adjustment.
6.5.
Billboards may not locate in residential zoning districts; however, they may locate
in rural zoning districts.
ARTICLE 1403.3. OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS (BILLBOARDS) [C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS
ONLY]:
1403.3.1
Billboards shall be permitted uses in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts subject to the
following conditions:
A. Separation Distance:
1.
Distance from other billboards:
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 6 of 12
a.
When either an existing or proposed billboard is located three
(3) miles or greater from the boundary of any incorporated
city or town, shall maintain a radial separation distance from
any other billboard of 3,000 feet. Measurement shall be from
the vertical edge of the sign face closest to the sign face of
the structure to which is being measured. Measurement shall
not cross any freeway, except within scenic corridors.
b.
When either an existing or proposed billboard is located fewer
than three (3) miles from the boundary of any incorporated
city or town, shall maintain a radial separation distance from
any other billboard of 1,000 feet. Measurement shall be from
the vertical edge of the sign face closest to the sign face of
the structure to which is being measured. Measurement shall
not cross any freeway, except within scenic corridors.
B. Setback Requirements: There shall be a 0’ setback from any property line,
except as follows:
1.
No billboard shall be erected within 100 feet of any residential zoning
district boundary or a residential use in a rural zoning district, whether
or not separated by a public right-of-way.
2.
No illuminated billboard shall be erected within 150 feet of a
residential zoning district boundary or a residential use in a rural
zoning district (refer to Chapter 11, Section 1112).
3.
No billboard shall be erected within 500 feet of any park, school or
roadside rest area.
C.
Billboards shall not have features that emit sound or be audible in any
manner.
D.
No billboard shall be erected in or within six-hundred sixty (660) feet of a
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning District.
E.
No billboard shall be erected on any property located within any Maricopa
County Scenic Corridor.
F.
Development Standards:
1.
Billboards located greater than 300’ from of an existing freeway
a.
Shall be limited to thirty (30) feet in height inclusive of all
embellishments, lighting, and attachments.
b.
Shall be limited to three-hundred (300) square feet in sign
face area. The maximum square footage may be exceeded
by up to ten percent (10%) by use of embellishments.
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 7 of 12
2.
Billboards located within 300’ of an existing freeway:
a.
Shall be limited to forty-eight (48) feet above adjacent
grade or elevation of the main travel lanes of a freeway
immediately adjacent to sign or subject property (whichever
is greater but not to exceed 70’), inclusive of all
embellishments and attachments, excluding additional 3’ for
top-mounted lighting fixtures.
b.
Shall be limited to six hundred seventy-two (672) square feet
in sign face area. The maximum square footage of sign area
may be exceeded by up to twenty percent (20%) by use of
embellishments.
G.
A billboard may be double-faced or “V” shaped, provided the “V” shape
is designed so that there is no greater than fifty-four (54) inches between
faces at the apex and the angle between the faces of the sign is no greater
than forty-five (45) degrees.
Signs
Sign Face
(Square Feet)
Embellishments
Not within 300’
of a freeway
300*
10%
Within 300’ of a
freeway
672*
20%
* this maximum square footage applies separately to each side of a double-
faced sign
Billboards within 300’ of a Freeway
Sign Face
672 sq. ft.
48
ft
Billboards not within 300’ of a
freeway
Sign Face
300 sq. ft.
30
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 8 of 12
H.
Any modifications to a billboard within the Military Airport and Ancillary
Military Facility Overlay Zoning District shall require a new Use Compatibility
and Consistency Determination (UCCD) pursuant to Section 1010 of this
Ordinance.
I.
All lighting shall adhere to Article 1112.3.2 of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
J. General provisions applicable to digital billboards:
1.
Digital billboards shall be permitted if:
i. Located fewer than three (3) miles from the boundary of any
incorporated city or town.
ii. Digital billboards shall be permitted if along and within 300’ of an
existing freeway as classified by Maricopa County as of (DATE of
Ordinance).
2.
Digital billboards shall include optical down angled LED’s, and
horizontal louvers (as well as vertical louvers if within 500 feet of a
residential zoning district boundary or a residential use in a rural
zoning district) extending past the diode at a minimum of .480” to
minimize light trespass.
3.
Network time shall be made available on all digital sign faces to
federal, state, and local public safety agencies for emergency
messaging. Such messages shall override all copy for one hour and
shall then be displayed for no fewer than eight seconds in every
minute as long as needed.
4.
Digital billboards adhere to the provisions of Article 1401.3 of this
Chapter, except that from 11:00 p.m. until sunrise all billboards
illumination shall be extinguished, and all billboards shall be
equipped with an automatic devise to assure compliance. These
illumination requirements shall not be applicable to the display of
any Amber Alert or other governmental emergencies, or for other
emergent situations as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Further, in the event of an electronic malfunction the sign shall be
shut off until repairs have been made to restore the electronic
messaging system.
5.
Display time shall not change-message more than once every eight
(8) seconds. There shall be no animation, flashing, blinking or moving
lights. In the transition between copy changes, there shall be no
sense of movement from one image to the next.
6.
Dimmers on all digital billboards shall be set in the evening hours
(from sunset to 11:00 p.m.) not to exceed 300 nits.
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 9 of 12
7.
The digital billboard shall have an automatic turn-off mechanism in
case of malfunction.
8.
All lawfully existing static billboards on [EFFECTIVE DATE] that
become non-conforming due to Ordinance amendment on said
date may not be modified or converted to digital unless brought into
conformance with all requirements of this Ordinance; with the
exception that support columns may be relocated a maximum of
twenty feet (20’) from the existing location.
K.
A legal non-conforming sign that does not meet all requirements of this
Article may be modified or converted to digital with approval of a Special
Use Permit in accordance with Article 1301.1.21 of this Ordinance.
L.
Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall affect the existing rights of any
property granted a deviation by legislative or quasi-judicial action of
Maricopa County.
Article 1404.3
OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS (BILLBOARDS) [IND-2 AND IND-3 ZONING
DISTRICTS ONLY]
1404.3.1
Off-site advertising signs (billboards) shall be a permitted use in the IND-2 and
IND-3 zoning districts subject to all requirements set forth in Article 1403.3.1 of
this Ordinance.
ARTICLE 1403.3.
OFF-SITE SIGNS, BILLBOARDS [C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS ONLY]:
1403.3.1
Off-site signs shall be permitted uses in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts
provided each such sign shall:
1.
Maintain a distance separation from any other off-site sign of 3,000 feet
of any offsite sign on the same street when either existing or proposed
sign is located three (3) miles or greater from the boundary of any
incorporated city or town.
2.
Maintain a distance separation from any other off-site sign of 1,000 feet
of any offsite sign on the same street when either existing or proposed
signs is located fewer than three (3) miles from the boundary of any
incorporated city or town.
3
Such sign may be illuminated but no flashing, intermittent or moving
illumination shall be employed. Any lighting used shall be in
accordance with the adopted outdoor light control provisions (see
Chapter 11, Section 1112. herein). Any off premise sign within 150
feet of a rural or residential zone boundary shall be non-illuminated.
4.
Such sign shall not be located within 100 feet of any rural or
residential zoning district boundary, whether or not separated by a
public right-of-way.
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 10 of 12
5.
Such sign shall not be located within 500 feet of any park, school or
roadside rest area.
6.
Such sign shall not be audible in any manner.
7.
Special Conditions:
a.
On State Route 74 between U. S. 60-89 and Lake Pleasant
Road, no off-site signs shall be permitted within six-hundred
sixty (660) feet of said highway right-of-way.
b.
On U. S. Highway 60-89 from Estrella Freeway to Wickenburg,
no off-site signs shall be permitted within six-hundred sixty (660)
feet of said highway right-of-way.
1403.3.2.
Off-site signs in C-2 and C-3 zoning district are subject to the following
development standards:
1.
Such sign shall not exceed three-hundred
(300) square feet in area. A sign may utilize
embellishments up to of ten percent (10%) of
the sign area.
2.
Such sign shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in
height.
3.
Such sign may be double-faced or “V” shaped, provided the “V”
shape is designed so that it is no greater than fifty-four (54) inches
between faces at the apex and the angle between the faces of the
sign is no greater than forty-five (45) degrees.
4.
Shall be freestanding.
5.
Shall maintain the same property line setbacks required by the
underlying zoning district.
ARTICLE 1404.3.
OFF-SITE SIGNS, BILLBOARDS [IND-2 AND IND-3 ZONING DISTRICTS ONLY]:
1404.3.1.
Off-site signs shall be permitted uses in the IND-2 and IND-3 zoning districts
and provided each such sign shall:
1.
Maintain a distance separation from any other off-site sign of 3,000
feet of any offsite sign on the same street when either existing or
proposed sign is located three (3) miles or greater from the boundary
of any incorporated city or town.
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 11 of 12
2.
Maintain a distance separation from any other off-site sign of 1,000 feet
of any offsite sign on the same street when either existing or proposed
signs is located fewer than three (3) miles from the boundary of any
incorporated city or town.
3.
Such sign may be illuminated but no flashing, intermittent or moving
illumination shall be employed. Any lighting used shall be in
accordance with the adopted outdoor light control provisions (see
Chapter 11, Section 1112. herein).). Any off premise sign within 150 feet
of a rural or residential zone boundary shall be non-illuminated.
4.
Such sign shall not be located within 100 feet of any rural or residential
zoning district boundary, whether or not separated by a public right-
of-way.
5.
Such sign shall not be located within 500 feet of any park, school or
roadside rest area.
6.
Such sign shall not be audible in any manner.
7.
Special Conditions:
a.
On State Route 74 between U. S. 60-89 and Lake Pleasant
Road, no off-site signs shall be permitted within six-hundred
sixty (660) feet of said highway right-of-way.
b.
On U. S. Highway 60-89 from Estrella Freeway to Wickenburg,
no off-site signs shall be permitted within six-hundred sixty (660)
feet of said highway right-of-way.
1404.3.2.
Off-site signs in IND-2 and IND-3 zoning district are subject to the following
development standards:
1.
Such sign shall not exceed three-hundred
(300) square feet in area. A sign may utilize
embellishments up to of ten percent (10%)
of the sign area.
2.
Such sign shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in
height.
3.
Such sign may be double-faced or “V” shaped, provided the “V”
shape is designed so that it is no greater than fifty-four (54)
inches between faces at the apex and the angle between the faces
of the sign is no greater than forty-five (45) degrees.
November 17, 2021
TA2018001
Page 12 of 12
4.
Such sign shall be freestanding.
5.
Shall maintain the same property line setbacks as required by the
underlying zoning district.
Presented by:
Ray Banker, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren Gérard, AICP, Deputy Director
Attachments:
Additional Opposition, Support, Comments received (105 pages)
9/9/21 P&Z Packet (1,297 pages)
Note:
9/9/21 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can be
provided upon request later when available.
City of Tempe
Mail Stop 01-7
PO Box 5002
Tempe, AZ 85280
www.tempe.gov
Community Development
October 19, 2021
Ray Banker, Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
Subject: TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Dear Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al:
The City of Tempe, Community Development Department, has had the opportunity to review the proposed Code Text
Amendment affecting County properties within proximity to local municipalities. The latest review includes the proposed text
amendment language found in the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission report for the September 9, 2021
meeting.
On behalf of the City of Tempe, we are issuing this letter of concern regarding the proposed text amendment for billboards.
The City of Tempe recommends additional public outreach and input in the process that directly effects communities and
residents in proximity of County sites. Furthermore, such billboard regulations should provide a minimum 1,000 feet
separation requirement of a billboard from residential uses or districts that are within the 3-mile distance of an incorporated
city or town. It is unclear in some of the proposed language regarding the provisions for non-conforming signs to convert to
digital billboard sign. Clarification is needed that would add criteria to eliminate a request for a special use permit for a digital
billboard within the recommended residential distances, and not allow a billboard to intensify in size if such non-conforming
static billboard is currently smaller than what the new regulations would allow. An enlarged billboard should be brought into
conformance to ALL required standards of the Code, as the general premise to a non-conforming status, and not by way of a
special use permit.
Additionally, the City of Tempe has concerns that the proposed regulations could negatively affect smaller County islands
within incorporated cities or towns on a property from being part of a future annexation. Converting a static billboard into a
digital billboard places an increased value or an extended lease term that would prove to be more difficult to remove such
sign. Thus, affecting future redevelopment opportunities that would otherwise help clean up existing slum and blight from
an area.
Do not hesitate to reach out to me if you need any further clarification.
Thank you,
Ryan Levesque
Deputy Community Development Director – Planning
Community Development Department
City of Tempe
ryan_levesque@tempe.gov or 480-858-2393
From:
Kathy Semder (COA)
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Date:
Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:16:19 PM
FYI.
Thank you,
Kathy Semder
Maricopa County
O: (602) 506-8267 | E: kathy.semder@maricopa.gov
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:03 PM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA)
<Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD)
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero
(ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
TA2018001 - Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Department
Planning and Development
I would like to
Express opposition
First Name
Robert
Last Name
Ryan
Organization
Field not completed.
