The Model Sign Code: An evidence Based Regulation

1. The Model Sign Code: An evidence Based Regulation Dawn Jourdan, Associate Professor and Director Regional and City Planning: University of Oklahoma

2. City Planners Have a Love-Hate Relationship with Signs

3. For decades, planners have attempted to regulate all dimensions of signs.

4. The planner’s defense… • The regulation of signs is rational and justified in the name of: • Aesthetics; and • Traffic safety.

5. Planners have forgotten…. • Signs, particularly on-premise signs, are Constitutionally protected free speech.

6. Sign regulations are often overreaching… Some examples of regulations that go too far: • Regulations limiting the use of certain colors or trademarks; and • Regulations giving preference to certain messages as a result of sign type.

7. The State of the Law • Signs are speech. • Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. • Content neutrality is key. • Bulk restrictions are legal so long as they are fairly applied and do not interfere with communication.

8. The Evidence-Based Model Sign Code • Urban Design Associates prepared the MSC for the International Sign Association. • It seeks to provide an evidence based approach for on-premise sign regulation. • A sign whose message and design relates to a business, profession, product, service, event, or other commercial activity sold, offered, or conducted on the same property where the sign is located. • Three stage effort: • Review State of the law on sign regulation • Review empirical findings of engineering experts • Draft model code within the parameters of both law and engineering

9. Evidence Based Standards are not a new invention. • EBS’s date back to the advent of performance zoning.

10. Evidence based standards may help reduce the tendency to discriminate between signs we like and those we dislike.

11. Intentions and Limitations of the Model Sign Code • Intentions: • Seeks to embrace the constitutional protections afforded to on premise signs. • Seeks to eliminate unbridled discretion. • Seeks to produce appropriately sized signs that are legible. • Limitations • Regulations are highly technical and require expertise in applying them. • Science is incomplete and always changing. • Does not address collective effects of signs on the horizon. • Cannot mandate good taste.

12. Letter Height: An Example • Letter Height: Determinations as to the appropriateness of letter height shall be made on the basis of an established formula. • Why not proscribe height? • Legibility depends on a number of factors, including: • Speed of traffic; • Angle of sign to the road; • Lanes of traffic; • Setback of sign. • Effort is to scientifically and uniformly determine what is legible. • LH = Letter height for signs oriented perpendicular to traffic flow, inches. • LN = Total number of lanes on the roadway, including the median or two-way left turn lane if present. • LO = Lateral offset of sign from the edge of the right-of-way, feet. • SL = Roadway speed limit, mph. • DT = decision time, seconds. The recommended decision time is 5.5 seconds. • LI = Legibility index, ft/in. The recommended legibility index is 30 ft/in • .

13. Sign Angle • The visibility and legibility of signs is improved when the sign is situated at an angle 20 degrees to the traffic flow. • Applicants seeking to erect a sign with a lesser will not be able to seek a variance from any of the other requirements contained in this ordinance relating to setbacks, letter height, contrast, luminance, or the number of signs.

14. Extending Aesthetics Regulations Research • On-going Inquiry: • How might land use regulations deal with cumulative impacts of development? • Is performance zoning the solution? • Signs and Parking Spaces