The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 4A - Appeal of Design Review 17-02: 3940 Rosemead Boulevard E M , ° ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL ler �KSTAFF REPORT POa.TEo.os9 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER,Q_' " DATE: AUGUST 8, 2017 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 17-02: 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD SUMMARY On July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Design Review 17-02,a request by the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages to re-image an existing 15-foot tall freestanding sign from two individual double-face cabinet signs to a double-sided single panel electronic Light Emitting Diode (LED) message board. The project site is located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard, in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-O)zone. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission voted to deny Design Review 17-02, and adopted Resolution No. 17-15 with a vote of three ayes and two noes, as they were unable to meet five of the six required findings to approve a Design Review application under Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.28.020(C). The Planning Commission Staff Report, PC Resolution No. 17-15, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and handouts distributed to the Planning Commission by the applicant's representative, B.K. Signs Incorporated, on the day of the public hearing are attached as Attachments B, C, D, and E, respectively. On July 24, 2017, the City Clerk's office received an appeal letter from B.K. Signs Incorporated, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision (attached as Attachment F). The letter also requested that the City avoid interpreting the proposed sign as a flashing sign. In addition, B.K. Signs has indicated that the applicant would like to install an adequate source of shielding to prevent glare onto adjacent properties as required by RMC 17.116.030(B). STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Design Review 17-02 and adopt Resolution No. 2017-37 (Attachment A). ITEM NUMBER: t'Pr City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 2 of 8 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Section 15061(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts a project from the California Environmental Quality Act if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 00-82 for exterior improvements to the existing site, which included new signage, exterior paint, and landscaping. The signage was proposed as an illuminated, double-faced monument sign that measured ten feet wide by fifteen feet high. The sign face consisted of two individual cabinet signs that measured approximately 60 square feet when combined. The cabinet signs were composed of a yellow plexiglas background with red and black lettering. The trim of the cabinet signs were painted dark brown to match the main building. No other signage was proposed under Design Review 00-82. According to Building and Safety Division Records, a permit was issued for the aforementioned sign on August 8, 2000, and a final approval was given on September 13, 2000. ANALYSIS On February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted an application, requesting to re-image an existing freestanding sign with a new double-sided LED message board. As illustrated below, the proposed amendments would facilitate the removal of two sign cabinets on an existing 15-foot tall freestanding sign located at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant is proposing to replace the sign area on the freestanding sign with a double-sided single panel electronic LED message board, which totals approximately 62 square feet of digital display area. The digital display area would display messages and/or images of tenant products and services, and would transition to a new message and/or image that vary in color and design, every ten seconds. A "11141 1 3940 � i . 0/41 YELLOW PM WY Existing Sign Proposed Sign City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 3 of 8 Prior to the formal submittal of Design Review 17-02, staff had expressed to the applicant's representative that the Planning Division has not approved any electronic LED message boards within the vicinity, and the proposed sign may not meet the required Design Review findings under RMC Section 17.28.020(C), as the proposed sign does not meet the requirements of RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2), 17.116.050(A), and 17.116.050(F). These code sections prohibit blinking signs, revolving signs, flashing signs, or signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Although staff had raised these concerns to the applicant and applicant's representative, they insisted on submitting a formal application. Staff is aware of the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages' desire to utilize advancements in technology, which permit signs to change copy electronically. However, the City's existing Sign Code regulations (RMC Chapter 17.116) do not make reference to electronic signs or signs that change from one multi-colored image to another in short intervals. For this reason, the Planning Division is currently working on a Sign Code Update, which will establish requirements for modem sign designs. Currently, RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2), 17.116.050(A), and 17.116.050(F) prohibits blinking signs, revolving signs, flashing signs, or signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. B.K. Signs Incorporated has requested in their appeal letter that the City avoid using the word "flashing" when referring to the proposed sign. However, there is no explicit definition for the term "flashing" within the RMC. In the absence of any explicit definition, both staff and the City Attorney's Office agree that the City may reasonably interpret the RMC. Staff considers the proposed sign a flashing sign because the display area of the sign changes every ten seconds, creating a combination of different images and colors. This would result in a non-constant level of illumination. Staff has surveyed surrounding cities, which includes Alhambra, Arcadia, El Monte, Monterey Park, Montebello, San Gabriel, South El Monte, and Temple City on their definition of a flashing sign. A summary of these cities' definition on what is a"flashing" sign is included below. City Municipal Code Definition Section An illuminated sign which exhibits changing light or Alhambra 23.50.020 color effects by any means so as to provide a non- constant level of illumination. Arcadia 9103.11.190 A sign that displays an intermittent or sequential flashing light source. An illuminated sign which exhibits changing light or color effects by any means so as to provide a El Monte 17.12.030 nonconstant level of illumination. Flashing signs include but are not limited to animated, blinking, and scintillating signs. City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 4 of 8 Monterey N/A No Definition Park Any directly or indirectly illuminated sign, which Montebello 17.62.170 exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever. San Gabriel N/A No Definition South El N/A No Definition Monte An illuminated sign in which the illumination is not intended to be maintained in a constant intensity and shall include flashing and strobe lights located inside Temple City 9-1L-1 buildings which are visible from the public right of way. For the purposes of this article, time and temperature displays and Christmas lights are not considered flashing signs. Most of the cities' interpretations are consistent with the City of Rosemead's interpretation of a flashing sign, which considers illuminated signs that change light or color effects at a non- constant level of illumination as a flashing sign. As currently proposed, the sign would not only be considered a flashing sign in Rosemead, but also in the majority of Rosemead's neighboring cities because it is an illuminated sign that changes light or color effects at a non-constant level of illumination within a short time period. B.K. Signs is also suggesting that it may comply with RMC 17.116.030(B), by installing an adequate source of shielding to prevent glare onto adjacent properties. However, the method is unknown as it was not indicated in the letter of appeal. In staff's opinion, the proposed sign will not preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on residential neighborhoods), protect property values, and reduce traffic hazards caused by undue distractions. As illustrated below, the south property line of the subject site abuts an existing two-story apartment complex. The proposed display area of the sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Furthermore, the proposed sign is adjacent to the public right-of-way, which may also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public right-of-way. City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 5 of 8 C jel , ♦ Proposed LEO • '. •1 Sign •* Project Site 101 I> m 101 r I mai 1 ! 11 $ . ..� 1 a, z3„ V t. ` cc = ' 6•? 1 I I • .. `' • • .. en ��_. :L. • 0 Complex + • . Mb N1 Initially, staff was also concerned that the proposed sign would affect traffic traveling along Rosemead Boulevard. However, after careful review from the City Engineer and two of the City's Traffic Consultants, it was determined that the studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards. The proposed plans were also distributed to CAL TRANS for review; however,they did not have any comments because the proposed sign is on private property. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY A member of the public addressed the Planning Commission and stated his concerns about the proposed sign being inappropriate in the City because it was an eyesore, especially since the sign is located adjacent to the sidewalk, about ten feet away from Rosemead Boulevard, and would shine light directly onto pedestrians' faces as they are walking on the sidewalk. Furthermore, the member had concerns about the degree of illumination of the sign and the effect it will have on the adjacent apartment complex. For these reasons, he requested the Planning Commission not to approve the sign. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED FINDINGS Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade, or landscaping in a Design Overlay Zone. RMC Section 17.28.020(C) provides six criterions by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application. If the Planning Commission cannot make any one of the six findings, then the application may be denied. At the July 17, 2017, hearing, the Planning Commission could not make five out of the six findings. For the same reasons, if the City Council cannot make any one of the six findings, then the Planning City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 6 of 8 Commission's denial of the application will be upheld. Below, staff has analyzed reasons why five (italicized) of the six findings cannot be supported to approve Design Review 17-02: 1. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record The proposed sign will not preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on residential neighborhoods) and will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line, as the proposed sign would he visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed sign would also be at variance from the surrounding site developments, as electronic LED message boards have not been approved within the vicinity. In addition, the changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of illumination, is considered a flashing sign and AMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and RMC 17.116.050(F) prohibits flashing signs. Furthermore, the proposed sign has the potential of illuminating brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. 2. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record The plans for the proposed sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line as the electronic sign display area would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of illumination, is considered a flashing sign and will negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. Furthermore, the proposed sign is adjacent to the public right-of-way, which may also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public right-of-way. 3. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record The City has not approved any electronic LED message boards within the vicinity. The proposed sign will not preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on residential neighborhoods),protect property values, and reduce traffic hazards caused by City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 7 of 8 undue distraction. In addition, the proposed sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex and would flash a new slide every ten seconds. The proposed sign has the potential of illuminating brighter than the existing sign. As a result, the proposed sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value, because the sign will impact the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties. 4. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. 5. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record The plans for the proposed sign are not in conformity with the standards of the RMC. Per RMC Section 17.116.030(8), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. It is not clear how the illumination from the proposed sign will be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2), 17.116.050(A), and 17.116.050(F) prohibits blinking signs. revolving signs, flashing signs, or signs that create a .safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of illumination, is considered a flashing sign. and therefore does not meet the standards of the RMC 17.116.030(13)(2) and RMC 17.116.050(P). 6. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record The plans for the proposed sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the City Council Meeting August 8,2017 Page 8 of 8 development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and would he brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public right-of way. FISCAL IMPACT - None STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT–None PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to forty-six (46) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on July 27, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: t.. - v II A� Annie Lao Lily . Valenzuela Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director Attachment A: Resolution No. 2017-37 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 17, 2017 Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-15 Attachment D: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated July 17, 2017 Attachment E: Handouts Distributed to the Planning Commission, dated July 17,2017 Attachment F: Letter of Appeal, dated July 24,2017 E M F ,* 9 Ea O crv�c PRiDrr K ORRORAED X45 Attachment A Resolution No. 2017-37 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE-IMAGE AN EXISTING 15-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN FROM TWO INDIVIDUAL DOUBLE-FACE CABINENT SIGNS TO A DOUBLE-SIDED SINGLE PANEL ELECTRONIC LED MESSAGE BOARD. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD IN THE CENTAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY(CBD/D-0) ZONE (APN: 8594-008-039). WHEREAS,on February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted a Design Review application requesting to re-image an existing 15-foot tall freestanding sign from two individual double-face cabinet signs to a double-sided single panel electronic LED message board, located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard; and WHEREAS, 3940 Rosemead Boulevard is located in a CBD/D-O zone; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(A)(1) and 17.28.020(C) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800& 65900 of the California Government Code and Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(C) and authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove Design Review applications; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2017. forty-six (46) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property. in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations and on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date,time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, on July 17. 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, sufficiently considered all testimony and denied Design Review 17-02 and adopted Resolution 17- 15 making findings and determinations with regard to the denial; and WHEREAS,on July 24,2017, B.K. Signs Incorporated filed an appeal to the City Clerk's office,requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, on July 27,2017, forty-six (46) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six(6)public locations 1 and on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date,time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2017, to consider the appeal of Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Design Review 17-02 is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15061(6)(4) exempts a project from the California Environmental Quality Act if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny Design Review 17-02 in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C)as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The proposed sign will not preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on residential neighborhoods) and will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line, as the proposed sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed sign would also be at variance from the surrounding site developments, as electronic LED message boards have not been approved within the vicinity. In addition, the changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of illumination, is considered a flashing sign and RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2)and RMC 17.116.050(F)prohibits flashing signs. Furthermore, the proposed sign has the potential of illuminating brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise,vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line as the electronic sign display area would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The changing of the display area every ten seconds, that 2 changes the sign to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of illumination, is considered a flashing sign and will negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. Furthermore, the proposed sign is adjacent to the public right-of-way, which may also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public right-of-way. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The City has not approved any electronic LED message boards within the vicinity. The proposed sign will not preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on residential neighborhoods), protect property values, and reduce traffic hazards caused by undue distraction. In addition,the proposed sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex and would flash a new slide every ten seconds. The proposed sign has the potential of illuminating brighter than the existing sign.As a result,the proposed sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value, because the sign will impact the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; FINDING: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan,precise plan,or land reserved for public or educational use.There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site,and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed sign are not in conformity with the standards of the RMC. Per RMC Section 17.116.030(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. It is not clear how the illumination from the proposed sign will be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2), 17.116.050(A), and 17.116.050(F) prohibits blinking signs, revolving signs, flashing signs, or signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign to 3 images of differing colors,which would result in a non-constant level of illumination,is considered a flashing sign,and therefore does not meet the standards of the RMC 17.116.030(B)(2)and RMC 17.116.050(F). F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public right-of way. SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY DENIES the appeal of Design Review 17-02, a request to re-image an existing 15-foot tall freestanding sign from two individual double-face cabinet signs to a double-sided single panel electronic LED message board. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August,2017. Polly Low, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD I. Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2017-37, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the Ss' day of August, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Marc Donohue, City Clerk 5 4ço.coRp,„4 O rRDC Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 17, 2017 EM ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION y,91a1.9 O STAFF REPORT -94 -& 2 TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JULY 17, 2017 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 17-02 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Summary Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages has submitted an application for a Design Review to re-face an existing free standing sign with a new double-sided LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds. The project site is located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard, in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) zone. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade, or landscaping in a Design Overlay Zone. Environmental Determination Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines exempts projects consisting of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Design Review 17-02 proposes to install a small sign facility structure. Accordingly, Design Review 17- 02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission DENY Design Review 17-03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 17-15 with findings (Exhibit "A"). Property History and Description The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Steele Street. The site consists of one parcel of land totaling approximately 40,050 square feet. According to Planning Division records, on May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 00-82 for exterior improvements to the subject Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 2 of 13 • site. The exterior improvements included new signage, paint, and landscaping. On October 21, 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Modification 13-05 to modify Design Review 00-82 for exterior renovations to the main office building. • . 3 w n w A TP MIN ' CHINESE CONSUMER I, Y` f !w YELLOW PAGES • Front Elevation and Freestanding Sign (Existing) Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-0) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Commercial Zoning: Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD-D-O) Land Use: Commercial South General Plan: High Density Residential and Low Density Residential Zoning: Medium Multiple Residential (R-3) and Single Family Residential (R-1) Land Use: Residential East General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1) Land Use: Residential West General Plan: Commercial Zoning: Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) Land Use: Commercial Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 3 of 13 Administrative Analysis Prior to the formal submittal of Design Review 17-02, staff spoke to the applicant's representative (B.K. Signs Incorporated) numerous times over-the-counter. Staff had expressed to B.K. Signs Incorporated that the proposed project may not meet the required findings under Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.28.020(C), because the proposed double-sided LED sign does not meet the requirements of RMC 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F). However, B.K. Signs Incorporated insisted that the applicant wanted to submit a formal application. As illustrated in Exhibit "B", the applicant is proposing to re-face an existing free standing sign with a new double-sided LED display. The applicant is proposing four slides with the intent to add additional slides in the future since the LED display is programmable. The slides will consist of on-site displays of the applicant's products and services. In addition, the applicant submitted a narrative and two studies pertaining to digital signage and traffic safety which is included in Exhibit "B". The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building, reduce any parking spots, or remove landscaping. Staff has several concerns relating to the proposed double-sided LED Sign, related to the illumination and flashing components of the sign. Per RMC Section 17.116.030(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded, to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double- sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to the public or neighboring properties. As illustrated below, the south property line of the subject site abuts an existing two-story apartment complex. - S,,eie L vdi 'ro Steele St :: I 0 lo[ .. .v;le si, t cc r ill • Proposed r•,S • I - • • LEO 1 e'• Sign /1 It, Project Site . 10 I . — - v o: IIF • 'e dad AY: a r:, ' .6 0 *Complex.. . . • --t ~ U) ir , -__s_ ec; The proposed double-sided LED display would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light will spill out onto the Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 4 of 13 surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. In addition, because the proposed double-sided LED display is adjacent to the public-right- of-way, the unshielded light will also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public-right-of-way. Furthermore, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. While the proposed double-sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double-sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds and is not shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double-sided LED display will affect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public-right-of way. Correlation Between LED Signs and Traffic Hazards Initially, staff was concerned about the double-sided LED display and how it would affect traffic traveling along Rosemead Boulevard. However, after review from the City Engineer and two of the City's Traffic Consultants, it was determined that the studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards. The proposed plans were also routed to CAL TRANS. However, they did not have any comments because the proposed sign is on private property. Municipal Code Requirements Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior façade, or landscaping in a Design Overlay Zone. Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.020(C), provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with an apartment complex abutting the south property line. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been taken in regards to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded, therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double-sided Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 5 of 13 LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments because there are no double- sided LED signs or other electronic or flashing signs within the vicinity. The proposed double-sided LED sign would stand out because it would be a lit screen rather than a front-lighted or internally-lighted display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. While the applicant is only proposing to re-face an existing freestanding sign, the plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line. The proposed double-sided LED sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light would spill out onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. No existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED lighting. Further, the proposed double-sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is also not shielded, and therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the proposed double-sided LED sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause material depreciation in the value of such properties. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 6 of 13 of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. Staff's Recommendation: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign are not in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC). Per RMC Section 17.116.030(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public-right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(8)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. While the proposed double-sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double-sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds. In addition, since the proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex would be affected. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive and there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed double-sided LED sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is unshielded Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 7 of 13 and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed double- sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public-right-of way. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300-foot radius public hearing notice to 46 property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on July 6, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: 1 Annie Lao Lily T. Valenzuela Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-15 B. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations (Dated July 3, 2017) C. Assessor Parcel Map (APN:8594-008-039) Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page a of 13 EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 17-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE-FACE AN EXISTING FREE STANDING SIGN WITH A NEW LED DISPLAY THAT WOULD FLASH A NEW SLIDE EVERY TEN SECONDS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (APN: 8594- 008-039), IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/D-0) ZONE. WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to re-face an existing free standing sign with a new LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard; WHEREAS, 3940 Rosemead Boulevard is located in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-0) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, on July 6, 2017, 46 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 17-02; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2917 Page 9 of 13 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Design Review 17-02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify denying Design Review 17-02, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the RMC as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with an apartment complex abutting the south property line. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been taken in regards to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded, therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double- sided LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments because there are no LED signs or other electronic or flashing signs within the vicinity. The proposed LED sign would stand out because it would be a lit screen rather than a front- lighted or internally-lighted display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. While the applicant is only proposing to re-face an existing freestanding sign, the plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line. The proposed double-sided LED sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 10 of 13 seconds, light would spill out onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. No existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED lighting. Further, the proposed double-sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is also not shielded, and therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the proposed double-sided LED sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause material depreciation in the value of such properties. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. FINDING: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign are not in conformity with the standards of the RMC. Per RMC Section 17.116.030(6), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public-right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(6)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC sections 17.116.030(6)(2) and Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 11 of 13 17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. While the proposed double-sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double-sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds. In addition, since the proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex would be affected. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed double-sided LED sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is unshielded and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed double-sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public-right-of way. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY DENIES approval of Design Review 17-02 for a proposed re-face of an existing free standing sign with a new double-sided LED display that would display a new slide every ten seconds. SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040—Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 12 of 13 SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, DENIED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2017. Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 17th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lily T. Valenzuela, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2017 Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT "C" 8594 9,,,, ..",. cr. - ." -"`n ...,..9 m' P" e,. 2001 • N II ¢ 1 , Er _ , L • 1 1 I 1 1 i wa al i 7 No I1 m: _ �1®z 6 m . p ®® o'�o ®',iloo'�ooff® oto°_si-. --4 E WI DA 1 I 14BK E I : 1-, r 31 a ,n iTF • j • sr . SUBJECT SITE !km . � ;[%fJ §G� \ � ƒ{-k ! § / CQ-i ,;m �» 'i\•( ;[3 \ \ g §;3 tItUt E f/ r • • r 0.~ ! , £a« g [ p,f HtII1! p tel: c2 §! }ƒƒ �\ z \ ( // fl !it;U 4 2. 0 o » 70 0-n | (6 ƒEƒI •\ $f ign , l; ®00 = ((�} � i 2 M \� : {(\\}\} \ �•/(\\/{ kR E:2 § ! 2E , e # | =® } 1P 12 : . o ) 2G (} _— / / ƒ / § / / / 03 FR ori2` =k 7`§ C)! - ..z.'§; l4rq!iqgt®/fa = s# . CDl3h * • » 25 g; qqg |: sol..-5 7$4' .0 rt #'-i`7.* qi hi CD - k: Cl)• . 2 E :1144F,- C' ƒ" q.{ r i6-1 Z W Rosemead Blvd Pc� ' RIt* oN l� .. I O y A N x _ r I 1 0, 1 m m S g I o N N HH Im �c nd I 34414, A A L o- O T N 6 D I �/ Iri 1 FT So of / / I Wz I t / 3 c w I' / -0i 41 Ii ir= Ico fD EF ,L_., . r.„ CD _ f - F.;C1 o w Ili 1 I '= I 1[1= _ .7.-,-.° 5 g :U' I `9 5 0" 9 I 1 1 • 1 a— , __ - j \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I z, <-1 I 0' e • n Q D n ,1 m D o = lli CD _„, __, , .\ b. b b 6 C D O 0- Q D co - 4.. ., _,, ou \\Allill D D Pi w S.- m adjacent property (not a part) • �; i1i !II (-7(>\ Z a ge8°8 %..-2 ti3O o� $° 9 eco oR$ i -ta '. •• . - - o'E zi -S8 u _ zN .. - uab8 g� N co fO O co O 5.a.E. 93 go...0., o mo 3. 3 11iiII klpt 8-11- gtigg5�= . 9 FE: m m €- " x.a a?o s co Lic, 0. 9 • 2'Z y • - f o ci) X' A r r_ i"ern ' ?,'.. 1C2 ,'�Q • i w w * ,d CJ ▪ A l0 cnCn coo J o T O CP O d V - O T N 6 N Pr m CD C<O , aB 3 2 w O i.7.w CD a 4 o w R • Fl3 .,r tt o r i • 1 p Gni A ''-'S' ]JS o a o= q o- 1 -▪ w y 't - a ........ - CD N ,0-. to :_ r. n�i p o t 4, * Q _ K r° 1 O C w W • ...• •..- O D —_r— P, w r : • c i " 3';li: iIr!IiI � o� va E.Ug. 3mga oro 'g o yof-' 82: II.!j! a;• .i g'g.- $ F ._ .i • •(1 ._ 1--- - -15'-0" - - \0 7 \9 I s,2 ----- : !§� w\ i ------ \j� A � ;,CP/ \\ C. /\ , w w \ . \ ; j}k c( , \ e r ' CO FT• _ §/ . c. • \� / 0 . §E : . • l' . / § rg� E Z 9- m # § §� . { (# ` F. \\ ) °a o a | E § •£ !Z # _ 0. .• / / \ ƒ 23 7 \ 2co = •-• o r— r• TI co rn 17 \ § co ) ® / \ o o§ - / }\ - t 2 Z. \ ■ ° 2 « « , \ \\ \ {R` Q2q w 7 :!q ;© !! /£%: CZ ! { § / 2 \ I #! }ki- ) - {\/®\ i g - ƒ \R\ _ -trig/ f ,Q, ! $ • - �! |m yr,` G _ ! G/;#{' \q\\°ƒ Wsx °tag1 - G !\ •quawuoJinua leJn4eu UI JOlnegaq az26 4o IoJlUOJ aul uo Aioagl pue gDJ22saJ lua4s!5UOD aJe Apngs ago�O S��nsaJ ago uD!uM spJeoq ab2SS VJ (3]-1 .10j papnpuoa Apn4s A4a4es DW2.14 2 SI papnpUi aq oT pagaefle osIv •suopsa66ns Jo quawaJinbaJ a1T u�iM pa4snfpe aq uea sial •upea spUOJ SOT Joh apHs pea AeIdsip II!M pue Aiuo S D!AJaS pue spnpowd TueuaT au4 Jo sAeldsip ajisuo aq II!M apils uDe3 •ameHene SaWOJ uopew1oJU! Mau pue aneweJ6oJd si pieoq abessaw aqj se papnpw aq 'um sapUs ieuoilippe qnq pasodoJd 6uiaq semis 17 aJ2 aJaul uaaJas aul AdnDJo II!M aptis uaea Guo! 'mu pue aq II!M saps Auew Mog oa se sHe4ap pex3 vv ;!gigx3 pauD2f42 aas aseatd Lib's au4 uo paAe4Jod aq o4 6uio6 si TegM Apex@ jo swgiux3 lepol agl UI Henb a6eUb!S pue AlmgISIn guano agl 6UISeaJUUI 5e Ham Se AgiunwwOO 12301 agj SaDIAJOS ino pue AuedWOD Jno Aeidsip JaTjaq uea am leui os Aeldsip 1e4!6ip 2 oT u6is pasodoJd aq4 3o Tuaaui aul ani;eJJeN CIV3N3S02A Ob6£ ZO-LT Al\DIA1 NDIS34 :ij3C9nS OLLT6 V3 'p2awasoi •pnig peawasoJ 0b6£ sa6ed MoIIaA Jawnsuop asauigj LTOZ 'T A2N Ilf 1191HX3 . . . ..„ . ..1,-,. 1 . . - ; • , . • ,. . . . • . • • . _ . . ..,- . , _. •••• z.:.Is::z. _ •..., -5'.i' ' ,. . . . . ,. ... I NNW V 'X Y t — N i t.1\N. INIII)ld,1‘11 OdX3 NY311:130111 NYISY , . r ii -- let *..4—, . •, ,. - ,•st -* ic— . 44iwordH.v .,,,,., 0 . tt * *•. .. it -0 . 0 „. .. . . ...._ _ _ \ . ,•-•--,---, • ••• , L, , v.„ nr,---, , \ L ,_ ., ,... \ .. ._ 3 .:..... . ...,.. n.. . , __ .... . . . ... .., ... .. .. . . . . .. _ r , • S39Vd M0113 A -- - 'OdX3 NVOILBINV NVISV , 1131111SNO3 3S3NIH3 " t .1 .1:'• ' .. -A.V.---- 1 S391fd M011111... 113WOSNO3 3S3NIH3' ; t t 8 .. Vr i S3INOH_L>Ida PL0Z80 00^ab 06SS98Zaospluwl�oagtOZ© 6iJAdoh wo)'saluomOpao!JawwoO worSD!U0IpplY I M CJ l8C0Z64909OZZLS as OO60'Z69509 9117z-save laf HZ l S900LS as's6uljoa8 8Z l S"8 Od anuO S lUOJpoa lOZ (SS •6d) „•(lsol 6wnup 01.11 '.a.!) puoy to 1so1 041 of IUDAGIDJ GJaM lDyl XoMpooJ ay{ JO sow)of uo!luallo ions!A J!ayl Jo Xluo(ow ayl palaai!p Apnis s!yl u! sJanup ay4 4041 1sa66ns olop luasaid ayI„ woyj along . •(spuoaas 6L£•) puoaas o U044 ssal s! aauOI6 a6oJany. •(spuoaas Z Jo pJopuols paldaaao Molag 1laM) spuoDas S8 I soM papJoaaJ awy aauol6 4sa6uo-1 . :uo!lowJojui AaN •VA 'puowya!� puo 'yd '6u!poaN u! spiooglliq 1004)40 saauoi6 aXa lnogo'(imp cLOZ Jagwaaaa o pasoalai Xpnls uo!l0Jls!u!wpy XoMy6!H loJapaJ ayi IAos 4uawuaano6 I°papa}aq;l saop;oqM •SpuO7aS uoip aJOW JOj anwIUOD Jo4J saJuoi6 Aq XOMpOOJ ayj wOJj pajlaAlp aJ0 SaXa S,JaA!Jp D UaLM asp)51.1J97UO7 XJajoS MINN) UOy0JJs!U1wp\/ /(oM46!H lOUOIJON ayl of 6u!pJoaJv,,„* rillirliiillaillillillarailid"""mial"1214"1711611111"1"611116111171111166"—. I spuoaas (anal snoJe6uop, Jad spuoaas q•y paJopap l,A09) (puoaas 1 >) 6u1Aup allyM 6u!lxal spuoaas Z spioogll!e lol!6!a spuoaas O •pouad puoaas q o 6u!Jnp spuoaas q•q alo suoyOJnp aauol6 6u!lxal • •sluap!aao ayjpJ'Joj J(q!q!ssod ayl asoaiau!Alluoay!u6!s spuoaas 0M4 Jan)saauo10 •spuoaas s•O{nog0 ajaM su6!s 104!6!p lD Sa7UDlo . (su61s as!waJd-u0 y4IM XIaA!snpxa slDap) 10Z :w'gy soxal • •swaauoa Xlajos ayppil Joj ploysaJyl ay(palap!suoa 010Z-LOOZ saloP)ssy D1o4U0I s!401 M uoyl 5501 JDj aJaM su6!s lo4!6!p 40 sawll aauol6 ayI . LOO :yaal o!u!6J!A • .sadA4 „luana„ Jay)40 uoyl ZIOZ '6002 'LOOZ '0861 :VHMJ • su6!s Iol!6!p to XlluanbaJj ajow aauol6 ION GIG SJanua • •snop.iozoq aq 04 punoi uaaq .ianau anoq puo sn IIa}salpn;s 941;oUM sioai( pg uo44 aaoua ao; pa!pn{s uaaq anoq su6!s au Sa21d081118 1v11Jla aNd S?I31N3D 3OVSS3W DINO211D313 :0 A13IVS 3DNVTO b IV AI3JVS S?]1NLL ]OYSSW DING?1J11] Safety Many cities, counties, or slates worry about LED signs increasing traffic accidents. But no causal connection exists between traffic accidents and LED signs according to traffic studies from organizations such as the Federal Highway Administration, the Foundation for Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research, and Tantala Asssociates. Federal Highway Administration Texas A&M University Consistent results from an eye tracking system showed For the entire sample size of 135 sites in California, the length of gazes were not in the 'danger zone"of North Carolina,Ohio, and Washington, the results two seconds or longer. So the gazes were not long from the method showed there is no statistically enough to cause accidents. significant change in crash frequency associated with installing on-premise digital signs. Albuquerque, NM Accidents didn't increase after the installation of 17 Virginia Tech digital billboards. This is based on the City of Traffic accident analysis techniques have improved in Albuquerque's own data and an objective statistical recent years with the creation and maintenance of analysis. national crash databases. A careful examination in Cleveland, Ohio, of these databases shows that Richmond, VA distraction caused by billboards fails to show up in Data show no statistically significant increase in any of the accident databases as an accident cause. accident rates, using before and after comparisons and an Empirical Bayes Method Analysis for the Tantala Reading actual and predicted comparisons. The overall conclusion is that these digital billboards in Reading, PA, have no statistically significant Rochester, MN relationship with the occurrence of accidents.This This study examines the statistical relationship conclusion is based on local police and PennDOT between digital billboards and traffic safety in data and an objective statistical analysis. Rochester, MN. The overall conclusion of the study is that digital billboards in Rochester have no Tantala Digital Billboard Report statistically significant relationship with the occurrence Billboards in Cuyahoga County exhibit no statistically of accidents. significant relationship with the occurrence of accidents. This conclusion is based on the Ohio Department of Transportation's own data and an objective statistical analysis; the data shows no increase in accident rates. For additional information about dealing with sign codes, consult these resources: • www.signs.org/Government For the entire research studies,go to: •www.daktronics.com/signregulations a DAKTRONICS Summary of FHWA Study Digital Sign Safety A 28 January 2014 INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION On 27 December 2013, the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released the results of a multiyear research study of driver visual behavior in the presence of digital billboards (CEVMS; "changeable electronic variable message signs" is the preferred FHWA term). This research had been long anticipated, but had been delayed for several years as the report's release has been contested. Updates from FHWA and USDOT staff at key conferences (TRB, NAHBA,AASHTO R-O-W) have mentioned discussions on the language in the cover memo and an objection raised in the peer review of the raw data. In any event,the study(based on data collected in September 2009 -April 2010) has been released and the authors' conclusions are consistent with the favorable outcome expected by members of the on-premise sign and outdoor advertising industries. Key Conclusions "The results of the study are consistent with research and theory on the control of gaze behavior in natural environments. The demands of the driving task tend to affect the driver's self-regulation of gaze behavior."