City
Scottsdale
Zip
85262
Email
bobryan2010@gmail.com
Phone Number
7083010536
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
Field not completed.
Comments
It must be obvious, since this proposal has been debated for
almost 3 years, that the great majority of citizens are opposed to
billboards of any type and digital billboards even more so. I have
reviewed the Becker proposal, so please provide a way that I
could review comments, emails etc. in support of this proposal in
the even that I'm not aware of the benefits this will provide to
Maricopa residents.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From:
Kathy Semder (COA)
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Date:
Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:02:58 PM
FYI…
Thank you,
Kathy Semder
Maricopa County
O: (602) 506-8267 | E: kathy.semder@maricopa.gov
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:31 AM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA)
<Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD)
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero
(ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
TA2018001 - Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Department
Planning and Development
I would like to
Express opposition
First Name
andie
Last Name
abkarian
Organization
Field not completed.
City
phoenix
Zip
85003
Email
andieabkarian@gmail.com
Phone Number
4806008826
Phone Type
Home
Would you like someone to
contact you?
No
Comments
Please DENY all elements of this text amendment. Arizona road
safety and dark skies should NOT be for sale. There is no reason
to approve this TA, other than to benefit company and county
coffers at the expense of the citizenry.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From:
michelle azretailers.com
To:
Clint Hickman (BOS); Jack Sellers (BOS); Steve Chucri (BOS); District 3; District 5
Cc:
County Managers Office; Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Digital billboards
Date:
Monday, October 4, 2021 3:22:42 PM
Attachments:
2021 Maricopa County digital billboards 2.pdf
Hello Maricopa Board of Supervisors,
Attached for your consideration is a letter written on behalf of the Arizona Retailers Association
regarding the digital billboard issue that is coming before you this week.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Michelle
Michelle Ahlmer
Arizona Retailers Association
michelle@azretailers.com
Nearly 500 people and
organizations have weighed in
with their opposition.
Now, we need you to tell the Board
of Supervisors: Vote NO on MCTA
From:
Jen Pokorski (COA)
To:
Tom Ellsworth (PND); Ray Banker (PND); Matthew Holm (PND)
Subject:
FW: Billboard Update-We Need Your Help
Date:
Monday, October 4, 2021 8:39:12 AM
From: N. Central Homeowners Association <no_reply@ncpha.org>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Carolyn Oberholtzer <coberholtzer@bfsolaw.com>
Subject: Billboard Update-We Need Your Help
2018001
A proposal written by one sign company--Becker Boards-- would change the
county's zoning code to allow for digital billboards on county lands. The biggest
beneficiary would be Becker Boards itself.
The county's Planning & Zoning Commission sent it on for a vote to
Supervisors.
WE NEED YOUR HELP. Join the nearly 500 neighbors, neighborhoods and
organizations who are pushing back to stop this egregious grab at public views.
Why are we so concerned? Because this one law, if passed, will have
a generational impact across the entire county.
FIND YOUR SUPERVISOR below.
NOTE: Once the agenda for the hearing is posted, we will send you
another email to let you know how to register to speak in opposition to
this proposal.
Here's how to oppose this awful proposal in 3 easy
steps.
To oppose the proposed text amendment to allow digital signs on county lands,
register your comments with Maricopa County Planning Department.
1. If you live in Maricopa county, send your email to your elected Supervisor on the
board of Supervisors.
2. Mention: TA 2018001 Off-site advertising signs (billboards)
3. Provide your name and contact info.
IMPORTANT: If you've already commented on this issue, thank you...but please, we need you
to SEND ANOTHER EMAIL TO SUPERVISORS.
YOUR SUPERVISOR NEEDS TO HEAR FROM VOTERS LIKE YOU.
Please forward this to like-minded friends and
colleagues to weigh in with their opposition.
Many changes proposed, all of them bad policy.
Consider these points:
The proposed TA allows billboards that are too high, too large, too bright, too close to
residential property, and too close to the freeways. These standards are less restrictive
than most of the municipalities that allow billboards.
Significant opposition has been voiced by affected municipalities representing
thousands of residents, scientific and environmental organizations, competitor
billboard companies, and from hundreds of individuals.
Some of the affected municipalities prohibit billboards of any kind. If billboards are
allowed in county islands and land bordering municipalities, the billboards will be
grandfathered in when those lands are incorporated into the cities/towns.
For several years there has increased concern about driver distraction. By their nature,
billboards are created to attract driver attention. Digital billboards are especially
distracting because of the changing images every 8 seconds and the inability for
drivers to remember information presented as text, e.g. phone numbers, web
addresses.
More billboards will proliferate along county freeways because there is no provision to
remove an existing board in exchange for constructing a new board. Municipalities
that allow digital conversion of static boards require “take down” boards.
Here is the Board of Supervisors information for easy
reference. https://www.maricopa.gov/224/Board-of-Supervisors
District 1 - Jack Sellers, Chairman
sellersj@mail.maricopa.gov
https://www.maricopa.gov/225/District-1
Cities: Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Queen Creek, Tempe, Ahwatukee
602-506-1776
District 2 - Steve Chucri* chucris@mail.maricopa.gov
https://www.maricopa.gov/235/District-2
Cities: Apache Junction, Carefree, Cave Creek, Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, Fountain Hills, Gilbert, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Salt
River Pima - Maricopa Indian Community
602-506-7431
*Chucri has resigned, effective November 5, 2021; he will probably vote on this
if it is not remanded to the Planning and Zoning Commission
District 3 - Bill Gates, Vice Chairman
district3@mail.maricopa.gov
https://www.maricopa.gov/247/District-3
Cities: Anthem, Desert Hills, New River, Paradise Valley, Phoenix
602-506-7562
District 4 - Clint Hickman
chickman@mail.maricopa.gov
https://www.maricopa.gov/260/District-4
Cities: Avondale, Buckeye, El Mirage, Glendale, Goodyear, Litchfield Park,
Peoria, Sun City, Sun City West, Surprise, Wickenburg, Youngtown
602-506-7642
District 5 - Steve Gallardo
district5@mail.maricopa.gov
https://www.maricopa.gov/271/District-5
Cities: Avondale, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Gila River Indian Community, Glendale,
Goodyear, Guadalupe, Phoenix, Tolleson
602-506-7092
Other resources
Sending your comments
Below is a sample opposition email you can send. We encourage you to add your
own personal thoughts:
Supervisors:
Please register my opposition to the Text Amendment (TA) - TA2018001 –
Off-site Advertising (Billboards).
This TA seeks to permit billboards across county lands, allowing these signs to
be as high as 80 feet tall, as close as 500 feet apart and as near as 150 feet
from residential property.
Most significantly, this proposed TA would allow digital billboards within the
county. Currently the county does not allow this use. This would be a major
increase in intensity and use with messaging changing as often as 8 seconds
on digital faces double the size of current billboards.
If approved, the process for challenging a billboard would be just one public
hearing. Residents and other stakeholders deserve a fair and open process to
voice our concerns to the county.
I do not want intrusive light to trespass into residential areas. I do not want to
see more billboards on our highways distracting drivers and compromising
driver safety. I do not want advertising technology to rob our public views and
beautiful scenery during the day and our dark skies at night.
Please reject the proposed Text Amendment – TA2018001.
Thank you.
Name
Address
REMINDER: The next public hearing for this proposed change
will be on Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 9:30 am.We will
send you another email prior to the meeting to let you know
about how to register to speak at the hearing. If you have any
questions about this topic, please email us
at: savemaricopacountydarkskies@gmail.com
Find us on Facebook at
www.facebook.com/badbillboardpolicy
Copyright © 2021 North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you were previously subscribed, or recently subscribed through
ncpha.org.
NCPHA.ORG
Our mailing address is:
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
24 W Camelback Rd A560
Phoenix, AZ 85013
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
From:
Kathy Semder (COA)
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Date:
Friday, October 1, 2021 4:15:16 PM
FYI.
Thank you,
Kathy Semder
Maricopa County
O: (602) 506-8267 | E: kathy.semder@maricopa.gov
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:12 PM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA)
<Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD)
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero
(ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
TA2018001 - Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Department
Planning and Development
I would like to
Express opposition
First Name
Jacklyn
Last Name
gamble
Organization
Field not completed.
City
phoenix
Zip
85016
Email
1jacklyng@gmail.com
Phone Number
6027020414
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
No
Comments
Please reject the proposed Text Amendment TA2018001.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 400
Phoenix, AZ 85016
2390 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 204
Phoenix, AZ 85016
September 28, 2021
Via First Class Mail and Email:
Becker Boards, LLC
Attn: Mark Becker
4234 E. Indian School Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Re: Proposed Maricopa County Text Amendment
Dear Mark,
Both of us have expressed to you that we would like to support your proposed Text Amendment to
convert both non-conforming and conforming Board to digital, but that we are concerned with the lack of
transparency and likely unintended consequences of the current proposal. However, we are both willing
to support this amendment with the following changes:
Require a Special Use Permit process for any conversion, ensuring a public, transparent process,
that considers the input from the affected stakeholders;
Provide notice of the request to any City or Town within 3 miles thirty days prior to the first
public hearing;
Increase the separation from residential to a digital billboard from 100 to 500 feet.
Attached please find a redline of your Amendment that incorporates these changes. We hope that you are
willing to accept these changes, as we feel requiring a transparent, public process, that better protects
residential development and incorporates the input from the future governing Town or City, is better
public policy for Maricopa County.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Brent Wood
Director of Real Estate & Governmental Affairs
Diane Veres
Regional President - Southwest
CC:
Taylor Earl
Charles Huellmantel
Wendy Riddell
Tom Ellsworth
Jen Pokorski
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 1 of 7
Section 201 – DEFINITIONS
FREEWAY (REGARDING OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS)):
For the purpose of the location of Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards) only, Interstate 17 (I-17)
south of Carefree Highway, I-10, Arizona State Route (SR) Loop 101, SR Loop 202, SR Loop 303, SR
24, Northern Parkway, and U.S. Highway 60 (U.S. 60 – Superstition Freeway), and their connections,
and on and off ramps. Billboards are a prohibited use on future freeways within the County.
SCENIC CORRIDOR:
For the purpose of the location of Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards), scenic corridor shall refer
to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning Districts (as set forth in Chapter 10) and scenic corridor
district policy guidelines (Carefree Highway, Castle Hot Springs, McMickem Dam, Olive Avenue, El
Rio, I-17 North of Carefree Highway).
SIGN (BILLBOARD), EMBELLISHMENT:
Letters, figures, characters, or representations in cutouts, irregular forms, or similar ornamentation
attached to or superimposed upon a billboard to provide a three-dimensional effect.
SIGN, OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS):
A freestanding sign portraying information which directs attention to an idea, issue, point of view,
candidate, entity, business, commodity, service, entertainment, product or attraction sold,
offered, or existing elsewhere than upon the property where the sign is located. Billboards as used
in this this Ordinance without a modifying word shall mean both static and digital.
SIGN, OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS) – DIGITAL:
A billboard, utilizes digital message technology capable of changing the message or copy on the
sign electronically, such that, the alphabetic, pictographic, or symbolic informational content can
be changed or altered electronically on a fixed display surface composed of electronically
illuminated or electronically actuated or motivated elements. This includes billboards with displays
that have been preprogrammed to display only certain types of information (i.e., time, date,
temperature) and billboards whose informational content can be changed or altered by means
of computer-driven electronic impulses.
SIGN, OFF-SITE ADVERTISING (BILLBOARDS) – Static:
A billboard with a fixed message that changes no more than once in a 24-hour period.
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 2 of 7
SECTION 1112.7.1
1112.7.1. Bottom-Mounted Outdoor Advertising Lighting: Outdoor advertising sign boards which
exceed 301 square feet per sign face and are illuminated by an approved bottom-mounted
outdoor advertising fixture shall be equipped with an automatic device which shuts off the fixture
between midnight and sunrise. Any billboard with lawfully existing bottom-mounted lighting as of
[DATE] shall be brought into conformance with Article 1112.3.2 of this Ordinance by no later than
[SIX YEARS AFTER TA2018001 APPROVAL].
SECTION 1301.1.21
1301.1.21. Signs for off-site advertising or for directing attention to a business, profession,
commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the
same premises (bBillboards) provided that either ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE SIGN IS A DIGITAL DISPLAY AND FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 14
OF THIS ORDINANCE.
1. The sign is located in a C-2, C-3, IND-2 or IND-3 zoning district.
2. The special use may be approved without an expiration date or validity period.
12. The sign is a lawfully existing structure made legal-nonconforming as of [DATE] with regard
to the requirements of Chapter 14 of this Ordinance.
1. The sign is located in a C-2, C-3, IND-2 or IND-3 zoning district.
2. The sign may be modified or converted to digital display with special use approval.
3. If illuminated the sign shall be digital or lighting shall be mounted at the top of the sign
face so that it is directed downward and shielded so that it is only illuminating the sign
face.
4. The special use may be approved without an expiration date or validity period.
1.2 3. The sign is relocated from a parcel of property, located within the perimeter boundary of
Maricopa County or within the corporate boundary of a city or town located partially within
Maricopa County and partially within an adjacent county, that is acquired by a public entity for
public use by condemnation, purchase or dedication.
2.1. The sign must be removed due to that governmental action.
3.2. The public entity has not paid just compensation for the sign.
4.3. The standards of the C-2 Zoning District shall apply, except that the sign shall be
permitted to remain the same size and height as the original sign.
5.4. The standards of the C-2 Zoning District shall apply, except as noted above. No
further variance to the C-2 standards may be granted by either the Board of Supervisors
or the Board of Adjustment.
6.5. Billboards may not locate in residential zoning districts; however, they may locate in
rural zoning districts.
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 3 of 7
ARTICLE 1403.3. OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS (BILLBOARDS) [C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS
ONLY]:
1403.3.1
Billboards shall be permitted uses in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts subject to the
following conditions:
A. Separation Distance:
1.
Distance from other billboards:
a.
When either an existing or proposed billboard is located three
(3) miles or greater from the boundary of any incorporated city
or town, shall maintain a radial separation distance from any
other billboard of 3,000 feet. Measurement shall be from the
vertical edge of the sign face closest to the sign face of the
structure to which is being measured. Measurement shall not
cross any freeway, except within scenic corridors.
b.
When either an existing or proposed billboard is located fewer
than three (3) miles from the boundary of any incorporated city
or town, shall maintain a radial separation distance from any
other billboard of 1,000 feet. Measurement shall be from the
vertical edge of the sign face closest to the sign face of the
structure to which is being measured. Measurement shall not
cross any freeway, except within scenic corridors.
B. Setback Requirements: There shall be a 0’ setback from any property line,
except as follows:
1.
No billboard shall be erected within 100 500 feet of any residential
zoning district boundary or a residential use in a rural zoning district,
whether or not separated by a public right-of-way.
2.
No illuminated billboard shall be erected within 150 500 feet of
a residential zoning district boundary or a residential use in a rural zoning
district (refer to Chapter 11, Section 1112).
3.
No billboard shall be erected within 500 feet of any park, school or
roadside rest area.
C.
Billboards shall not be audible in any manner.
D.
No billboard shall be erected in or within six-hundred sixty (660) feet of a
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 4 of 7
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoning District.
E.
No billboard shall be erected on any property located within any Maricopa
County Scenic Corridor.
F.
Development Standards:
1.
Billboards located greater than 300’ from of an existing freeway
a.
Shall be limited to thirty (30) feet in height inclusive of all
embellishments, lighting, and attachments.
b.
Shall be limited to three-hundred (300) square feet in sign face
area. The maximum square footage may be exceeded by up
to ten percent (10%) by use of embellishments.
2.
Billboards located within 300’ of an existing freeway:
a.
Shall be limited to forty-eight (48) feet above adjacent grade
or elevation of the main travel lanes of a freeway or subject
property (whichever is greater but not to exceed 70’), inclusive
of all embellishments and attachments, excluding additional
3’ for top-mounted lighting fixtures.
b.
Shall be limited to six hundred seventy-two (672) square feet in
sign face area. The maximum square footage of sign area may
be exceeded by up to twenty percent (20%) by use of
embellishments.
G.
A billboard may be double-faced or “V” shaped, provided the “V” shape
is designed so that there is no greater than fifty-four (54) inches between
faces at the apex and the angle between the faces of the sign is no greater
than forty-five (45) degrees.
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 5 of 7
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 6 of 7
H.
Any modifications to a billboard within the Military Airport and Ancillary
Military Facility Overlay Zoning District shall require a new Use Compatibility
and Consistency Determination (UCCD) pursuant to Section 1010 of this
Ordinance.
I.
All lighting shall adhere to Article 1112.3.2 of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
J. General provisions applicable to digital billboards:
1.
Digital billboards shall be permitted if:
i. Located fewer than three (3) miles from the boundary of any
incorporated city or town.
ii. Along a freeway as classified by Maricopa County as of (DATE of
Ordinance).
iii. APPROVED THROUGH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 1301.1.21 OF THIS ORDINANCE, WITH
NOTICE BEING SENT THROUGH FIRST CLASS MAIL TO CITIES AND TOWNS
WITHIN THREE (3) MILES OF THE REQUESTED LOCATION AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.
2. Digital billboards shall include optical down angled LED’s, and
horizontal louvers (as well as vertical louvers if within 500 feet of a
residential zoning district boundary or a residential use in a rural zoning
district) extending past the diode at a minimum of .480” to minimize light
trespass.
3. Network time shall be made available on all digital sign faces to federal,
state, and local public safety agencies for emergency messaging. Such
messages shall override all copy for one hour and shall then be displayed
for no fewer than eight seconds in every minute as long as needed.
4. Such billboard adheres to the provisions of Article 1401.3 of this Chapter,
except that from 11:00 p.m. until sunrise all billboards illumination shall be
extinguished, and all billboards shall be equipped with an automatic
devise to assure compliance. These illumination requirements shall not be
applicable to the display of any Amber Alert or other governmental
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Page 7 of 7
emergencies, or for other emergent situations as determined by the
Zoning Administrator. Further, in the event of an electronic malfunction
the sign shall be shut off until repairs have been made to restore the
electronic messaging system.
5. Minimal display time shall not change-message more than once every
eight (8) seconds. There shall be no animation, flashing, blinking or moving
lights. In the transition between copy changes, there shall be no sense of
movement from one image to the next.
6. Dimmers on all digital billboards shall be set in the evening hours (from
sunset to 11:00 p.m.) not to exceed 300 nits.
7. The digital billboard shall have an automatic turn-off mechanism in case
of malfunction.
8. EXCEPT AS STATED IN 1403.3.1.J.9 OF THIS ORDINANCE, AAll lawfully
existing static billboards on [EFFECTIVE DATE] that become non-
conforming due to Ordinance amendment on said date may not be
modified or converted to digital unless brought into conformance with all
requirements of this Ordinance; with the exception that support columns
may be relocated a maximum of twenty feet (20’) from the existing
location.
9. A legal non-conforming sign that does not meet all requirements of this
Article may be converted to digital with approval of a Special Use Permit
in accordance with Article 1301.1.21 of this Ordinance, PROVIDED NOTICE
IS SENT THROUGH FIRST CLASS MAIL TO CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN THREE (3)
MILES OF THE REQUESTED LOCATION AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO
THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.
10. Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall affect the rights of any property
granted a deviation by legislative or quasi-judicial action of Maricopa
County.
Article 1404.3
OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS (BILLBOARDS) [IND-2 AND IND-3 ZONING DISTRICTS
ONLY]
1404.3.1
Off-site advertising signs (billboards) shall be a permitted use in the IND-2 and
IND-3 zoning districts subject to all requirements set forth in Article 1403.3.1 of
this Ordinance.
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Date:
Friday, September 24, 2021 2:17:12 PM
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 2:10 PM
To: PND PZAppeal <PNDPZAppeal@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Appeal Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
However, if this appeal form is received within 15 calendar days following
Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda
for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Name
Neal Haddad
Email Address
neal.haddad@gmail.com
Address
Field not completed.
City
Field not completed.
State
Field not completed.
Zip Code
Field not completed.
Phone Number
602.684.3889
Fax Number
Field not completed.
Case Number / Project
Name
TA 2018001
Planning & Zoning
Commission Hearing Date
9.9.2021
Reason for the Appeal of
the Subject Case
The Board of Supervisors may not consider the Text Amendment
(MCTA2018001-billboards), or must remand this matter back to
the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), because the PZC
action is arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the
procedure required by state law and by the PZC’s own By Laws,
and therefore is null and void, not ripe for consideration by the
Board of Supervisors, and not properly before the Board of
Supervisors for a vote on the Text Amendment. The PZC
decision was also unsupported by substantial evidence because
it failed to even consider several substantive points raised by
opponents Here is a further explanation of the first point.
NOTE: the County's appeal form system apparently does not
allow me to submit my 636 word appeal request. Therefore, I am
sending just the first paragraph of our reason for appeal (above)
and sending a copy of the entire statement to Senior Planner
Ray Banker for inclusion of our appeal into the file.
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree.
Electronic Signature
Neal Haddad
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Appeal to Maricopa County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
RE: MCTA 2018001 billboard
Submitted 9.24.21 by Neal Haddad and Paul Barnes
The Board of Supervisors may not consider the Text Amendment (MCTA2018001-billboards), or must
remand this matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), because the PZC action is
arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the procedure required by state law and by the
PZC’s own By Laws, and therefore is null and void, not ripe for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors, and not properly before the Board of Supervisors for a vote on the Text Amendment. The
PZC decision was also unsupported by substantial evidence because it failed to even consider several
substantive points raised by opponents Here is a further explanation of the first point.
The County Attorney correctly stated that a quorum of the PZC is 6 members. See ARS 11-802.D ("each
county planning and zoning commission shall consist of ten members") and ARS 11-802.K ("a majority of
the commission constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business"). In this matter, only 5 members
of the PZC were actually present and voted on the Text Amendment because one member recused
himself due to a conflict of interest and he did not vote -- in fact, he recused himself even before any
discussion of the Text Amendment, there is no indication that he was "present" during the discussion of
the Text Amendment, and he came back only when the vote was taken so that he could be present at
the moment that the other members voted. He did not vote at all, not even abstain; he simply was
"present" when they voted.
In light of what happened regarding the "recused" member, there is a fundamental question about
whether the "recused" member can be counted for establishing a quorum. See By Laws, Article II,
Section 7(a) ("All references herein to a majority of the Commission shall mean a majority of the
Commissioners present and voting, unless otherwise specifically stated in these By Laws or specifically
required by statute or ordinance (unless a majority vote of the entire commission is required by the
provisions of these by laws)." Because the "recused" member was not "present and voting," he should
not be considered to determine a quorum, and thus there were only 5 PZC members to be counted,
which is not a majority -- because, as the County Attorney said, 6 is a majority, and 6 constitutes a
quorum. There was no quorum, and therefore no basis for action by the PZC. The Board of Supervisors
must send the Text Amendment back to the PZC to be voted on at a meeting at which there is a quorum
because 6 PZC members are “present and voting".
The County Attorney referred to Robert's Rules of Order, which he said allows the recused member to
be counted towards a quorum -- the five voting-members plus the "recused" present-members add up
to 6 members. But even if Robert's Rules would count the "recused" member, Robert's Rules cannot
override other parts of the By Laws or state law. See Bylaw’s Article II, Section 11(a).
Finally, even if the "recused" member can be counted to establish a quorum of 6, the Text Amendment
was not voted on by a majority of the PZC members (only 5 voted) and it did not receive a majority vote
of the 6 PZC members (it received only 3 votes in favor, not 4 votes -- which would be a majority of the
quorum of 6 members). This action by the PZC cannot be considered an "official action" and cannot be
considered as such by the Board of Supervisors. See By Laws, Article II, Section 7(a) (" a majority vote of
the quorum shall be required for any official action"). Because there was no "official action", the Board
of Supervisors must send this Text Amendment back to the PZC for "official action."
1 | P a g e
INTER-AGENCY COMMUNICATION
DATE:
September 22, 2021
TO:
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Mayor Brigette Peterson, Town of Gilbert
SUBJECT:
Case TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the pending text amendment relating to Off-Site
Advertising Signs (Billboards) as proposed in Case # TA2018001.
The Town previously sent comments on May 22, 2019, June 16, 2019, and September 9, 2021. Although
some changes to the text amendment have been made, many of the Town’s concerns remain.
A significant number of designated “County Islands” exist within Gilbert’s Planning Boundary and the passage
of such an amendment would adversely affect the surrounding residents, travelling public and the vision of
our Town.
For the following reasons, the Town of Gilbert strongly recommends denial of Case # TA2018001:
•
Offsite Commercial Signs (billboards) are prohibited in the Town of Gilbert. The Gilbert sign code also
has strict regulations with respect to sign illumination and animation. The Town requests County
Islands located within the perimeter boundary of a municipality which prohibits Offsite Commercial
Signs, be excluded from the provisions of this text amendment;
•
The proposed sign regulation would cause a proliferation of digital billboards, which are excessive in
height and size (area), and would increase visual clutter, produce light pollution, distract motorists,
obstruct adjacent land uses and signs, block the scenic views of the surrounding environment, and
detract from the night sky;
•
The proposed sign regulation permits existing, non-conforming billboards to convert to digital
billboards. Enhancements to non-conformities are in opposition to most zoning regulations that allow
the non-conformity to continue only in its present form and scope. Drawing more attention to a non-
conforming billboard by converting it to digital is not supported by the Town, nor is the requirement
that a decorative pole cover identifying the nearest city be included in the conversion to digital. Not
only could this unnecessarily enhance a non-conformity, it may also unacceptably “advertise” the
nearest city on land, such as a County Island, that is not within the City. The Town requests existing,
non-conforming billboards to be excluded from being able to conduct the enhancements enabled by
the proposal;
•
The provisions set forth in Article 1112.3.2 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance do not establish
enforceable trespass standards. The Town requests the inclusion of specific light trespass standards
2 | P a g e
and strongly recommends a maximum luminance of 0.3-foot candles, measured at the property line,
be included with this text amendment. In areas zoned for any type of residential occupation (including
parks), a trespass limit of 0.1 foot-candles should be enforced, at the property line;
•
The proposed sign regulation would result in increased pressure from advertisement companies to
utilize all available County Islands within Gilbert to erect digital billboards because of the financial
incentive created by this text amendment. The proposed sign regulation would essentially create a
“gold rush” and potentially cause Gilbert to be inundated with unsightly billboards that our residents
have specifically prohibited;
•
The proposed sign regulation would inappropriately incentivize property owners to rezone their
unincorporated property to the County’s C-2, C-3, IND-2, or IND-3 zoning districts in order to capitalize
on the expected demand from advertising companies;
•
The 150’ distancing requirement for illuminated billboards, when adjacent to a residential zoning
district, would reasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the nearby properties. The Town
requests increasing the distance requirement to 500’, when adjacent to residential, to match the
proposed distance requirements to parks and schools;
•
Any proposed standards to regulate billboards should prohibit them along local freeways, limit the
hours of operation, and only allow placement where they can appropriately fit in the landscape.