(emphasis added; pg i) The study attempted to address three research questions: (1)Do CEVMS ATTRACT DRIVERS'ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FORWARD ROADWAY AND OTHER DRIVING RELEVANT STIMULI? "On average, the drivers in this study devoted between 73 and 85 percent of their visual attention to the road ahead for both CEVMS and standard billboards.This range is consistent with earlier field research studies. In the present study, the presence of CEVMS did not appear to be related to o decrease in looking toward the road ahead." (emphasis added; pg 2) (2) Do GLANCES TO CEVMS OCCUR THAT WOULD SUGGEST A DECREASE IN SAFETY? "The results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS, as deployed and tested in the two selected cities, were associated with unacceptably long glances away from the road. When dwell times longer than the currently accepted threshold of 2,000 ms occurred,the road ahead was still in the driver's field of view.This was the case for both CEVMS and standard billboards." (emphasis added; pg 2) (3) DO DRIVERS LOOK AT CEVMS MORE THAN STANDARD BILLBOARDS? "When a gaze was to an off-premise advertising sign,the drivers were generally more likely to gaze at a CEVMS than at a standard billboard." (pg 3) A INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION Overall: The present data suggest that the drivers in this study directed the majority of their visual attention to areas of the roadway that were relevant to the task at hand(e.g., the driving task). Furthermore, it is possible, and likely, that in the time that the drivers looked away from the forward roadway, they may have elected to glance at other objects in the surrounding environment(in the absence of billboards)that were not relevant to the driving task. When billboards were present, the drivers in this study sometimes looked at them, but not such that overall attention to the forward roadway decreased. (pg.4) Details about the Study Itself The need for further study of CEVMS was highlighted in a 2007 FHWA memorandum (that declared digital billboards operating with a message change rate of 4-10 seconds did not violate earlier prohibitions against "flashing"). In 2009, FHWA conducted a literature review (FHWA- HRT-09-018)to examine the overall body of research on the subject of safety effects of digital billboards. Following that literature review,this larger study began. Glance Target Category definitions Mind eo no- Ar. ' �yA trate' Mists; s - Environment fi$tlt ' M _ (kr Enviro >ent t • I � t-i ' .*OW Gauge Cluster Small Green Dot= recta m..nanrwr m�Federal Highway Tracked Eye Movement 'Administration iA INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION The researchers(employees of SAIC) conducted field studies in Reading, PA and Richmond,VA. Using a specially equipped test vehicle, drivers followed two specified routes(1 freeway; 1 arterial roads). Each route took 25-35 minutes to drive and was 13-20 miles long. In Reading, 43 drivers ages 18-64(median age 46-47)were recruited to participate,though only 31 produced useable data (14 night; 17 day). In Richmond, 41 drivers ages 18-64(median ages 25- 28)were recruited to participate, though only 24 produced useable data (14 day; 10 night). The participants were not told the purpose of the drive; at the end,they were debriefed with questions about the presence of an in-car navigation system giving audible directions. Key Numbers from the Study • Drivers devote 73-85%of visual attention to the roadway • Average "fixation" duration to digital billboards were 379ms (335 for standard), "similar to the average fixation duration to the road ahead" • Longest fixation to a digital billboard was 1,335ms (1,284ms for standard),well below widely accepted threshold of 2,000ms resulting in higher crash risk. • Four(of 55) individuals had billboard dwell (aggregate of consecutive fixations on same object)times in excess of 2,000ms, but three were to standard billboards, and all were positioned close to forward view (drivers still could see road in peripheral vision). v... „,, , ( ,s,. gi Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between On-Premise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety by H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D.,P.E. Associate Professor and Research Engineer Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University Pei-Fen Kuo Graduate Research Assistant Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Dominique Lord, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Research Engineer Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University Sponsored by Signage Foundation, Inc. P.O.Box 14392 Washington, DC 20044 Texas Engineering Extension Service The Texas A&M University System College Station,TX 77843 December 17,2012 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors,who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program in the interest of information exchange.The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.The U.S. Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to recognize the Signage Foundation,Inc.,for providing the funding for this research effort.The authors also wish to acknowledge the sign companies that provided proprietary information regarding the installation of the digital signs that were used to create the databases analyzed in this project.Although they are not recognized by name in order to protect the proprietary nature of the information,their contributions are greatly appreciated. ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations shown below are used in this report. MDT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADT Average Daily Traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AIC Akaike Information Criterion ANOVA Analysis of Variance BIC Bayesian Information Criterion CEVMS Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs CG Control Group DF Degrees of Freedom EB Empirical Bayes EBB Electronic Billboard FH WA Federal Highway Administration HSIS Highway Safety Information System HSM Highway Safety Manual LCD Liquid Crystal Display LED Light-Emitting Diode MS Mean of Sum of Squares MSE Error Mean Square MST Treatment Mean Square RTM Regression to the Mean SAR Spatial Autoregressive Model SEM Spatial Error Model SFI Signage Foundation, Inc. SPF Safety Performance Function SS Sum of Squares SSE Sum of Squares for Error SST Total Sum of Squares TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures v List of Tables vi Executive Summary vii Chapter I: Introduction 1 Research Approach 1 Description of a Digital Sign 1 Research Activities and Report Organization 2 Chapter 2: Background Information 3 On-Premise Digital Signs 3 Off-Premise Digital Signs 4 Safety Effects 4 Characteristics of the Evaluation Methods Used in Previous Studies 7 Chapter 3: Study Data 9 Crash Data 9 Sign Data 11 Data-Merging Procedure 12 Chapter 4: Study Methodology 16 A Before-After Study and a Cross-Sectional Study 16 The Before-After Study 16 Common Methods for Conducting a Before-After Study 18 Naïve Method 18 Control Group Method 19 Empirical Bayes Method 20 Calculation Procedures and Examples 21 Chapter 5: Results 25 Individual and Combined Results 25 Results for Crashes Related to Multiple and Single Vehicles 28 Results for Crashes Related to Different Types of Signs 29 Impact of Sign Hold Time 32 Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions 34 Chapter 7: References 36 Appendix A: Step-By-Step Instructions for Students to Record Sign Data 39 Appendix B: Statistical Symbols 41 iv LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Summary of study results viii Figure 2. The flow chart for data collection and merging procedure 13 Figure 3. Example work table of site data collection 15 Figure 4. A comparison of sample sizes from similar studies 26 Figure 5. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state(all crash types) 27 Figure 6. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for cach state(multi-vehicle crashes) 28 Figure 7.The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state(single-vehicle crashes) 29 Figure 8. The histogram of digital signs for each sign dimension 31 Figure 9. Example screenshot of Google Maps 40 Figure 10. Example screenshot of Google Earth 40 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Safety effects of off-premise digital signs 6 Table 2. HSIS crash coverage and roadway length by state 10 Table 3. Coefficients for multi and single-vehicle crash regression model 22 Table 4. Sign site sample size yield 26 Table 5. Results of statistical analysis of before-after crash condition 27 Table 6.The typical form of a one-way ANOVA table 30 Table 7.Analysis of variance table (color) 31 Table 8.Analysis of variance table (sign dimension) 32 Table 9.Analysis of variance table(six business types) 32 Table 10. Analysis of variance table (two business types) 32 Table 11. Summary of sign hold times 33 Table 12. Example work table of site data collection procedure 39 vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The use of digital on-premise signs,which are typically business-related signs that have the ability to change the displayed message,has increased significantly in recent years.On-premise digital signs are located on the same property as the businesses they promote,and some part or a significant part in some cases—of the sign contains a digital display that can be programmed to change the message at pre-set intervals. Because the use of these signs has increased,jurisdictions have used local sign codes or ordinances to regulate the manner in which digital messages are displayed. Jurisdictions typically justify these regulations by citing traffic safety impacts.However,no comprehensive and scientifically based research efforts have evaluated the relationship between on-premise digital signs and traffic safety. In this study, researchers collected large amounts of sign and crash data in order to conduct a robust statistical analysis of the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. The statistical tools used the latest safety analysis theory developed for analyzing the impacts of highway safety improvements.The research team acquired the crash data from the Highway Safety Information System,which is a comprehensive database of crash records from several states. One of the advantages of these data is that they also include information about roadway characteristics, such as the number of lanes, speed limit,and other factors.The research team then acquired information about the location of on-premise digital signs from two sign manufacturing companies. Through significant effort by the researchers,these two datasets were merged into a single dataset that represented potential study locations in California,North Carolina,Ohio,and Washington.Of the initial set of over 3,000 possible sites,the research team was able to identify 135 sign locations that could be used for the safety analysis. Potential sites were eliminated from consideration due to any of the following factors: • The sign location was not on a roadway that was included in the crash dataset;only major roads were represented in the crash data. • The sign location provided by a sign manufacturing company could not be verified through online digital images of the location. • Only signs installed in calendar years 2006 or 2007 could be included in order to have adequate amounts of crash data before and after the sign was installed. The research team then used the empirical Bayes method to perform a before-after statistical analysis of the safety impacts of the on-premise digital signs. In a before-after study,the safety impact of a treatment(in this case, the installation of an on-premise digital sign) is defined by the change in crashes between the periods before and after the treatment was installed. However, simply comparing the crash frequencies (known as a naive before-after analysis) is not adequate to account for factors such as regression to the mean(a statistical concept that explains why after data can be closer to the mean value than the before data)and to provide a means of controlling for external factors that can also cause a difference in crash frequencies. The empirical Bayes method represents the recommended procedure for evaluating the impacts of safety treatments because it overcomes the deficiencies of the naïve method. The safety impacts are represented by the safety index,which is indicated by the symbol 0. In simple terms,the safety index represents a ratio of safety in the after period compared to safety in the before period,although it is not as vii simple as dividing the crashes in the after period by the crashes in the before period.A safety index greater than 1.0 indicates an increase in crashes in the after period, and a value less than 1.0 indicates a reduction in crashes in the after period. However, because of the variability in the crash data, the analysis must have statistical validity. Statistical variability is established by defining the 95 percent confidence interval for the safety index, which is based on factors such as sample size and the variability of the data. If the 95 percent confidence interval includes the value of 1.0,then there is a 95 percent chance that there is no statistically significant change in crashes between the before and after periods. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in Figure 1. This figure shows that the safety index for all of the states was 1.0 with a 95 percent confidence interval that ranged from 0.93 to 1.07. This indicates that, for the 135 sites included in the analysis, there was no statistically significant change in crashes due to the installation of on-premise digital signs. The same can also be said about the results for each of the four states on an individual basis because the confidence interval for safety index for each state includes 1.0. The larger confidence intervals for some of the states are due to greater variability in the data and/or smaller sample sizes. The researchers also analyzed single-vehicle and multi-vehicle crashes and found the same result of no statistically significant change in crashes. Finally, the researchers performed an analysis of variance for the sign factors of color, size, and type of business and found no statistically significant differences in the mean safety index values for individual factors. 3.0 -- -- — 2.5 `c- ----upper bound _. • • •• 2.0 ` - — — ``. lower bound 0 • • 1.5 — ` ------------------- 5— — — • 1.0 0.5 -t- 0.0 CA NC OH WA ALL Figure 1. Summary of study results The results of this study provide scientifically based data that indicate that the installation of digital on-premise signs does not lead to a statistically significant increase in crashes on major roads. viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION For many generations,most signs—including both traffic and business signs—were static. They displayed only one message that did not change with time.Advances in information display technologies in recent years have led to an increase in the use of many types of digital signs,particularly in the area of on-premise and off-premise business signs. On-premise digital signs provide the ability to communicate a wide variety of messages and to change the manner in which the message is presented over time. As such,these digital signs represent a significant advancement in communication technologies and the ability to deliver valuable marketing information to potential customers. However,some groups have raised questions related to the traffic safety aspects of business signs that change messages on a frequent basis.The traffic safety concerns are often related to issues of potential driver distraction from the roadway due to the dynamic nature of these signs.These safety concerns are sometimes addressed through local regulation of these types of signs,which may prohibit or limit the use of on-premise digital signs. These regulations tend to be developed at the local level and do not have a significant level of scientific,nationally based research supporting the regulations. The traffic safety concerns associated with on-premise digital signs have existed for some time, but there has been little researoh, particularly on a national level,that directly addresses the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. In part,this is due to the fact that the use of such signs has grown only in the last 5-10 years.The research described in this report was conducted to provide a scientifically based,national analysis of on-premise digital signs so that the traffic safety impacts of such signs can be better understood. RESEARCH APPROACH The basic research method used in this study is a before-after statistical analysis of the change in traffic crashes at locations where digital signs were installed. The research team used digital sign installation information provided by sign manufacturers to identify locations in selected states where digital signs had been installed in the 2006-2007 time frame(this time frame was selected to provide adequate numbers of crashes in both the before and after periods).The analysis locations were limited to California,North Carolina, Ohio,and Washington because these states are part of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)Highway Safety Information System (HSIS). The HSIS is a database of crash records that includes detailed information about the roadway and crashes, including such factors as the number of lanes,the speed limit, crash severity,and other factors. The researchers then mapped the sign sites to the crash datasets to identify locations with crashes.These locations were then analyzed to compare the crashes before installation of the digital sign to the crashes after installation of the sign using statistical analysis procedures. DESCRIPTION OF A DIGITAL SIGN For the purposes of this study,a digital sign is defined as a sign that uses an electrical display, such as a liquid crystal display(LCD)or light-emitting diode (LED), to provide changeable 1 messages or graphics. There are several types of digital signs, including digital billboards,indoor video advertisements,and street-level advertisements (such as LED signs on bus shelters). For this study,the researchers focused only on on-premise digital signs,which are signs located on the same property as the business with which they are associated.The research effort did not include or address off-premise signs or billboards. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND REPORT ORGANIZATION There were five major activities associated with this research effort. The study began by reviewing and evaluating previous research on the safety aspects of digital signs and the statistical methods that other researchers have used to evaluate the safety aspects of signs. Chapter 2 describes thc results of the review of background information.The researchers then began to collect information related to digital signs and crash data in thc selected states.The sign information included the location and date of installation,and the crash data included the location and date.The researchers then devoted extensive effort to matching the locations and dates of the signs and crash datasets. Chapter 3 describes the sign and crash data and how the two datasets were merged together.Once this was accomplished,the next step was to develop a valid and scientifically based statistical analysis procedure to determine if there were any statistically significant changes in crashes after installation of digital signs. Chapter 4 describes the development of a statistical methodology,including a comparison of the advantages of the different options for conducting the statistical analysis.Finally,the research team used the results of the statistical analysis to define the key study findings,which are described in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents thc conclusions and recommendations for the research study. 2 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION This chapter provides a review of the literature related to on-premise digital signs and their impacts on traffic safety.The review also includes a summary of statistical methods that can be used for evaluating the safety effects for these types of signs. Although the majority of the work has been related to off-premise digital signs, key studies associated with off-premise signs are nonetheless briefly discussed here. It should be pointed out that compared to other types of roadway-related operational and design features,such as access point density on urban arterials or on-street parking dcsigns,the number of documents that are related to either on-or off- premise signs is relatively small. On-premise signs are signs that are located on the same property as the activity described in the sign,while off-premise signs are located away from the activity identified in the sign. Off- premise signs are also known as third-party signs or outdoor advertising,and the most common example is a billboard. In general,off-premise signs have a larger visible area, which is attributed to the fact that these signs usually have greater surface areas and have higher mounting heights than on-premise signs. Furthermore,off-premise signs have a larger viewership because they are usually located adjacent to freeways and major highways with higher traffic volume. On the other hand,on-premise signs are installed on private property where a company conducts its business, and most are located along urban streets or local roadways.According to The Signage Sourcebook(U.S. Small Business Administration, 2003),the viewing opportunities for outdoor advertising(typically 333,350 cars per day)are much greater than those for an on-premise sign (30,000 cars per day). The literature review is divided into two sections. The first section summarizes studies related to on-premise digital signs.The second section presents the summary of two key studies associated with off-premise digital signs. ON-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS This section describes the characteristics of the studies that have examined the relationship between safety and on-premise digital signs.To the knowledge of the authors, only two studies have investigated this relationship. It should be pointed out that the safety relationships identified in these research documents were not based on crash data but more on opinions and hypotheses, which limits their value as a direct measure of on-premise sign safety. The first study was conducted by Mace (2001). This author performed a literature review and listed two hypotheses about how on-premise signs can influence crash risk. The first hypothesis states that on-premise business signs distract drivers' attention from their primary driving tasks,resulting in higher crash risks.The second hypothesis asserts that on-premise business signs may mask the visibility of regulatory and warning road signs,which also can negatively influence cmsh risk. On the other hand, Mace (2001)noted positive effects associated with commercial signs. He reported that commercial signs could reduce unnecessary traffic exposure by providing adequate navigation information for drivers,such as providing restaurant information for hungry drivers. 3 However,only measuring the frequency and duration of drivers' distraction may not represent the safety impacts of on-premise signs because a study published earlier showed that half of the objects that drivers see are not related to driving tasks(Hughes and Cole, 1986).In other words, besides on-premise signs,other roadside features may also distract drivers.The possible solution to minimize the negative effects of an on-premise sign,but still keep its positive effects, is to separate the sign's content to primary(navigation)and secondary(commercial)information. Although, in the past, on-premise signs and off-premise signs were treated as distinct signage, they are becoming more homogeneous in terms of characteristics.In the second study, Wachtel (2009) mentioned that more roadside businesses,especially those with multiple users(e.g., shopping centers,auto malls, sports complexes,and entertainment places),now install larger- sized on-premise digital signs because of the lower cost and better performance of the LED display. Wachtel indicated that the largest digital advertising sign in the world is an on-premise sign in New York City.This sign is 90 ft tall and 65 ft wide,and is mounted on a 165-ft-tall steel post on the roof of the warehouse. The visible distance is over 2 miles. Wachtel also suggested that some on-premise signs affect traffic safety more than some off-premise digital signs because the locations and elevations of on-premise signs might be closer to the road users. In addition, the angles of on-premise signs may be out of the cone of vision and require extreme head movements to read. In summary,these two studies showed more research is needed for understanding the relationship between on-premise digital signs and crash risk. OFF-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS This section is divided into two parts. The first part describes two key studies that have examined the safety effects of off-premise digital signs.The second part covers methodologies that have been used for estimating these effects. Safety Effects There are two reports that provide reviews of the findings,methods, and key factors related to the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. The first systematic study related to the impacts of off-premise signs was conducted II years ago by Farbry et al. (2001).Their study reviewed earlier reports and analyses(including those about electronic billboards and tri-vision signs)and provided the foundation for the second study written by Molino et al. (2009). In the second report,Molino et al. (2009)reviewed 32 related studies,which included those initially reviewed by Farbry et al. (2001),and noted that the majority of studies reported a negative effect between digital billboards and traffic safety.Although the number of studies that showed harmful impacts is five times more than the number of studies that showed no harmful impacts,the authors suggested that this ratio may not be strong evidence to prove the negative effects linked to electronic billboards(EBBs).The individual studies considered by these researchers had very different study methods and statistical powers, which can have a significant effect on the quality and results of the research. 