For the above reasons and the fact that this amendment has received an enormous amount of opposition
from jurisdictions, professional organizations and citizens, the Town of Gilbert strongly urges the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors to recommend denial of Case TA2018001.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mayor Brigette Peterson
From:
Joann Simpson
To:
Courtney Dykstra
Cc:
Mark Becker; Joseph White; William E. Lally; Jacob Zonn; Darren V. Gérard (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: Maricopa County Digital Billboard Ordinance
Date:
Thursday, September 23, 2021 5:45:56 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Thank you for your response to my concerns. I, however, remain opposed to the proposal for
digital billboard marketing in unincorporated areas of Maricopa County.
Kind regards,
JoAnn Simpson
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 1:08 PM Courtney Dykstra <cdykstra@beckerboards.com> wrote:
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Courtney Dykstra
Business Development Manager
Becker Boards
Office 602-732-2884 | Cell 480-252-1275 | Fax 602 368-4358
Los Angeles I Miami I Phoenix I San Francisco
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Date:
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:47:01 PM
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:35 PM
To: PND PZAppeal <PNDPZAppeal@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Appeal Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
However, if this appeal form is received within 15 calendar days following
Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda
for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Name
Lisa M. Perez
Email Address
lisaperez5@cox.net
Address
7139 W Forest Grove Avenue
City
Phoenix
State
AZ
Zip Code
85043
Phone Number
6025764792
Fax Number
Field not completed.
Case Number / Project
Name
TA2018001
Planning & Zoning
Commission Hearing Date
September 9, 2021
Reason for the Appeal of
the Subject Case
I am appealing the decision of the Maricopa County Planning and
Zoning Commission regarding TA2018001. The vote was
surprising considering the substantial evidence presented on the
process, dark skies, blight, and distracted driving. The facts as
well as the overwhelming show of opposition from residents of
the County - including those in the outdoor advertising industry -
need to be heard at the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Electronic Signature
Agreement
Field not completed.
Electronic Signature
Lisa M Perez
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Maricopa Planning Commission 9.9.21, Agenda item #4. Case # TA2018001
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 6:29:47 AM
From: Tom Mozdzen <tjmozdzen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Maricopa Planning Commission 9.9.21, Agenda item #4. Case # TA2018001
I am opposed to TA2018001, digital billboards, scheduled to be heard on 9.9.21, agenda item #4
Becker Boards has violated laws regarding their existing billboards, and I have no reason to doubt
they will continue to do this if allowed to erect even more billboards.
Tom Mozdzen
.
Lowell Observatory
University of Arizona
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
Planetary Sciences Department
Kitt Peak National Observatory
Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory
Vatican Observatory
September 8, 2021
Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o Maricopa County Planning Staff
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re: September 9th Meeting Agenda Item #6 — TA2018001 — Off-site
Advertising (Billboards) Draft Ordinance
via electronic mail to: ray.banker@maricopa.gov; rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov
Dear Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commissioners,
As representatives of the professional observatories in the State of Arizona, we are opposed to
the major revisions proposed in the Text Amendment (TA2018001) of Chapter 2, Definitions,
and Chapter 14, Articles 1403 and 1404 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO)
relating to Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards).
As a reminder, Arizona hosts the world’s largest optical telescope and 10% of all the world’s
largest telescopes. The Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the
Smithsonian Institution, US Navy, and NASA, along with US universities and foreign
institutions, invest tens of millions of dollars annually in the operation and upgrade of the
Arizona observatories. ASU, UA and NAU all have major programmatic and financial
involvement in those telescopes. A basis for their long-term scientific investment strategy is
their perception of the commitment of local government to protecting that national and
international investment.
The proposed revisions to TA2018001 include a provision to allow conventional billboards to
be converted to digital billboards (also referred to as electronic message displays or EMDs),
which are particularly damaging to dark skies at observatory sites. State statute bans digital
billboards near scenic corridors precisely because their operation is so detrimental to dark sky
preservation. Allowing electronic displays in billboards countywide runs contrary to past
involvement of the major astronomical observatories with Maricopa County.
All current EMD technologies directly radiate at least 30-percent of the light above horizontal—
with the newer technology proposed for the ordinance with small louvers limited to ~15
degrees. The light radiated directly within 20 degrees above horizontal is shown in the
published literature and cited in professional lighting engineering guidance to be the strongest
contributor to artificial sky glow at observatories impacted by the urban area. For that reason,
luminaires have generally been required to emit no light above horizontal since the first lighting
codes in the 1970s, and current state statutes ban EMDs as billboards in much of Arizona.
Lowell Observatory
University of Arizona
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
Planetary Sciences Department
Kitt Peak National Observatory
Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory
Vatican Observatory
We propose to work with you on a strategic approach to arrest the growth of artificial sky glow
from Maricopa County. The protection of the natural desert sky would benefit not only
astronomy but also tourism and residential property values, core elements of the economic
vitality of Arizona and all of its cities and counties.
Dr. Richard F. Green
Dr. Lori Allen
Assistant Director for Government Relations
Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory
Steward Observatory
NSF’s National Optical-Infrared Astronomy
University of Arizona
Research Laboratory
Ms. Amy C. Oliver, FRAS
Dr. G. Grant Williams
Public & Government Affairs Officer
Director, MMT Observatory
Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Dr. Donald R. Davis
Fr. Paul Gabor, S.J., Ph.D.
Director Emeritus
Vice-Director, Vatican Observatory
Planetary Science Institute
Dr. Jeffrey C. Hall
Dr. Christian Veillet
Director
Director, Large Binocular Telescope
Lowell Observatory
Observatory
Dr. Stephen Larson
Dr. Rolf A. Jansen
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory
School of Earth & Space Exploration
University of Arizona
Arizona State University
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Case Number TA2018001 - Agenda Item #4 | Hearing Date - September 9, 2021
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 6:34:00 AM
From: Sandra Sanford <sanford1991@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:29 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Case Number TA2018001 - Agenda Item #4 | Hearing Date - September 9, 2021
Dear Ms. Applegate,
I’m writing in OPPOSITION to billboards (any kind) on the 202 South Mountain Freeway in Laveen.
I am unable to make the above meeting, but would like my opposition noted and documented.
I very much appreciate your time and attention.
Regards,
Sandra Sanford
7228 W. Darrow St
Laveen AZ 85339
602.384.0617
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 6:34:16 AM
From: David Simper <spalovna@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:12 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Dear Ms. Applegate,
The Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission must vote NO on Text Amendment
TA2018001.
This amendment to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance would radically alter our outdoor
advertising laws, and would allow a proliferation of digital billboards across our county. This
amendment would lead to an increase in light pollution, visual blight, and distracted driving, and
would degrade our roadways, neighborhoods, and communities. The people of Maricopa County
came out strongly against this proposal when it first appeared in 2019, and we remain firm in our
opposition to these changes. Please don't let digital billboards ruin the quality of life in our county.
Thank you for taking action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
David Simper
11065 E Rosemary Ln
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
1 | P a g e
INTER-AGENCY COMMUNICATION
DATE:
September 9, 2021
TO:
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Kyle Mieras, AICP, Development Services Director
Eva Cutro, AICP, Planning Manager
Josh Rogers, Planner II
SUBJECT:
Case TA2018001 – Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the pending text amendment to Chapter 2, Definitions
and Chapter 14, Articles 1403 and 1404 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO), relating to Off-
Site Advertising Signs (Billboards) as proposed in Case # TA2018001.
The Town previously sent comments on May 22, 2019 and June 16, 2019. Since that time the proposed text
amendment has been revised and the Town has completed a subsequent review. Although some changes to
the text amendment have been made, many of the Town’s concerns remain.
A significant number of designated “County Islands” exist within Gilbert’s Planning Boundary and the passage
of such an amendment would adversely affect the surrounding residents, travelling public and the vision of
the Town.
For the following reasons, the Town of Gilbert strongly recommends denial of Case # TA2018001:
•
Offsite Commercial Signs (billboards) are prohibited in the Town of Gilbert. The Gilbert sign code also
has strict regulations with respect to sign illumination and animation. The Town requests County
Islands located within the perimeter boundary of a municipality which prohibits Offsite Commercial
Signs, be excluded from the provisions of this text amendment;
•
The proposed sign regulation would cause a proliferation of digital billboards, which are excessive in
height and size (area), and would increase visual clutter, produce light pollution, distract motorists,
obstruct adjacent land uses and signs, block the scenic views of the surrounding environment, and
detract from the night sky;
•
The proposed sign regulation permits existing, non-conforming billboards to convert to digital
billboards. Enhancements to non-conformities are in opposition to most zoning regulations that allow
the non-conformity to continue only in its present form and scope. Drawing more attention to a non-
conforming billboard by converting it to digital is not supported by the Town, nor is the requirement
that a decorative pole cover identifying the nearest city be included in the conversion to digital. Not
only could this unnecessarily enhance a non-conformity, it may also unacceptably “advertise” the
nearest city on land, such as a County Island, that is not within the City. The Town requests existing,
2 | P a g e
non-conforming billboards to be excluded from being able to conduct the enhancements enabled by
the proposal;
•
The provisions set forth in Article 1112.3.2 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance do not establish
enforceable trespass standards. The Town requests the inclusion of specific light trespass standards
and strongly recommends a maximum luminance of 0.3-foot candles, measured at the property line,
be included with this text amendment. In areas zoned for any type of residential occupation (including
parks), a trespass limit of 0.1 foot-candles should be enforced, at the property line;
•
The proposed sign regulation would result in increased pressure from advertisement companies to
utilize all available County Islands within Gilbert to erect digital billboards because of the financial
incentive created by this text amendment. The proposed sign regulation would essentially create a
“gold rush” and potentially cause Gilbert to be inundated with unsightly billboards that our residents
have specifically prohibited;
•
The proposed sign regulation would inappropriately incentivize property owners to rezone their
unincorporated property to the County’s C-2, C-3, IND-2, or IND-3 zoning districts in order to capitalize
on the expected demand from advertising companies;
•
The 150’ distancing requirement for illuminated billboards, when adjacent to a residential zoning
district, would reasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the nearby properties. The Town
requests increasing the distance requirement to 500’, when adjacent to residential, to match the
proposed distance requirements to parks and schools;
•
Any proposed standards to regulate billboards should prohibit them along local freeways, limit the
hours of operation, and only allow placement where they can appropriately fit in the landscape.
For the above reasons, the Town of Gilbert strongly urges the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning
Commission to recommend denial of Case TA2018001.
Thank you for your consideration.
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Case TA2018001, Agenda Item #44, 9/9/2021 meeting - comment in OPPOSITION
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:17:17 AM
From: clarke.robinaugh <clarke.robinaugh@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:13 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Case TA2018001, Agenda Item #44, 9/9/2021 meeting - comment in OPPOSITION
My name is Rebecca Clarke Robinaugh. I am a resident of Laveen, Arizona, and wish to register my
voice in opposition to the digital billboards (Billboard Text Amendment). I am especially opposed to
the larger size, the extra height, and the digital nature of these billboards.
This will negatively impact the beauty and rural feel of the Laveen community. It is important to
recognize that many homes are located and being built near the 202, and this creates an eyesore for
this beautiful community. Further, billboards - especially digital billboards - contribute to distracted
driving. This is completely counter to our state's actions to reduce distracted driving by passing laws
prohibiting texting while driving and other driver actions. A digital billboard is, by its very nature,
meant to catch the attention of drivers. When are we going to hold businesses to the same
standards that we value for our communities?
I have a 15-year old daughter who gets her permit this month. She is one of many students that
attend Betty Fairfax High School, right off Baseline and the 202, and many of these young high
school students who are new drivers will pass these digital billboards daily. This is not the place.
Please do not allow these billboards, as they provide no benefit to the Laveen community, but rather
negate the beauty and create a safety issue for our residents. Help us maintain the greatness that is
Laveen.