4 Another important finding in the Molino et al. (2009)report is that drivers usually have spare attention capacities, and they can be distracted from their driving tasks by roadside objects(such as EBBs).However,these distractions may be riskier when the driving demands increase, such as in fixed hazard areas(e.g., intersections, interchanges, and sharp curves), in transient risky conditions(e.g.,adverse weather,vehicle path intrusions,and slow traffic), or when other important information is processed at the same time(e.g.,an official traffic sign). In other words, not only will the sign's internal characteristics(overall size, legend size,color, contrast, luminance level,etc.)affect crash risk,but so will external environmental factors (type of road, speed,weather conditions, time of day,etc.).Hence,Molino et al. list all possible key factors and suggest further studies to examine how they could influence safety. These factors arc categorized into two groups: independent and dependent variables. The independent variables arc separated by subject into five subgroups:billboard,roadway,vehicle,driver, and environment.It should be noted that the relationship between EBBs and on-premise signs is discussed in the environment subgroup,and dynamic factors of on-premise signs, such as change rate,motion,video, and sound,are listed as extremely important.The dependent variables are separated into vehicle behavior,driver/vehicle interaction, driver attention/distraction,and crash categories. Since there are hundreds of related key factors,the authors claimed that"No single experiment can provide the solution"and suggested future research programs to address the following topics:(]) determining when distraction caused by commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMSs)affects safe driving, (2)investigating the relationship between distraction and various CVEMS parameters, and(3)examining the relationship between distraction and safety surrogate measures, such as eye glance and traffic conflicts. Table I summarizes the literature review results from these two reports. This table shows that the results of crash studies are not consistent,and most studies have some important weaknesses, such as neglecting biases related to the regression to the mean(RTM)(discussed below)and site- selection effects(using the naïve method), low statistical power, and analysis results based on erroneous assumptions. It should be noted that only post-hoc crash studies are listed here because this study focuses on the change of crash rate caused by on-premise digital signs. As mentioned,Table I shows that the results related to the safety effects of off-premise signs are inconsistent. The inconsistencies can be fully or partly attributed to various study limitations. For instance,the studies in the Wachtel and Netherton report(1980)and Wisconsin Department of Transportation report(1994)both used a naïve before-after study methodology(methodology approaches are described in Chapter 4), and they did not account for the R'I'M bias,which may change their estimates of crash rate and safety effects of signs.The general idea of RTM is that when observations are characterized by very high(or low)values in a given time period and for a specific site (or several sites), it is anticipated that observations occurring in a subsequent time period are more likely to regress toward the long-term mean of a site (Hauer and Persaud, 1983). Also,these studies should provide the variance of estimators(that is the uncertainty associated with the estimator)for judging the statistical significance of their results. Moreover,grouping studies where the objectives or types of signs arc different is not appropriate. For example,the goal of the report prepared by Tantala and Tantala(2007)was to study the safety impacts caused by converting traditional billboards to digital billboards,while other studies focused on the safety impacts after installation of new digital billboards. Those are two distinct effects that are examined and should not be grouped together to evaluate the safety effects of on-premise digital 5 signs. Wachtel(2009)also noted other limitations in Tantala and Tantala's study, such as a lack of adequate before-after and comparison group data;no clear definition and reasonable calculation of the visual range and legibility range of EBBs;and no crash data related to adverse weather, impaired drivers, and interchanges. Table 1.Safety effects of off-premise digital signs Sample Study Methods Data Type Results Location Size Wachtel and Naïve before- Crash The crash reduction of target area was Tele-Spot Not Netherton after study frequency 10%less than the overall reduction sign,Boston provided (1980) (after the installation of the signs) Crash rate(eastbound):all crashes increased 36%,sideswipe crashes Wisconsin Crash increased 8%,and rear-end crashes Department of Nage before- frequency, increased 21% Milwaukee, 2 Transportation after studyAverageWisconsin p daily traffic Crash rate(westbound):all crashes (1994) (AD1) increased 21%,sideswipe crashes increased 35%,and rear-end crashes increased 35% Before-after Crash frequency, Downtown intersection sites:no significant change in crash rate study ADT,safety Toronto, (empirical performance (all crashes increased 0.6%, Canada 3 injury crashes increased 43%,and Smiley et al. Bayes) function rear-end crashes increased 13%) (2005) Before-after Crash Rural sites:no significant change in study frequency, crash rate based on most compared Toronto, • 1 (control group) �Bo Ptro1 sites Canada r 1 Tantala and NaYve before- No significant change in crash rate Cuyahoga, 'i 7 Tantala(2007) after study Crash frequency, g d Ohio control group, Cuyahoga, Tantala and No description ADT No significant change in crash rate 7 Tantala(2009) of the method Ohio The second shortcoming in Tantala and Tantala(2007)is that they used a simple correlation analysis between sign density and crash rate to examine safety effects of billboards. Using this approach,they found that the correlation coefficients among the scenarios analyzed were very low(around 0.20), indicating that the installation of billboards did not increase the number of crashes. This may well be true,but they did not use the right analysis tool. For investigating the relationship between sign density and the number of crashes, it is more appropriate to develop one or several regression models since the safety analyst can have a better control over other factors that can influence the number and severity of crashes(Lord and Mannering, 2010). In a regression model,several independent variables can be included, which is better to estimate the variable of interest(such as the installation of digital signs).However, it should be pointed out that the before-after study,as performed in this study,still remains the best methodological approach for estimating the safety effects of an intervention. Among all studies in Table I, Smiley et al. (2005)provides the more reliable results since they used a before-afler method using a control group(CG)and empirical Hayes (EB)approach. The 6 only limitation is related to the small sample size. The authors of the study only evaluated three sites. Even with a small sample size,the EB method can still be successfully used to evaluate the safety effects of an intervention,as was done by Ye et al. (2011). Ye et al. (2011) used the EB method to estimate the safety impacts of gateway monument signs,which can be categorized as one type of off-premise sign. Gateway monuments are roadside structures used to introduce a city or town.These monuments usually have the name of the city or town and are located at the city limits. According to Wachtel et al. (2009)and Farbry,(2001), using crash data might not be a precise method because crashes usually have multiple causal events, which arc difficult to extract from crash datasets. For example,they noted that sign internal variables(such as size, brightness, viewing angle,etc.)might play main roles in drivers' distraction or ignoring of official traffic signs,while other external factors affect conflicts and crash risk.Although those reasons may be legitimate, utilizing crash data is still the best approach for evaluating the safety effects of interventions as well as those associated with operational and design features(Hauer 1997). As stated by Hauer,"It follows that, in the final account, to preserve the ordinary meaning of words, the concept of safeiy must be linked to accidents."Furthermore, using crash data have other advantages: lower cost and fewer artificial errors.Firstly,the cost of conducting a before-after crash study is much lower than human-centered methods because the researchers do not need to purchase equipment and hire participants for conducting driving tests. Secondly, crash data are based on crash reports,which can provide a more accurate measure of safety than surrogate measures such as speed,driver behavior,or other measures.Only by conducting a before-after crash study can one provide results that combine multiple casual variables in the real world. Other methods cannot displace the above advantages,which explain why the research team selected the before-after methodology for estimating the safety effects of digital signs. Characteristics of the Evaluation Methods Used in Previous Studies This section describes the characteristics of other methods used in previous studies for examining the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. In addition to a crash before-after study approach,the most common study methods that have been used for examining the safety impacts of off-premise signs include eye fixations,traffic conflicts,headways and speeds, and public surveys. Most studies used one or more of the above methods to examine the impacts of off- premise signs(Molino et al.,2009). For instance, Smiley et al. (2005) used four different methods(eye fixation,conflict study, before-after crash study,and public survey)for examining a video sign located in Toronto. On the other hand,Lee et al. (2007)used eye fixations and a questionnaire for their study. It should be noted that the results from multiple measurements are usually inconsistent. Briefly,the eye fixation study method uses an eye-tracking system to record drivers' eye movements.The results(e.g.,eye glances and durations) can provide direct evidence of where drivers are looking while driving, leading to assumptions as to whether drivers are distracted when they are driving near or toward a sign(or at other roadside features).Traffic conflicts, often referred to as surrogate measures of safety, can be used for identifying risky driving behaviors, such as braking without good reason, inappropriate lateral lane displacement,and delays at the start of the green traffic signal phase. Headways and vehicle speed can be used to 7 assess distracted drivers since those drivers tend to have shorter headways and higher speed variances. Most details about experiment design,such as the participant number, study site size, driving route length,and experiment duration can be found in Appendix B of the report prepared by Molino et al.(2009).In the current study,the researchers focus the discussion on the before-after crash data study method for two reasons. First,Molino et al.(2009)did not provide a detailed experimental design for using crash data,and some studies were criticized for inappropriate methodology(Tantala and Tantala,2007;2009). Second,the costs associated with other experimental methods are significant and are greater than the resources that were allocated for the current research study. According to Molino et al.(2009),the budgetary costs to conduct research using other experimental methods vary between $0.4 million and$0.8 million for using on-road instrumented vehicles,$2 million and$4 million for conducting a naturalistic driving study, and $1 million and$3 million for using an unobtrusive observation approach. 8 CHAPTER 3: STUDY DATA To conduct the safety analysis,the research team had to develop plans for collecting the necessary data,manipulating the data into a format that could be used for the safety analyses, and then conducting the statistical analysis to identify the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. The success of this project relied upon the ability to acquire two distinct sets of data and the robustness of the individual datasets.The two datasets needed for the analysis included(1) information regarding the location and installation dates for on-premise digital signs,and (2)data regarding crash histories on the roadways in the vicinity of the on-premise digital signs. The latter also included information about operational(e.g.,traffic flow and speed limit)and geometric (e.g., functional class and lane width)design features located at and adjacent to the on- premise digital signs. From the beginning of the project,the research team expected to use the HSIS crash data for the crash history dataset.The real challenge of this project was identifying specific information about on-premise digital signs for the states represented in the HSIS,and the researchers encountered numerous challenges in acquiring this information. Once the data for both groups were acquired,the researchers had to overcome differences in the datasets so that the data could be merged into a single dataset for analysis.The activities associated with the acquisition of the crash data,acquisition of the sign data,and the merging of the two datasets are described in this chapter. CRASH DATA The HSIS is operated and maintained by the FHWA,and is widely used for safety research programs that provide input for public policy decisions. The HSIS is a multistate relational database that contains crash,roadway,and vehicle information. Crash information/files contain basic crash information,such as location(based on reference location or mile-point),time of day, lighting condition(e.g., daylight,dark and no lighting,dark and roadway lighting,etc.), weather conditions, crash severity,the number of related vehicles,and the type of crash(e.g.,head-on, right angle, sideswipe, etc.).Each row in the spreadsheet file contains crash information for individual crashes and a unique ID number, and each column represents a variable. The roadway information/files provide traffic and geographic information for each roadway segment, such as annual average daily traffic(AADT),speed limit,beginning mile-point, end mile-point, number of lanes,lane and median width,shoulder width and type,rural or urban designation,and functional classification.The vehicle information/files contain driver and vehicle information, such as a crash identification number,driver gender,driver age,contributing factor(possible casual factor), vehicle type,and others.These individual file types can be linked together as a whole dataset. For example,crash files and road files can be linked by their location information (route number and mileage), or crash files and vehicle files can be linked together by their crash identification number. Currently,there arc seven states that actively participate in the HSIS: California,Illinois,Maine, Minnesota,North Carolina,Ohio,and Washington. However,the HSIS has an upper limit on the amount of data that can be requested by researchers(including the number of states,the request area,and total variables).To maximize the value of the crash data that they could request,the 9 research team held discussions with the research advisory panel to identify the states(from the list of seven HSIS participating states)where there would be higher concentrations of on-premise digital signs.Based on this input,the research team requested HSIS data for California,North Carolina, Ohio,and Washington in order to get a maximum number of study sites.All crash datasets were downloaded from the HSIS website and stored in a spreadsheet format.The definitions for the variables in a state's crash data were found in the HSIS guidebooks. It should be noted that each state has its own guidebook and data record format. In other words,one specific variable might be available for some states, but this variable may have different meanings or category types,or even be unavailable for other states. The inconsistent definitions among different states' crash datasets can affect the quality of analysis and results when selecting specific variables for identifying target crashes(such as rear-end crash)needed for more advanced analysis. The differences between states also create challenges when trying to merge data into a single dataset for analysis. Although the HSIS dataset provides the most comprehensive crash data from different states,the HSIS has some limitations. First, the HSIS only includes crashes that occur on major roads, such as interstate highways, U.S. highways, and state highways.The HSIS dataset may not include crash-related data for secondary roads in rural areas or city streets in urban areas, including arterial streets that are major roads in a city but are not on the state highway system. Table 2 identifies the level of crash coverage and roadway length for each state selected for the analysis. Table 2. HSIS crash coverage and roadway length by state California 1.More than 500,000 crashes occur each year;HSIS includes about 38%of those crashes. 