Thank you,
Rebecca Clarke Robinaugh
520-975-4711
5436 W. Chuck Box Rd
Laveen, AZ 85339
Clarke.robinaugh@yahoo.com
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Digital Billboards
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 10:39:33 AM
From: Curtis Arnett <curtisarnett@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:58 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Digital Billboards
It is my understanding that the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission will today hold a
hearing on a proposal by Becker Boards to allow static billboard to be converted to digital billboards
in some parts of the unincorporated areas of the County.
This is to express opposition to that proposal.
Maricopa County should be moving toward less light pollution and should not be taking steps that go
in the opposite direction.
Curtis Arnett
President, Wickenburg Dark Sky Association, Inc.
From:
Kathy Semder (COA)
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:27:29 AM
Thank you,
Kathy Semder
Ombudsman
602-506-8267
Kathy.Semder@maricopa.gov
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:23 AM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA)
<Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (OBM)
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (OBM) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca
Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
TA2018001 - Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Department
Planning and Development
I would like to
Express opposition
First Name
Claude
Last Name
Haynes
Organization
East Valley Astronomy Club
Gilbert
City
Zip
85234
Email
azstargeazer@gmail.com
Phone Number
4802215792
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
No
Comments
There is a mis-conception in the text of the proposed
amendment. The diagram on page 5 that shows billboards at 300
sq ft. as the norm on arterial streets is not the norm. Becker
boards has a total of 8 signs this size in Sun City and Mirage.
The vast majority of signs not along the freeway are greater than
301 sq ft. Many of them are 14x48, or 672 sq ft. This is about
normalizing large billboards, many of them located along arterial
streets.
To that point, the addition of text to neutralize Section 1112.7.1 of
the Maricopa County General Code is an outrageous attempt to
no longer require signs greater than 301 sq ft (almost the entire
inventory of Becker Boards and other sign companies) to go dark
after midnight. This wording should not be replaced with a free
pass to be non-compliant for up to six years. This is a prime
example of why ordinances written by vendors to control their
own industries must be carefully reviewed. Please do not legalize
bad behavior. Do not accept the recommendation to strike out a
current lighting requirement.
I am also curious why most new static billboards erected are
NON-COMPLIANT. The example would be newer boards
erected by Becker Boards along I-10 between 75th and 83rd Ave
with parings of Digital and Static billboards. The static portion of
these boards is lit from below. If the standard is for lighting from
above – why are newer boards continuing to be permitted with
non-compliant lighting from below? I would encourage the
commission to include wording to require new signs to be
Conforming and not to continue to approve Non-Compliance .as
the norm.
There is also no control of density and the number of billboards.
The net effect is to enable a non-scenic corridor along valley
freeways. Becker Boards alone has almost 90 static billboards
currently along freeways. The ordinance now seems to enable
billboards every 1,000 feet. I would encourage the commission to
consider the impact of density and congestion of billboards.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From:
Marie Atchison
To:
Mark Becker
Cc:
Courtney Dykstra; Joseph White; William E. Lally; Jacob Zonn; Darren V. Gérard (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: Maricopa County Digital Billboard Ordinance
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 12:29:06 PM
Attachments:
a79a4fcd-df0b-c40d-4f06-f3444b596a75.png
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2021, at 8:16 AM, Mark Becker <mbecker@beckerboards.com> wrote:
Sorry to hear that Marie. I believe everything i wrote is truthful and accurate. What part(s) do you think are
untruthful?
Respectfully,
Mark D. Becker
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 8, 2021, at 7:50 AM, Marie Atchison <marieatchison10@gmail.com> wrote:
I don’t believe you are being very truthful in your letter! Shameful, Deceitful! and I am truly
hoping there is enough of us to stop this kind of S**T from happening in our neighborhood!
On Aug 23, 2021, at 1:08 PM, Courtney Dykstra <cdykstra@beckerboards.com>
wrote:
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Courtney Dykstra
Business Development Manager
Becker Boards
Office 602-732-2884 | Cell 480-252-1275 | Fax 602 368-4358
Los Angeles I Miami I Phoenix I San Francisco
<image001.png>
<Maricopa County Digital Billboard Ordinance.pdf>
<CALENDAR ITEM: THURS 9.9.21 at 9:30am Maricopa County billboard TA hearing.eml>
TO: Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Larry Whitesell
DATE: September 8, 2021
SUBJECT: Opposition to TA2018001 - Off-Site Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Do Not Recommend Approval of This Major Change to the Current Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
I am opposed to the proposed Text Amendment in its entirety. Although the applicant wants us to believe
that this is more restrictive than the current ordinance, it is not. Most importantly, it allows digital display
advertising to be built as well as existing static billboards to be converted. It also includes major changes in
size, height, setbacks, distance between boards, and separation from residentially zoned property. The
details of the proposed TA should have been developed by a working group of stakeholders, not drafted by a
single billboard company to meet their goal to increased revenue.
These are some of my specific concerns:
Among other bad provisions of the proposed TA, the distance spacing and setback provisions are less
restrictive than the current ordinance.
1403.3.1
Billboards shall be permitted uses in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts subject to the following conditions:
A.
Separation Distance:
2. Static billboard conversion to digital billboard:
c. Any non-conforming existing freeway billboard that is converted to digital must maintain a
distance not fewer than 500 feet from other freeway digital billboards, and must include a
decorative pole cover which includes identifying the nearest City to billboard within the design at
the City’s discretion.
This is closer than the proposed language for static displays. It should be greater than 3,000 ft/1,000 ft.
F. Development Standards:
1. Billboards located greater than 300’ from of an existing freeway
a. Shall be limited to thirty (30) feet in height inclusive of all embellishments, lighting, and
attachments.
b. Shall be limited to three-hundred (300) square feet in sign face area. The maximum square
footage may be exceeded by up to ten percent (10%) by use of embellishments.
2. Billboards located within 300’ of an existing freeway: 2. Billboards located within 300’ of an existing
freeway:
a. Shall be limited to forty-eight (48) feet above adjacent grade or elevation of the main travel lanes
of a freeway or subject property (whichever is greater but not to exceed 1380’), inclusive of all
embellishments, lighting, and attachments.
b. Shall be limited to six hundred seventy-two (672) square feet in sign face area. The maximum
square footage of sign area may be exceeded by up to twenty percent (20%) by use of
embellishments.
Considering concepts of perspective and vanishing point, this provision is backwards. Billboards closer to a
freeway should be smaller in square footage and lower in height. Those farther away should be larger and
taller.
There are major concerns in addition to the specific changes to the current zoning ordinance.
Please also consider the stated purpose of the ordinance:
SECTION 1401. GENERAL SIGNAGE REGULATIONS ARTICLE 1401.1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is
to promote public safety, create an attractive business climate, and enhance the physical appearance of the
community through a comprehensive system of reasonable, consistent, and nondiscriminatory sign
standards and requirements.
The proposed TA does not protect many areas of the county from being damaged by billboards. Although
specific scenic corridors are excluded, e.g. Wickenburg and St Rt 74, areas in the southern part of the county
should be considered as scenic. For example, much of the Sonoran Desert National Monument lies within
Maricopa County but the current text amendment would allow digital billboards to obstruct this beautiful
location.
I-8 stretches the full length of the county and is a major east-west route for people from across the county.
We should not obstruct their views of our natural environment.
St Rt 85 linking I-10 and I-8 is the recommended route for Valley residents to travel to San Diego and other
cities and towns in Arizona and California.
These two heavily traveled freeways will be prime targets for billboard companies to locate off-premise
digital advertising at the expense of the enjoyment of every traveler who once enjoyed unblemished views.
StRt 85 - Imagine a 672 sq ft digital billboard Even a small directional sign negatively impacts
with 0 setbacks along the side of the road!
beauty of the moment.
The applicant provided you with a Phoenix City Council Report for the May 19,2021 meeting, the Billboard
Concessions Lease Agreement, that verifies Becker Boards was awarded a contract to lease property from
the City for continuing use of billboards. The financial impact is:
First year annual revenue will be approximately $685,000 (MAG) or of 60 percent f gross sales, whichever is
greater. For every year thereafter, MAG
shall be adjusted to 75 percent of the prior years’ annual rent payment or 100 percent of the previous year’s
MAG, whichever is greater.
What provisions are being made to ensure on-going revenue generation for the County from the sale of
advertising on billboards? Nowhere does the applicant, when listing the benefits of billboards, mention a
continuing revenue stream to the County through advertising sales. Not to have lease agreements such as
the one with Phoenix would violate state statues prohibiting any individual or private entity from being
enriched through the use of public property.
You and the County Supervisors and staff are custodians of the public assets of the County. Your priority
should be to protect those assets, especially those of natural beauty, for the continued use and enjoyment of
the public. Recommending passage of this text amendment places for-profit gain of billboard companies over
the interest of the public.
I urge you to not support the proposed text amendment.
From:
Mark Becker
To:
Darren V. Gérard (PND); Ray Banker (PND); William Lally
Cc:
Joseph White; Jacob Zonn
Subject:
Fwd: New web submission from Contact Form - GENERAL
Date:
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:16:50 AM
FYI.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bill <Smith@adssuck.com>
Date: September 8, 2021 at 11:02:52 AM PDT
To: Info <info@beckerboards.com>
Subject: New web submission from Contact Form - GENERAL
Reply-To: Smith@adssuck.com
Name
Bill
Email
Smith@adssuck.com
Message
Greedy, shallow people like you ruin cities. You make the world a worse place, ugly,
overlit, and cheap.
What do you have against the night sky?
Sincerely,
Fuck You, you trash.
Estimated Budget
$1
Market of Interest*
Phoenix
DEPARTMENT:
GENERAL
From:
Mark Becker
To:
Claude Haynes
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND); Ray Banker (PND); William Lally; Jacob Zonn
Subject:
Re: Maricopa County Digital Billboard Ordinance
Date:
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:10:59 AM
Thank you Claude. I appreciate your willingness to have a calm, rational discussion about
these issues. I really do.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Becker
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 8, 2021, at 10:06 AM, Claude Haynes <azstargeazer@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Becker, I appreciate your reply to my email.
I am sure that we disagree on a number of items, but I appreciate the addition of
new technology to ease light trespass for neighborhoods surrounding digital
signs. I imagine there will be some pushback from other sign vendors at
tomorrow's meeting due to the increased expense, but it is a good start toward
mitigation. I did look at the links, and tried to research the technology from the
vendor. While the light output may be less (hard to really tell from their site), I
am still concerned at the overall power usage required to illuminate digital signs
during daylight. Our weather is in flux, whether one believes in climate change or
not, and the demands on the electric grid continue to grow in lockstep with the
population growth of the valley. Energy use is a concern.
The Federal study you cite as definitive was 10 years ago. The study itself stated
that more research needed to be done, and I question the methodology of studying
eye motion alone. Even if you don't tell the participant what you are looking for,
I am guessing most will realize they need to keep their eyes on the road. Some
more recent studies have correlated rear end and side-swipe accident increases in
areas where billboards are present compared to areas without them. To be fair
those areas probably are also more congested, but people do seem more easily
distracted nowadays.
I especially appreciate your statement about compliance. It is reassuring since
your most recent proposal attempts to strike the wording in Section 1112.7.1 of
the lighting code concerning non-compliant billboards caught me by surprise. I
am hopefully that you will address that issue by not neutering the requirement for
bottom lit signs greater than 301 square feet to be off from midnight to dawn. If
you wish to negotiate a time line for compliance that is fine, but six years seems a
long time. I have attached a spreadsheet to the email. It contains a list of Becker
Boards greater than 301 square feet that I have observed as illuminated past
midnight. I am not sure that I captured all of the out--of-compliance signs, since I
focused mainly upon the freeway locations. I am glad you are willing to become
compliant. The spreadsheet also contains the Maricopa County Land ID and
Deed Number because I was contemplating filing a code compliance complaint
with Maricopa County and the City of Phoenix.
You do have a lot of billboards. I count over 70 just along the major freeways for
your company alone. With digital billboards becoming a standard, I imagine that
many of your competitors will want to convert theirs as well. I will argue
strenuously at tomorrow's meeting that the language in Section 1112.7.1 remains
as is. Changing it would enable many non-conforming billboards that are now
dark after midnight to shine forth for six years awaiting compliance. I am not
sure if that was your intent, but it is the consequence of the wording change.
Thank you again for your reply. I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
proposed changes.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:07 AM Mark Becker <mbecker@beckerboards.com>
wrote:
Thanks Claude. The estimated 40-50 signs are all the signs combined - ours as
well as those of our competitors.
Please keep in mind that the light output with the new digital technology is
LESS than what’s currently being displayed on the existing externally
illuminated static billboards in the County. If you haven’t had a chance to take a
look at the links in my letter, i hope that you can find the time to do so. It’s
really impressive and persuasive.
The Federal study that we site was done independently by the Federal
government over a decade ago. In addition to doing its own analysis and tests,
they reviewed all the other studies that were out there. It’s the “gold standard”
study. I’d expect that the distraction “issue” would be substantially less with
this new technology. I don’t know of any case where a digital billboard caused
more accidents. The ads hold for 8 seconds each which obviates the distraction
“issue”.
As far as i know, we’re in compliance with all laws. However, we have a lot of
boards, so it is possible that something is set improperly somewhere. If you
have a specific location that you’re referring to, please let me know and we’ll
get it rectified immediately.