2.HSIS includes 15,500 miles of mainline(non-ramp)roadways. North 1.About 230,000 crashes occur each year;HSIS includes 70%of those crashes. Carolina 2.Of the 77,000 miles of roadway on the North Carolina state system,approximately 62,000 miles are included in the database. I.About 380,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 40%of those crashes. Ohio 2.In Ohio,about 116,000 miles of highway in total;HSIS includes approximately 19,500 miles of roadway. Washington I. 130,000 crashes occur each year;HSIS includes 37%of those crashes. 2.HSIS contains 7,000 miles of mainline(non-ramp)roadway. Another limitation of the HSIS data is that the dataset is not continuously updated. The HSIS data represent the final crash datasets from each state after the state has processed the crash data. As a result,the HSIS dataset may not include the last several months or more of crash data from a state. Currently,the most updated HSIS crash data are through 2009(California is updated to 2008), so the most recent one or two years of crashes are not included in the HSIS data. Also, the oldest HSIS crash data extend back only through 2004.Limiting crash data to the period from 2004 to 2009 was a significant consideration in this research project because the large growth of on-premise digital signs is relatively recent, having mostly grown since the mid-to late 2000s. The lack of data for the last two to three years created challenges with respect to developing a robust statistical analysis procedure.For a comparison of safety impacts of a treatment(such as installation of a digital sign)to be meaningful, both the before and after analysis periods need to be about equal and as long as possible.This meant that, to have two-year analysis periods(two years before and two years after) in the safety analysis,on-premise digital signs needed to be 10 installed in either 2006 or 2007.In order to focus the safety analysis on the long-term impacts of on-premise digital signs,the researchers did not include the calendar year of installation of a sign in the analysis.For example, if a sign was installed in 2006,the before period was calendar years 2004 and 2005,and the after period was calendar years 2007 and 2008. An additional limitation of the HSIS crash data is that the crash location within the HSIS is identified to the nearest 0.1 mile(528 ft)on the roadway. This required the safety analysis to be conducted for the tenth of a mile length of roadway that a sign was located within. The level of accuracy is the primary reason that 0.1 miles was chosen as the effective area of the sign. The researchers viewed the limitations mentioned above as minor and ones that had minimal impact on the study results.There are no comparable crash datasets available to researchers that could be used for a similar type of analysis of crashes. The only alternative available to the researchers would have been to try and obtain crash data from individual agencies where on- premise digital signs have been installed. Such an approach may have provided more specific data about individual signs and site characteristics,but would have resulted in an extremely small dataset.The researchers felt that such small sample sizes would not provide sufficient robustness for statistical analysis and that the approach using the HSIS data provided greater scientific validity and robustness,as discussed in the previous chapter. SIGN DATA With the acquisition of the HSIS data,the research team had information to analyze crashes but had no idea about where to conduct the analysis. Determining the location for the crash analysis required information regarding the location of on-premise digital signs. Furthermore,due to the date limitations of the HSIS data,only sign sites where the sign was installed in 2006 or 2007 could be used for the crash analysis.So the research team began the process of identifying locations in California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington where on-premise digital signs had been installed on major roads in 2006 or 2007. Initial attempts to identify sign locations focused upon getting information from the Signage Foundation, Inc., (SFI)research advisory panel. However,the results did not provide a large enough sample size for a robust statistical analysis.The research team began to contact sign installation companies but encountered challenges in acquiring the large amount of data needed to conduct the research. The primary challenge associated with contacting sign installation companies(which are the same companies that market the signs to individual businesses)was the proprietary nature of the business information the research team was requesting.Another challenge was the large number of individual companies that needed to be contacted to develop a robust sample size. Because of the challenges of working with sign installation companies,the research team shifted the focus to sign-manufacturing companies. Eventually,the research team was able to work with two electronic sign-manufacturing companies to get a list of on-premise digital signs installed in any of the four study states during 2006 or 2007. Each of the two lists was converted into datasets for use in the research effort.The first dataset(dataset#1)contained 2,953 sign sites and 27 variables,which included the characteristics of signs and roads,such as sign order date,sign 11 address(road,county,and state), the nearest cross street and its distance from the sign,the nearby cross street with the highest volume and its distance from the subject intersection,and traffic volume on the subject road. The research team did not use the road information from dataset#1, relying instead upon the road data in the HSIS crash dataset. This ensured consistency in the approach with the different sign datasets. Also,the sign installation date was considered to be the sign order date plus two weeks. This assumption was based on input from the sign- manufacturing company. Since the entire year that the sign was installed was excluded from the analysis,this was considered not to be a critical issue. The second dataset(dataset#2)had 63 site addresses and 10 variables. Unlike the first dataset, most variables in dataset#2 were related to product information, such as installation data, sales representative, product name,matrix,color, customer ID(address),and status of signs. For the analysis,these two datasets were combined as one for use in analyzing the crashes by individual state. The combined dataset was further refined by removing all sign locations that were not installed in either 2006 or 2007. The calendar year that a sign was installed was treated as the construction year,and the crashes that occurred in that year were removed from the analysis.The entire calendar year was removed from the analysis due to uncertainty over the actual installation date of the sign since the data provided only the order date for the sign. Removing the entire calendar year associated with installation also eliminated the novelty effect associated with implementing a new feature.The second variable,the sign installation address, was used to select related crashes by the sign's location and default sign-effective areas. For example,the researchers defined the crashes located within 0.1 miles from the target signs as related crashes. In reality,the effective area could be larger or smaller depending upon the sign size.The procedure used for this analysis did not adjust the effective area based on sign size or other factors. Overall,significant effort was put into ensuring the accumey of the sign datasets because the quality of the data had a huge impact on the precision and accuracy of the analysis. DATA-MERGING PROCEDURE The previous sections explain how the researchers obtained their study data(the sign dataset and the crash dataset)and the characteristics of each dataset.This section gives more details about the dataset-merging procedure. Several steps were involved in merging the crash and sign location datasets into a single dataset that could be used for statistical analysis.The early steps focused on confirming that the digital sign was still in place and near the road that it is related to. This was needed because a site could have an address on one road but have the sign facing traffic on another road bordering the site property. The later steps focused upon converting the street address of the sign location to a route and milepost value that could be used with the crash dataset. This complex effort was necessary due to the fact that the sign and crash datasets used different location methods.The sign dataset was based on the site address,while the crash database was based on route number and milepost.For example,a location in the sign dataset would record a location with"1234 North Highway 101,Anytown, WA 98584,"but the HSIS would show the same location as "route number=23101"and"mile post= 335.72."In order to define the related crashes that were adjusted to the target signs,the researchers needed to transfer sign locations into the HSIS location system.The basic steps are described below and illustrated in Figure 2. 12 / SignFDataset (From SF1) Do signs have enough information? 1.Address 2.Installation date Are signs digital and on-premise? (Use Google Maps to check) Use Google Earth to measure Crash Dataset milepost from county boundaries / (From HSIS) Are crashes related to target signs? use route It and m9epost to chec / Target crash / dataset Figure 2.The flow chart for data collection and merging procedure 1. For each record of the combined sign dataset(3,016 total records),the research team evaluated the location information(typically a street address)and the sign order date. Records with missing or incomplete location information or with assumed sign installation dates that were not in 2006 or 2007 were deleted from the dataset. 13 2. Research team members then verified the location of the sign using the site address in the sign dataset and taking the steps listed below. Figure 3 shows an example table that the researchers used for the above data collection,including screenshots of Google Maps and Google Earth(Google Earth,2008).Columns 1-3 are the address information given by the sign companies.Columns 4-7 are determined through Google Maps,and Columns 8-11 are determined through Google Earth. a. The sign was located in Google Maps using the site address. b. Using the Street View feature of Google Maps,a member of the research team identified the sign on the site or deleted the record with a note that the on-premise digital sign could not be identified.There were some challenges associated with finding digital signs using the Street View pictures from Google Maps, including fuzzy pictures with low resolution,which made it difficult to evaluate some signs, and digital signs that were not obvious during the daytime(Street View provides only daytime pictures). c. The screen image of the subject sign was saved,and basic sign characteristics were identified and/or estimated. Examples include sign color, size,and business type. d. An initial determination was made as to whether the sign was located on a major road that would be part of the HSIS crash dataset. If the road was not expected to be a major road,the record was deleted from the dataset. 3. The sign location was entered into Google Earth to determine the county in which the sign was located and the mileage from the county border. This included identifying the county identification code in the appropriate HSIS manual for a given state. This provided the milepost location information needed to relate the sign location to the location information in the crash dataset.Defining the milepost information required doing the following: a. Identifying the neighboring county,which was used to determine in which direction the mileposts were increasing. b. If the county had mileposts restarting at zero at the county borders,determining in which direction they were increasing,based on the number of lanes at the borders. If the direction could not be determined,a general rule of increasing from west to east or south to north was used. c. Using the path tool in Google Earth to measure the distance from the county border to the sign. This distance and the beginning milepost at the county border established the milepost of the sign. An example(using the above procedure)can be founded in Appendix A.After target sign locations were transferred into the HSIS locating system, a statistics software package,"R,"was used to select the related crashes among the whole HSIS dataset. 