Respectfully,
Mark D. Becker
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Claude Haynes
<azstargeazer@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Becker
I appreciate your email concerning the proposed changes to the
Maricopa County sign code. Open discussion is valuable and
helpful. I assume that Mr. White shared an email I sent him on
July 19. I will try not to repeat my arguments in that regard, but do
want to take issue and question some of the logic used in your
email.
Proliferation - you state that only 40 - 50 signs are impacted
directly by this change. Is this number based solely upon Becker
Board's inventory or the aggregate inventory of all billboards
including your competitors as well? If only your inventory, then
the number could be considerably higher.
Las Vegas - you are correct that the casinos are mostly on an
arterial street, but the city is crowded with billboards all along the
encircling freeways advertising shows, buffets and how "loose"
their slots are (for the math impaired). Las Vegas is a classic
example of a town controlled by monied interests with little regard
for light, water or visual pollution. Phoenix is now the fifth largest
metropolitan area in the nation. We should not submit to a belief
that environmental and quality of life degradation are inevitable.
Safety - I do not think it adequate to rely upon a single study with a
favorable outcome to your argument as definitive. I have seen
survey research which show an increased correlation of sideswipe
and rear end accidents in areas with numerous billboards. These
studies also show an increased risk for young drivers who spend
more time looking away from the road than older drivers. It is an
especially disingenuous argument when the purpose of your
company is to have people look at the "shiny thing". Is the federal
study you cite used during your sales pitch for a prospective
client? Do you tout the benefit of people spending little time
looking at your billboards?
Dark Skies - while the technology you propose does help eliminate
light trespass, I do not believe it has any impact upon the total
emission of photons. In fact, without technical documentation I
imagine it might require a brighter setting. I applaud your attempt
to mitigate issues using newer technology, but remain a little
skeptical without further details. I also take issue with your
statement "the current ordinance which allows the externally
illuminated static billboards to remain on all night". My reading of
the Maricopa and Phoenix sign codes state that signs greater than
301 square feet should cease illumination past midnight. While
some of your signs are smaller, I believe that the majority of signs
are greater in area. Is there another permission that I am unaware
of which enables you to have those larger billboards remain
illuminated? I ask you to certify that Becker Boards is in
compliance with all regulatory requirements for the governmental
entities in which your signs reside.
Cost effective - you state that digital billboards are a cost effective
method for small business' and charities to advertise, but that
argument is also an unstated acknowledgment that they are much
more profitable for you as well. An item that I commented on to
Planning and Development is the total energy cost for digital
billboards. At night they are probably comparable to a static sign,
but for them to operate during daylight they must compete with the
sun for visibility. They are a significant drain upon the electric
infrastructure which should not be ignored.
Gambling - it is interesting that you mention the new gaming
compact and lighting from construction of new casinos. Perhaps it
comes to mind because you have successfully skirted the
regulations on digital billboards by placing one on tribal land which
operates 24/7. I recall being in a P&D meeting in 2019 when it
was mentioned that most of your competitors turned off their static
billboards at the same time as digital. Mr. White expressed surprise
and said he would look into it. Currently almost all static
billboards in the valley which are illuminated after midnight are
Becker Boards. I requested turning off signs in my more recent
emails. His answer, and yours, was "we don't have to". I await
your certification that Becker Boards is in complete compliance
concerning illumination of larger boards after midnight. Your
competitors recognized a public value in turning off illuminated
signs late at night - you did not. As a gambling person, I am not
betting that you, or your company, really care about light pollution
and preserving the night sky. You will do the minimum the law
requires, and for that reason I and others must work to make the
regulations as specific and detailed as possible.
Again, I appreciate the conversation and your careful consideration
in this matter.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:08 PM Courtney Dykstra
<cdykstra@beckerboards.com> wrote:
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Courtney Dykstra
Business Development Manager
Becker Boards
Office 602-732-2884 | Cell 480-252-1275 | Fax 602 368-4358
Los Angeles I Miami I Phoenix I San Francisco
<image001.png>
--
Claude Haynes
azstargeazer@gmail.com
480-221-5792 (cell)
--
Claude Haynes
azstargeazer@gmail.com
480-221-5792 (cell)
<Becker Static After Midnight.xlsx>
From:
Marie Atchison
To:
Courtney Dykstra
Cc:
Mark Becker; Joseph White; William E. Lally; Jacob Zonn; Darren V. Gérard (PND); Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: Maricopa County Digital Billboard Ordinance
Date:
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:51:22 AM
Attachments:
CALENDAR ITEM THURS 9.9.21 at 930am Maricopa County billboard TA hearing.eml.msg
I don’t believe you are being very truthful in your letter! Shameful, Deceitful! and I am truly
hoping there is enough of us to stop this kind of S**T from happening in our neighborhood!
On Aug 23, 2021, at 1:08 PM, Courtney Dykstra <cdykstra@beckerboards.com>
wrote:
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Courtney Dykstra
Business Development Manager
Becker Boards
Office 602-732-2884 | Cell 480-252-1275 | Fax 602 368-4358
Los Angeles I Miami I Phoenix I San Francisco
<image001.png>
<Maricopa County Digital Billboard Ordinance.pdf>
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Maricopa Planning Commission 9.9.21, Agenda item #4. Case # TA2018001
Date:
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 6:42:52 AM
From: Pam Fitzgerald <pftz1@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:46 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Maricopa Planning Commission 9.9.21, Agenda item #4. Case # TA2018001
I am strongly opposed to TA2018001, digital billboards, scheduled to be heard on 9.9.21,
agenda item #4.
This is a terrible amendment .
Nancy Fitzhugh
1250 South Kingston Street
Chandler, AZ 85286
September 3, 2021
Maricopa County Supervisors
301 West Jefferson Street
10th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
To whom it may concern,
One of the results of the past year and a half that we’ve all lived through the pandemic is that
small and large businesses alike have suffered financially to a very dramatic degree. I believe
that the digital billboard would be a plus on the side of businesses who want to continue to fight
to stay in business. I fully support anything that will help entrepreneurs to succeed, which in turn
will help our local economy.
Sincerely,
Nancy Fitzhugh
602-703-1929
nancyfitzhugh@ymail.com
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Case number TA2018001 Agenda item #4
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:02:47 PM
From: Dave Jackson <dash_85283@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:00 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Case number TA2018001 Agenda item #4
Rachel,
I am very much opposed to the text amendment for Digital Billboards within the city limits of Phoenix.
I am registered for the meeting however I do not wish to speak.
I want to be on record as being very much opposed to this request.
In my opinion, this type of advertising reduces the appeal of living in Phoenix.
There are other problems as my understanding that the amendment negatively changes other parts to
billboard advertising.
Sincerely,
Dave Jackson
RVNA President
4247 E Windsor Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85008-1418
602 524-2401 C
dash_85283@yahoo.com
From:
Neal Haddad
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc:
Ray Banker (PND); Paul Barnes
Subject:
Submittal for TA2018001, Planning Commission 9.9.21 agenda item #4
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:38:16 PM
Attachments:
Rpt on safety of digital billboards J Wachtel.pdf
Attached please find a report to be distributed at your earliest opportunity to
members of the Maricopa County Planning Commission and to members of the Board
of Supervisors. This document relates to item #4 on the Maricopa Planning
Commission's published agenda for 9.9.21.
Thank you in advance.
B. Paul Barnes
Neal Haddad
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
--
Neal Haddad
neal.haddad@gmail.com
602.684.3889
A REPORT ON THE SAFETY IMPACTS OF DIGITAL BILLBOARDS
Submitted to The Maricopa County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors
By Jerry Wachtel, President, The Veridian Group, Inc., Berkeley, California
INTRODUCTION.
In his letter dated August 22, 2021, Mark D. Becker of Becker Boards (applicant) addresses five
separate issues that have apparently led to opposition to the “proposed digital billboard text
amendment” in Maricopa County. One of the five issues concerns “driver safety/distraction.” As
this writer’s expertise and concern lie with issues of traffic safety (of which one component is
distraction) this report addresses this issue only.
BILLBOARDS, DRIVER DISTRACTION, AND TRAFFIC SAFETY.
In the applicant’s letter of August 22, 2021, he includes a section titled “Driver
Safety/Distraction.” In a dramatic, and dramatically untrue opening statement on this issue he
says: “This myth has been completely debunked.” In fact, quite the opposite is true, as well
more than 100 technical papers have been written on this subject in the past two decades
alone. The current author has the space to cite just a few of them in this report, and the reader
may choose to read his detailed and critical Compendium1 of the recent literature, an ongoing
document that currently reviews 27 such papers published between 2008 and 2019. The
current version of the Compendium was requested by and undertaken for the Legal Division of
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). An earlier paper by the current author2
discusses and peer reviews articles on this topic prior to 2009. A third paper3, published in the
journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, discusses some 90 research studies
on the subject and concludes: “…there is an emerging trend in the literature suggesting that
roadside advertising, particularly those signs with changeable messages, can increase crash
risk.” Still other recent papers, by Sisiopiku, et al4, Gitelman, et al.5, and even the Conference of
European Directors of Roads (CEDR)6 have reached the same conclusion. In fact, the more
thorough and more recent the research, the more likely it is that the study found links
(correlations) between the presence of roadside advertising, particularly with digital billboards,
and driver distraction, which is known to be causative of traffic accidents.
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION’S (FHWA) ROLE IN THIS ISSUE.
On page 2 of his August 22, 2021 letter, the applicant further states: “The federal government
(meaning the Federal Highway Administration - FHWA) studied this issue (driver safety and
distraction) exhaustively and issued a formal opinion before adopting language to allow
billboards on its freeways.” Because the applicant did not identify the source document he
refers to, it seems that he has conflated at least two documents, as discussed below.
Regardless, he demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of FHWA’s activities in this field, in an
apparent attempt to strengthen his case.
The first such document, and the only one that can be seen as a “formal opinion” is a
Memorandum from the agency’s Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment, and Realty
dated September 25, 2007.7 As someone who worked for FHWA for 11 years and was the
author of the agency’s (and the world’s) first study on digital billboards8, this writer can say
with confidence that the applicant’s statement is false. The “formal opinion” issued by FHWA in
2007 was based on no research or study whatsoever. It simply reported on current practice in
the industry regarding details such as billboard brightness, frequency of message change, etc.,
and adopted that practice into its opinion. For example, when it came to brightness, the
Memorandum issued this vague statement: “Adjust brightness in response to light levels so
that the signs are not unreasonably bright for the safety of the motoring public” (pg. 2).This
non-helpful, unsupported statement was made despite the availability to FHWA of substantial
research complete with specific recommended brightness levels. To restate, FHWA’s 2007
Memorandum had zero basis in research and cited no references, despite the fact that
considerable research was available to the agency at that time.
The second FHWA document that may have been inappropriately referred to by the applicant
was a study performed for the agency by Perez, et al.9, and dated 2012. The draft version of this
report was criticized so severely by its reviewers that FHWA took 33 months to revise the study
(it usually takes 30-60 days for such revision), which, although dated September 2012 was not
posted to the agency’s website until December 30, 2013. This revised version of the report was,
in turn, reviewed by the present author,10 whose highly critical report was reviewed and
agreed-to by 14 independent expert peer reviewers. To our knowledge, the revised FHWA
report was not subjected to independent peer review by the agency prior to its issuance on the
agency’s website. Significantly, the document has never been given an official agency report
number, which means that it has never been officially published. Thus, any reviewers of this
work will likely only discover the seriously flawed draft document (which does have an agency
report number because it was actually published for review).
BRIGHTNESS (LUMINANCE) AND TRAFFIC SAFETY.
The applicant’s discussion of digital billboard light output was addressed only in the context of
upward light trespass (which he called “spillage”) which adversely affects dark skies in the
surrounding area. But sign brightness has specific, and negative effects on driver vision, and
hence plays a role in driver distraction. The brightness (properly called luminance) of a digital
billboard is first set upon manufacture of the sign, but once installed, a billboard’s brightness
can be readily adjusted on-site or remotely by the billboard owner/operator. There are two
significant characteristics of digital billboard brightness that can adversely impact traffic safety.
The first is discomfort or disability glare that can impair a driver’s vision upon approach to the
billboard. The second is the instantaneous change in brightness as the billboard transitions
from one display to the next. This instant change in brightness level is what triggers an eye
glance from the driver toward the billboard and contributes to driver visual distraction away
from the forward roadway. Experts generally define driver distraction as any behavior or
activity that takes that driver’s attention (including visual attention such as glances and eye
movements) away from the principal driving task, however briefly.
In the case of luminance, both of these concerns can be addressed by simply reducing the
maximum brightness of the digital billboard to a reasonable level. We can define a reasonable
level as one that is no brighter than conventional billboards that have existed adjacent to
roadways for decades without complaint on this issue, and that reduces glare to acceptable
limits as defined by internationally accepted standards11 .
Because the applicant discusses brightness only in the context of the Dark Skies movement,
ignoring its contribution to glare and to distraction, he suggests that his proposed billboards
can solve the brightness problem by using louvres that reduce light coming from the billboard
screen to shine upwards. While this solution may assist with the dark sky problem (which is
beyond the scope of this report), it does nothing for, and in fact exacerbates the problem of
excess brightness into the eyes of drivers and other road users. That is because the same
amount of light that would normally be broadcast outward at 360 degrees from the billboard
face is now focused downward by the louvres, into drivers’ eyes. Indeed, the applicant’s letter
of August 22, 2021 specifically states that these louvres “limit the visibility of the billboard
except to oncoming traffic” (pg. 2). It is, of course, of great concern that the applicant never
mentions the actual proposed brightness levels of his signs, when brightness is a key
component in traffic safety and driver behavior.
MESSAGE CHANGE INTERVAL (DWELL TIME) AND DRIVER DISTRACTION.
The applicant is silent on the impact of the billboards’ dwell time (the length of time that each
message is visible on the sign). This is a significant oversight as dwell time has a critical role to
play in driver distraction. The principal benefit claimed for digital billboards by their proponents
is that multiple advertisements can share time on the billboard platform by rotating their
message every several seconds, minutes, or hours. Obviously, the more messages that can be
rotated through any time cycle, the more revenue the owner of the billboard can achieve. Over
time, the billboard industry has settled upon an 8-second “dwell” time. It must be noted that
there has been no research to support this message change interval, and no such support has
ever been claimed by the industry. It simply seems that this is the shortest time interval the
industry could support without running into the risk of claims by regulators that their signs
present “flashing lights” or “flashing messages.” Such “flashing lights” are expressly forbidden
in most government zoning codes that address roadside billboards.
It has been shown that it is the moment of the message change, with its attendant change in
imagery and brightness, that attracts the driver’s eye and thus causes the distraction. It
therefore follows that, the more frequent the message change, the greater distraction is
produced, thus suggesting that longer dwell times are appropriate. Rather than the
unsupported 8-second message change interval, some jurisdictions have increased their dwell
time to minutes, and even hours.
This author has developed a simple formula to determine an appropriate dwell time for
different roads and traffic conditions. This formula derives from the goal that no given driver
will see more than a single message change during his or her approach to a digital billboard.
The basis of this goal, of course, is to reduce to a minimum the number of distractions from the
message change that are presented to a driver in the environment.
The formula is based on knowing the speed limit and the distance from which a digital billboard
can first be seen by the approaching driver. Specifically, one applies the formula by dividing the
sight distance (in feet) by the speed limit (in feet per second) to arrive at a value. This value,
rounded up to the next whole number if necessary, is the suggested dwell time. To take an
example, if a specific digital billboard can be seen from 1,000 feet upstream of the sign, and if
the speed limit is 65 MPH (95 feet per second), the dwell time would need to be 12 seconds at a
minimum. Longer sight distances would require longer dwell times. Of course, the billboard
industry seeks a single, constant dwell time for all of its digital billboards along a given roadway
or in a specific region. This makes the sign companies’ marketing and billing more
straightforward. The solution is to set as a default dwell time the longest calculated dwell time
for the given roadway or region.
DRIVER DISTRACTION AND ACCIDENTS.
Do billboards cause accidents? The applicant states that there is no known example of a
billboard operating in accordance with the FHWA’s 2007 Memorandum causing an accident.
That may be the common narrative among billboard proponents, but it is not true. A recent
Israeli study, the most comprehensive, systematic, epidemiological study in this field,12
published in 2018, shows that billboards actually have a dramatic connection to accidents.
Specifically, what the study shows is that when existing billboards were covered or removed by
the local governing authority (as part of a larger study), accidents on the affected roadway
declined by 30-40%, depending on road section. At the end of the study period, when billboards
were returned to operation, accidents increased by 30-60%. Directly to the point, a study by
Sisiopiku, et al4 was conducted in Florida and Alabama, and concluded: “The overall results
were consistent between the two states. The presence of digital billboards increased the overall
crash rates at "digital advertising billboard influence zones" by 25% in Florida and 29% in
Alabama.”
What the human factors community says on this issue is that billboards lead to driver
distraction, and when a driver’s available information-processing capacity is diminished by
demanding driving conditions (e.g., heavy traffic, complex roadway interchanges, adverse
weather, driving on unfamiliar roads, etc.), distraction can lead to driver error which in turn
may cause a crash.
REFERENCES.
1. Wachtel, J. (2020). “Compendium of a Decade’s Worth of Research Studies on
Distraction from Digital Billboards (Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs
[CEVMS]). Technical Paper prepared for the California State Department of
Transportation, Legal Division.
2. Wachtel, J. (2009). “Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for
Outdoor Advertising Signs.” Report No. 20-7 (256). Washington, DC: National
Cooperative Highway Research Program.
3. Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Truelove, V., Watson, B., & Hinton JA. (2019). “The Impact of
Road Advertising Signs on Driver Behaviour and Implications for Road Safety: A Critical
Systematic Review.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 122, April
2019, 85-98.
4. Sisiopiku, VP, Islam, M, Haleem, K, Alluri, P. & Gan, A. (2014). Investigation of the
Potential Relationship between Crash Occurrence and the Presence of Digital
Advertising Billboards in Alabama and Florida. Proceedings of the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) 94th Annual Meeting
5. Gitelman, V., Doveh, E., & Zaidel, D. (2019). “An examination of billboard impacts on
crashes on a suburban highway: Comparing three periods – Billboards present,
removed, and restored.” Traffic Injury Prevention, 20, 569-574.
6. Vlakveld, W. & Helman, S. (2018). “The effects of (digital) roadside advertising: an
overview of the literature.” Conference of the European Directors of Roads (CEDR).
Brussels, Belgium.
7. Shepherd, G.M. (20070. Memorandum, “Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message
Signs.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Real Estate.
8. Wachtel, J., and Netherton, RD, (1980). “Safety and Environmental Design
Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signage: Final
Report. Report No. FHWA/RD-80/051. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1980.
9. Perez, WA., Bertola, MA, Kennedy, JF, & Molino, JA. (2012). “Driver Visual Behavior in
the Presence of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS).” Unnumbered
Report, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Downloaded from the web at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/oac/visual_behavior_report/final/cevmsfinal.pdf
10. Wachtel, J. (2015). “A Peer-Reviewed Critique of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Report Titled: ‘Driver Visual Behavior in the Presence of Commercial
Electronic Variable Message Signs’ ”.
11. IES/ANSI RP-39-19. “Recommended Practice: Off-Highway Sign Luminance – An
American National Standard.” Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America/American National Standards Institute.
12. Gitelman, V., Doveh, E., & Zaidel, D. (2019). “An examination of billboard impacts on
crashes on a suburban highway: Comparing three periods – Billboards present,
removed, and restored.” Traffic Injury Prevention, 20, 569-574.
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Request to Speak in opposition of TA2028001, Sep 9
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:15:23 PM
From: Rolf Jansen <rolfjansen.work@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:07 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Request to Speak in opposition of TA2028001, Sep 9
Dear Rachel,
I would like to request the opportunity to speak in opposition of
TA2028001 at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing this Thursday
September 9th (agenda item #4, case number TA2018001 - Off-Site
Advertising Signs), when this TA is discussed and the floor is open
to public comments.
Case Number/Rule: TA2018001 - Off-Site Advertising Signs
(Billboards)
Department: Planning and Development
I would like to : Express opposition
First Name: Rolf
Last Name: Jansen
City: Tempe
Zip: 85281
Email: rolfjansen.work@gmail.com
Phone Number: 480-968-6739
Phone Type: Home
Would you like someone to contact you?: Yes
Comments: I have expressed my *oppositiion* to the proposed TA,
both
privately as a resident of Maricopa County and professionally as an
observational astronomer, at the June 17 2021 meeting, and had
planned
to do so at the discussion of this text amendment that was
originally
planned for the August meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
In the meantime the applicant, Becker Boards, has contacted all
those
who opposed their text amendment with a letter that claims that
those
in opposition do not know the facts, and which proceeds with
statements
--presented as fact-- that are demonstrably incorrect, that cite a
government study that has been debunked for its utter lack of
scientific rigor, and that omit or gloss over many of the real
concerns
expressed by various stakeholders that include local city
governments.
That letter was submitted in the materials now in the public record
for this case, as were letters in support of the TA by only clients
of
Becker Boards. In the 1297 pages regarding this case in the public
record as of Sep 2 2021, I find no stakeholders other than Becker
Boards
and their direct clients in favor of this text amendment that
serves
only their companies' bottom line, to the detriment of the citizens
of
Maricopa County. In fact, the overwhelming majority of public
comments
is in opposition to this TA. I therefore remain in *strong
opposition*,
maintain that this is a regional issue that should involve and
should
be directed by the Maricopa County Association of Governments in
consult
with their equivalents in neighboring counties, and should not be
decided by the Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission based
on
text written by a single private interest, even if it took input
from
prior opposition and advice from government bodies under
consideration.
Apart from the horrible aesthetics and loss of the enjoyment of the
night sky presented by these digital billboards, as a resident over
50
years of age I am experiencing more hindrance from the glare of
these
signs, which are prominently visible for miles before they are
readable.
By their very nature and design, these billboards aim to distract
drivers to present messaging that serves no public purpose, nor
information relevant for drivers safety and navigation. Even the
best
baffled digital billboards emit light above the horizontal and in
particular within an angle up to 15 degrees above the horizontal.
As a
professional astronomer using several of the largest telescopes in
Arizona, I directly experience the detrimental effects of this
worst
kind of wasted light, which is scattered in the atmosphere and
reflected
by even very thin cirrus, haze, and aerosols. It greatly increases
the
prominence of the light dome of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
That
light dome is visible to distances greater than 120 miles, even
when
partially shielded by intervening mountain ranges, and raises the
brightness of the sky above the natural level. Thus, this kind of
light
pollution constitutes a regional issue, rather than a local one,
that
requires coordination at a multi-county or even multi-state
governmental
level. Astronomy, Planetary Sciences and Space Sciences represent
a
capital investment in the Arizona economy in excess of $1 billion
(according to a 2007 study by the Eller College of Management of
the
University of Arizona), and stargazing nets in excess of $250
million a
year (Arizona Republic, January 17 2008). Arizona hosts the largest
optical telescope in the world (the twin 27.6 foot Large Binocular
Telescope atop Mt.Graham), and this and other large astronomical
observing facilities bring in both federal and international
funding to
Arizona, contingent on the assumption of long-term local
protections.
This is one of the reasons that compromise legislation by the
Arizona
State Legislature in 2012 includes specific state protections and
restrictions on digital billboards (electronic message boards) in
large
portions of the state centered on major astronomical observatories
through ARS 28-7902. Individual local governments may impose
stronger
restrictions if they choose. In particular, automatic measures to
dim
the brightness of these electronic message boards based on the
ambient
brightness (a maximum of 100 nits was advised in the draft Pattern
Outdoor Lighting Code that resulted from the Maricopa County
Association
of Governments Dark Sky Stakeholders efforts in 2008-2011), and
curfews
that require turning them off at the end of civil twilight (which
is
earlier than 11 pm) would help mitigate the nuisance, trespass, and
negative impact on the natural night sky at large distances from
these
billboards. In other parts of the country, wherever a digital
billboard
is erected or a traditional billboard is converted to digital,
there
are requirements to remove existing billboards at a ratio that
corresponds to the light emitted by the new billboard compared to
the
existing (traditional) ones -- for a 300 square feet digital
message
board this is usually a factor of 6 to 10. For 672 square feet
boards
this ratio should be closer to 20, i.e., removal of 20 existing
boards
as a public benefit to allow the erection of or conversion to one
digital board. The present language willfully omits any such
requirements
because it was written by a single non-government entity.
Similarly the
stakeholders are anyone with property or business that might be
affected
by a billboard's direct glare or scattered light, regardless of
whether
that would be property or business in a county island or within a
specific distance from that board. That should require
notification and
multiple rounds of opportunity to comment, and review by all
stakeholders, not the narrow subset defined in the current text.
Again,
this follows from the TA having been written by a single party with
vested interests in limiting public comment and oversight.
Similarly,
the exclusion of billboards on an opposite side of a highway for
the
determination of radial distance between billboards is a clear
loophole that will not serve the public. At present, off-site
digital
billboards are not allowed to be erected in Maricopa County. Until
a
proper public process, initiated by Maricopa County and neighboring
governments and with input from *all* stakeholders, is completed,
Maricopa County residents are better off with the existing
situation
than with the present text amendment.
Thank you,
Rolf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Rolf A. Jansen Research Scientist
Extragalactic Astronomy & Cosmology
School of Earth & Space Exploration tel: (none)
Arizona State University fax: (+1)480 965 8960
550 E. Tyler Mall, Room PSF-686 email: Rolf.Jansen@asu.edu
P.O. Box 871404 rolfjansen.work@gmail.com
TEMPE AZ 85287-1404 URL: www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen
** my working hours may vary from yours -- please do not respond outside
of your own working hours **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Neal Haddad
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc:
Ray Banker (PND); Paul Barnes
Subject:
Submittal for TA2018001, Planning Commission 9.9.21 agenda item #4
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:34:01 AM
Attachments:
Letter to PC & BOS w comments v_2.pdf
Attached please find a letter to be distributed at your earliest opportunity to members
of the Maricopa County Planning Commission and to members of the Board of
Supervisors. This document relates to item #4 on the Maricopa Planning
Commission's published agenda for 9.9.21.
Thank you in advance.
B. Paul Barnes
Neal Haddad
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
--
Neal Haddad
neal.haddad@gmail.com
602.684.3889
William E. Lally
Attorney at Law
602.452.2716
wel@tblaw.com
September 2, 2021
Maricopa County
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
301 W Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re: Proposed Digital Billboard Text Amendment - Maricopa County (the “MCTA”)
Dear Commissioners and Board Members:
As you know, I have represented Becker Boards regarding a Text Amendment to the
County Zoning Code regulating billboards (the “MCTA”). Specifically, this application was
submitted in March 2018 and has undergone seven (7) different stakeholder meetings and
public hearings, as well as many smaller working group meetings to seek input from all
interested parties1. The application has undergone dozens of changes over the last three (3)
plus years to address concerns.
In that last few months, there has been a flurry of new interest in the case, much of
which is from the core parts of Phoenix, in response to a blast email sent to thousands who
live in the City2. We’ve been working diligently since then to identify the new concerns and
1 More than 100 changes have been made to the current TA submittal from the previous one. It would’ve been helpful if the applicant
submitted a list of the changes so that a quick and comprehensive comparison could be made.
2In the staff report, it states:
" It should be noted that much of the opposition received are from within zip codes that do not contain unincorporated County
jurisdiction, such as central Phoenix and Scottsdale, as well as other areas outside of the County (Tucson, Payson, etc.). It is
understood the general public has voice in this process regardless of residency."
Everyone who lives in the county has the right to vote in the county and therefore the ability to comment. It does affect us all because
we drive on county roads.
Additionally, people in Phoenix and other areas are today dealing with billboards that were issued via County permits in the early
‘60s—such as at and near 44th St. and Indian School. On 9.9.21, residents are battling one such board on 42nd Pl. and Indian School.
These decisions have generational impact because billboards lock in permanent easements.
OPPONENTS ANNOTATED REBUTTAL
Highlighted with footnotes
Submitted by Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
B. Paul Barnes & Neal Haddad
Page | 2
try to modify the application to address any new concerns. This letter summarizes the
concerns and issues that have been voiced lately, along with brief responses.
The concerns expressed recently generally fall within the following categories:
1) Proliferation of digital billboards;
2) Inappropriate locations for digital billboards;
3) Dark Skies/light emissions;
4) Driver Safety/distraction; and
5) Process for digital billboard conversion.
Proliferation of Digital Billboards:
The MCTA does not allow for the addition of new billboards anywhere in Maricopa
County where the current code does not allow them. In fact, the MCTA is more restrictive
than the current one in the following ways: (i) it will prohibit all billboards (digital & static)
within 660’ of any scenic corridor3, including north of the Carefree Hwy on I-17, and (ii) the
ordinance change would disallow the current practice of allowing two arterial street billboards
near each other on intersecting arterial streets. Furthermore, our proposed ordinance will
prohibit digital billboards on arterial streets4 – the only possibility of digital billboards would
be on freeways.
Although at first blush the MCTA sounds like a massive change, it really isn’t5. It’s
important to keep in mind that this ordinance change has nothing to do with billboards within
incorporated cities or towns which have their own rules governing digital billboards 6.
Coincidentally, many of such cities have already upgraded their billboard ordinances to allow
them – such as Phoenix7, Tempe, Guadalupe, Tolleson, Goodyear, Buckeye, and Chandler
(allowed on some arterial street locations). Rather, it only applies to county islands and other
properties in the County which have not been annexed into a city or town8. This vastly limits
3 Billboard vendors boast that signs can be seen from more than 1,000 ft. away, and in some cases legible from 750 ft. away, exceeding
the 660’ separation from scenic corridors.
4 Prohibiting billboards on arterials is a sound position. However, the applicant must clearly recognize that billboards are a distraction if
they are suggesting banning the digital signs from arterials.
5 This is an outlandish position. Digital is FAR more of an intense use. They are allowing signs to be more than 2x the current sf. (from
300 sf. to 672 sf.).
6 Misleading statement. When a billboard is placed in unincorporated land (say, 3 miles from incorporated land), the next step is to be
grandfathered in through incorporation. It’s a back door to getting in cities without having to comply with higher municipal standards.
7 One of the updates Phoenix made in 2011 was to require two ‘takedown’ boards (1200 sf.) in exchange for every digital face constructed
because digital has such a higher intensity of use. This text amendment does not ask for takedown boards at all.
8 County islands are being targeted because the applicant knows how it works: these areas will soon be annexed, and the sign will be
grandfathered in.
Page | 3
its applicability. It does not change the spacing in between billboards9, nor does it change the
zoning required to have a billboard. No new billboard locations will be approved with the
passage of the MCTA.
Inappropriate Locations for Digital Billboards:
As a practical matter, the MCTA will only allow digital conversions of existing
County freeway externally illuminated static billboards in unincorporated cities or towns.
Any future freeways would need to amend the ordinance to allow digital billboards10. We
estimate that there are only 40-50 of such throughout the entire county11, none of which are
north of Northern Parkway/Northern alignments, nor are they between the north/south
alignment of the Ed Pastor Loop 202, nor the north/south alignment of I-10 (i.e., none are in
the central Phoenix area) other than a handful of existing illuminated freeway locations on I-
10 and the Ed Pastor Loop 202.
Some of the recent correspondence mentioned the desire for Phoenix to not look like
Las Vegas. It will not. The famous Las Vegas strip is on an arterial street. As mentioned
above, the MCTA would not only ban arterial street digital conversions, but it would also ban
all new billboards (digital or static) within 660’ of scenic corridors12, including the area north
of the Carefree Highway on I-17. Digital billboard conversions within the City of Phoenix
are under the jurisdiction of the City of Phoenix, and are not subject to this case.
Lastly, unlike Cities here in the Valley today, the MCTA will NOT allow any
conversions of a billboard to digital that is not along a freeway.
Dark Skies/Light Emissions
In addition to the inapplicability of the ordinance to anything north of the Carefree
Highway, all of the protections for the observatories and rural areas that the State put in place
9 We question this. As we understand it, the current ordinance requires 1000 ft. linear separation; the proposed, 500 ft. radial separation.
Depending on how that is measured, it seems as though an area that previously had 3 billboards could have five billboards. And we also
wonder: if no new billboards will be allowed, then why does the spacing requirement have to be changed?
10 Is there a map in the staff report indicating what roadways are eligible?
11 Where does this estimate come from? Have Commissioners or Supervisors asked for an inventory of billboards currently within the
county? Is it in the staff report? How do we know the impact of the TA without knowing how many billboards it will affect?
12 See previous comments: a ban on arterial streets is good; sign companies post on their web sites that digital LEDs will travel more
than 1000 ft.
Page | 4
when it approved its digital ordinance would remain fully intact as explicitly stated in the
proposed ordinance. Unlike the current ordinance which allows the externally illuminated
static billboards to remain on all night, the digital billboard ordinance will require that any
digital billboard be turned off by 11:00 pm each night and remain off until sunrise13. In
addition to a reduction in the amount of time the lights can stay on for existing static
billboards, the proposed digital ordinance will reduce the amount of light spillage with the
use of new light technology which requires louvered shields to be placed over the digital
screen14.
For the first time anywhere in Arizona, the MCTA would require that each digital billboard
incorporate this new louver technology. The louvers dramatically reduce the amount of light
spillage. Please look at this link to get a better idea of how great this new digital technology
is in this regard: https://vimeo.com/414877885
Driver Safety/Distraction
The federal government studied this issue exhaustively and issued a formal opinion
before adopting language to allow digital billboards on its freeways15. The Arizona State
legislature also debated this many years ago, ultimately passing state legislation allowing
digital billboards. The proposed ordinance will prohibit any live animation and each ad will
have to hold in place for at least 8 seconds, pursuant to State Law and consistent with all other
cities in the valley that allow billboards. As such, and as determined by the federal
government and countless jurisdictions throughout the Country, the driver safety/distraction
“issue” is a non-issue16. Furthermore, every jurisdiction in the valley that allows billboards
along Freeways allows digital billboards except Maricopa County.
Process for Digital Billboard Conversion
Some concerns stated that if the MCTA were to pass, there would be little to no
community or public input with the conversion of a billboard to digital. In fact, many of the
County’s freeway county island billboards are legal nonconforming billboards and, as such,
13 This is already state law and not a result of the MCTA proposed by the applicant.
14 According to a fact sheet produced by the Arizona Astronomy Consortium, “A digital billboard may create less sky glow directly
above it than an upward light but will increase sky glow overall and at distances far from the billboard, since its light streams outward,
crossing city and county boundaries.”
15 The FHWA study that the applicant submitted for the record was not peer-reviewed and was (is) the subject of ridicule for its lack of
scientific rigor and limited sample size.
16 The applicant is completely wrong on this issue. There are more than 100 studies both nationally and internationally (chief among
them the UAB study, the Israeli study, the Swedish study and the EU study) that provide peer-reviewed data to support a strong
correlation between driver distraction and digital billboards.
Page | 5
would need to go through the County’s normal Special Use Permit process which includes
public notice and public hearings just like any normal case, allowing for all impacted property
owners to have an opportunity to be heard17.
Summary
In summation, the MCTA will fix the spacing requirements in the current code to
prevent some new billboard locations18, prevent billboards on future freeways, enhance
prohibition along scenic corridors, maintain the current spacing standards and mandate the
latest louvered technology when converting any current billboard to digital, thereby reducing
the light spillage.
It is safe to say that the MCTA as a whole is the most restrictive and regulated
billboard ordinance in the state of Arizona, which is why your staff, after working on this
application for over 3 years, have recommended approval19.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to answer any questions at
wel@tblaw.com or my personal cell at 480-620-9272.
Sincerely,
William E. Lally
17 When the process consists of submitting to staff for review and then forwarding to the Board of Supervisors for an up or down vote,
that is limiting the process. This is, by nature, a quasi-judicial process and should be subject to the same standards.
The applicant sounds as though it is deciding who can comment and who can’t by saying ‘impacted property owners.’ We remind the
applicant: everyone who lives in the county and votes in the county has a right to be heard, but to be listened to.
Do Supervisors want to be challenged by concerned citizens for every billboard conversion that comes before them?
18 It remains unclear what ‘fix’ means: is it ‘to repair’ or is it ‘to affix’?
19 It is not safe to say that it is the most restrictive in the state. The proposal does not call for 2-for-1 takedown boards for each digital
sign face conversion as is the case in Phoenix. It does not regulate the illumination (nit value) at the 200 nit level, as the state has done
in Bullhead City. And it does not provide for a comprehensive process for residents to voice concerns like Phoenix and other
jurisdictions.
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:03:45 AM
From: Diane Williams <threeowild@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 5:45 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Dear Ms. Applegate,
The Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission must vote NO on Text Amendment
TA2018001.
This amendment to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance would radically alter our outdoor
advertising laws, and would allow a proliferation of digital billboards across our county. This
amendment would lead to an increase in light pollution, visual blight, and distracted driving, and
would degrade our roadways, neighborhoods, and communities. The people of Maricopa County
came out strongly against this proposal when it first appeared in 2019, and we remain firm in our
opposition to these changes. Please don't let digital billboards ruin the quality of life in our county.
Thank you for taking action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Diane Williams
3140 W Dobbins Rd
Laveen, AZ 85339
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:36:52 AM
From: Vicky Derksen <vickyann95@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 7:18 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Dear Ms. Applegate,
The Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission must vote NO on Text Amendment
TA2018001.
This amendment to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance would radically alter our outdoor
advertising laws, and would allow a proliferation of digital billboards across our county. This
amendment would lead to an increase in light pollution, visual blight, and distracted driving, and
would degrade our roadways, neighborhoods, and communities. The people of Maricopa County
came out strongly against this proposal when it first appeared in 2019, and we remain firm in our
opposition to these changes. Please don't let digital billboards ruin the quality of life in our county.
Thank you for taking action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Vicky Derksen
16567 E Fayette Drive
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Darren V. Gérard (PND)
Subject:
FW: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Date:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:36:13 AM
From: Diana Double <anglsolace@aol.co>
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 3:13 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Stop Text Amendment TA2018001
Dear Ms. Applegate,
The Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission must vote NO on Text Amendment
TA2018001.
This amendment to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance would radically alter our outdoor
advertising laws, and would allow a proliferation of digital billboards across our county. This
amendment would lead to an increase in light pollution, visual blight, and distracted driving, and
would degrade our roadways, neighborhoods, and communities. The people of Maricopa County
came out strongly against this proposal when it first appeared in 2019, and we remain firm in our
opposition to these changes. Please don't let digital billboards ruin the quality of life in our county.
Thank you for taking action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Diana Double
32615 N. North Valley Parkway #111
Phoenix, AZ 85086