14 Google Map Google Earth rote Sive Installation Picture Color Dimension Business County Route Distwce Mile AddressID date (Single T>pe ID Post Multi) Figure 3.Example work table of site data collection 15 CHAPTER 4: STUDY METHODOLOGY Evaluating the effects of treatment on the number and severity of crashes is a very important topic in highway safety.For the last 30 years, various methods have been proposed for evaluating safety treatments(Abbess et al., 1981; Danielsson, 1986; Davis,2000; Hauer, 1980a; Hauer, 19806;Hauer et al., 1983;Maher and Mountain, 2009;Miranda-Moreno,2006; Wright et al., 1988).The methods are classified under two categories: the before-after study and the cross- sectional study. In a before-after study,the safety impacts of an improvement or treatment at a given location are determined by comparing the change in crashes before and after the improvement/treatment was installed.In a cross-sectional study,crashes or crash rates on two different facilities with similar characteristics except for the improvement of interest are compared.The before-after study is typically more desirable because it provides a more direct evaluation of the safety impacts.Although they have been used by some researchers(Noland, 2003;Tarko et al., 1998),cross-sectional studies are more difficult to conduct because different facilities are rarely identical in all features except the one of interest. Hence,the cross-sectional approach was not used in this research.The before-after type of study can be further divided into several types: • naïve before-after study, • before-after study with control group, • before-after study using the EB method, and • before-after study using the full Bayes approach. The before-after study using the full Bayes approach is a more recent development in statistical safety analysis,developed and used by several noted safety researchers(Hauer and Persaud, 1983;Hauer et al., 1983; Hauer, 1997; Li et al.,2008;Persaud and Lyon, 2007).The advantages and disadvantages for each of the above before-after methods are described in more detail in this chapter. A BEFORE-AFTER STUDY AND A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY As mentioned previously,observational crash studies can be grouped into two types: the before- after study and the cross-sectional study. The selection of the study type is based on the availability of historical crash data,traffic volume,or the comparison group.The following sections provide details about the before-after methodology. The Before-After Study The before-after study is a commonly used method for measuring the safety effects of a single treatment or a combination of treatments in highway safety(Hauer, 1997). Short of a controlled and full randomized study design,this type of study is deemed superior to cross-sectional studies since many attributes linked to the converted sites where the treatment(or change)was implemented remain unchanged.Although not perfect,the before-after study approach offers a 16 better control for estimating the effects of a treatment. In fact,as the name suggests, it implies that a change actually occurred between the"before"and"after"conditions (Hauer,2005). As described by Hauer(1997),the traditional before-after study can be accomplished using two tasks.The first task consists of predicting the expected number of target crashes for a specific entity(i.e., intersection, segment where an on-premise sign was installed,etc.)or series of entities in the after period, had the safety treatment not been implemented. In other words,the before-after approach described by Hauer compares the expected number of crashes in the after period with the treatment installed to the expected number of crashes in the after period had the treatment not been installed.The calculation for each expected number of crashes is based on numerous factors,including the actual number of crashes in the before condition,the actual number of crashes in the after period,and incorporation of site-specific and statistical considerations.The symbol ir is used to represent the expected number of crashes in the after period(a summary of all statistical symbols used in this report are presented in Appendix B). The second task consists of estimating the number of target crashes(represented by the symbol A)for the specific entity in the after period.The estimates of Jr and A are i and A (the caret or hat represents the estimate of an unknown value). Here,the term"after" means the time period after the implementation of a treatment; correspondingly,the term"before"refers to the time before the implementation of this treatment(an on-premise digital sign in this study). In most practical cases,either nor A can be applied to a composite series of locations(the sum of i's below)where a similar treatment was implemented at each location. Hauer(1997)proposed a four-step process for estimating the safety effects of a treatment.The process is described as follows (see also Ye and Lord,2009): • Step 1: For i=I, 2, ..., n,estimate A(I) and n(i). Then, compute the summation of the estimated and predicted values for each site i,such that A= A(i) and n=En(i). • Step 2: For i=1, 2, ...,n,estimate the variance for each, Var{A(i)) and Var{n(i)}. For each single location, it is assumed that observed data(e.g.,annual crash counts over a long time frame)are Poisson distributed and A(i) can be approximated by the observed value in the before period. On the other hand,the calculation of Var{n(i)} will depend on the statistical methods adopted for the study(e.g.,observed data in naïve studies,method of moments,regression models, or EB technique).Assuming that crash data in the before and after periods are mutually independent,then Var{A}_E Var{A(i)} and Var{n}_E Var{n(i)}. • Step 3: Estimate the parameters S and 0,where S=it—A (again,referring to estimated values) is defined as the reduction(or increase) in the number of target crashes between the predicted and estimated values,and B=A/it is the ratio between these two values. When 0 is less than one,the treatment results in an improvement in traffic safety,and when it is larger than one,the treatment has a negative effect on traffic safety. The term B has also been referred to in the literature as the index of effectiveness(Persaud et al., 2001).I Iauer(1997)suggests that when less than 500 crashes arc used in the before-after study, B should be corrected to remove the bias caused by the small sample size using 17 the following adjustment factor: 1/[1+Var{ir}/ire].The total number of crashes was over 500,but the adjustment factor had to be applied when subsets of the data,such as single-or multi-vehicle crashes,were analyzed. • Step 4:Estimate the variances Var{S} and Var .These two variances are calculated using the following equations (note: Var{6} is also adjusted for the small sample size): • Var{S} = Var{A}+Var{ir} (Eq. I) • Var{0}=9'[(Var{A}IA')+(Var(it)I n')] (Eq. 2) [1+(Var{i)/ir1 ]' The four-step process provides a simple way for conducting before-after studies.Three common before-after methods will be introduced in the following sections. All three methods use the same four-step process. COMMON METHODS FOR CONDUCTING A BEFORE-AFTER STUDY Having selected the before-after study approach,the research team then needed to decide which specific before-after method would be the most appropriate for analyzing the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. This section of the report describes the methodologies and data needs associated with three before-after study types:naive before-after studies,before-after studies with a CG,and the EB method. Naive Method Among all the before-after methods,the naive method is the simplest. The estimation of 0 is simply equal to the ratio between the number of crashes in the after period and the number of crashes in the before period(which is used to predict the number of crashes in the after period if the treatment was not implemented).Equation 3 illustrates how the index of safety effectiveness is calculated.This method is very straightforward,but it is seldom used in the current safety study because it does not account for the RTM bias.Not including the RTM bias could overestimate the effects of the treatment or underestimate the safety impacts.The naïve method does not account for external factors that occur at the local or regional level, such as changes in weather patterns or economic conditions. 9 = AIn CC Nr _ ,=iL�=, /z (Eq. 3) r ji Where 8,,,,e =the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the naive method, it =the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, A =the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, n =the sample size, =the time period, 18 Nur, =the observed response for site i (T=treatment group)and year] (in the before period), and Njz =the observed response for site i (T=treatment group) and year] (in the after period). The result can be adjusted when the traffic flow and time interval are different between the before and after periods.It is adjusted by modifying the predicted number of crashes as shown in Equation 4: �=rerl i r-iNnir (Eq. 4) Where r� the ratio of the duration between the after and before periods, and r =the ratio of the traffic flow between the after and before periods. Control Group Method The CG method can be used to help control for external factors. The number of crashes collected at the control sites is defined as p (before)and v(after). The adjusting factor,the ratio of v to p, is used to remove the effects caused by other external factors from it in the theorem.Equation 5 illustrates how to adjust the naïve estimate. It should be pointed out that the ATM could technically be removed if the characteristics of the control group are exactly the same as those of the treatment group. However, getting control group data with the exact same characteristics may not be possible in practice, as discussed in Kuo and Lord(2012).Collecting control group data usually adds extra cost and time compared to the naïve method since more data needs to be collected. Nrr =i to (Eq. 5) CC CC c irx Ft ELNuixLE Nip-I i_i =1 i-, ,p Where arc =the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the control group method, A =the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, i[ =the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, J =the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the after period, %t =the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the before period, N,'i,Nr =the observed responses for site i (T=treatment group and C =control group)and ip yearj (in the before period),and NTr,Naz =the observed responses for site i(T=treatment group and C= control group)and year j (in the after period). 19 Empirical Bayes Method The EB method is recommended in the Highway Safety Manual(HSM),published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASIITO)and approved for use by the FHWA (AASHTO,2010). The HSM is a recent document that defines standardized procedures for conducting safety analyses of highway safety improvements.The EB method combines short-term observed crash numbers with crash prediction model data in order to get a more accurate estimation of long-term crash mean.The EB method is used to refine the predicted value by combining information from the site under investigation and the information from sites that have the same characteristics, such as range of traffic flow,number of lanes, lane width, etc. As an illustration,Hauer et al.(2002) use a fictional"Mr. Smith"to illustrate use of the EB method: Mr. Smith is a new driver in a city. He has no crash records during his first year of driving. Based on past crash histories for the city,a new driver in that city has 0.08 accidents per year. Based only on Mr. Smith's record, it is not reasonable to say that he will have zero accidents or have 0.08 accidents for the next year(based on the average of all new drivers but disregarding Smith's accident record). A reasonable estimate should be a mixture of these two values. Therefore,when estimating the safety of a specific road segment,the accident counts for this segment and the typical accident frequency of such roads are used together. The index of safety effectiveness is illustrated in Equation 6.With the EB method,the analyst first estimates a regression model or safety performance function(SPF)using the data collected with the control group.Then,the model is applied to the sites where the treatment was implemented to get a preliminary predicted value for the after period. The EB method is then used to refine the estimate to account for the RTM bias and the external factors. It is possible for the EB method to be biased if the characteristics of the treatment and control groups are not the same (Lord and Kuo,2012). ,t L� L.�-Nsr (Eq, 6) BER R Lin r Mie Where BEa =the estimate of safety effectiveness based on the EB method; it =the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period; A =the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period; =the expected responses for site i for the EB method, M;p =W x(AI)+(1—W)x(ENO; ja W =the weight for sites for the EB method, W= • l+A, x& A� =the estimate for the average number of crashes of all sites in the before period;and & =the estimate of the dispersion parameter. 20 A, and a can be estimated using two different approaches(Hauer, 1997). They can be estimated based on a regression model or the method of moment. Both are calculated using data collected as part of the control group. For this research,the average number of crashes and dispersion parameter were estimated using a regression model. CALCULATION PROCEDURES AND EXAMPLES The EB before-after method was applied to this study with the regression models or SPFs selected from the HSM(AASHTO,2010), which includes road types from two to five lanes. As for sites located on wider roads(six lanes and eight lanes,which arc not covered in the HSM), the researchers used the SPFs from a Texas A&M Transportation Institute(TTI)study (Bonneson and Pratt, 2009).The number of crashes in each year during the before period(A,) was estimated using the regression model shown in Equation 7: A, =exp(a+bLn(AADP)+Ln(L,)) (Eq. 7) Where A, =the estimator for the average number of crashes per year for site i, a,b =the coefficients in the regression model, AAD1; =the average daily traffic volume for site i, L, =the road length for site i,and Ln=natural logarithm. Table 3 shows the regression coefficients (a,b)used in Equation 7 for multi-and single-vehicle crashes. One of the sign sites in Ohio provides an example of the detailed calculation of M .a.This site is on an urban 4-lane divided highway segment in Allen County. As shown in Table 3, its intercept is-12.34 for multi-vehicle crashes and-5.05 for single-vehicle crashes,while the coefficients for the AADT are 1.36 and 0,47, respectively. For the analysis used in this report,a multi-vehicle crash is one involving two or more vehicles in the same collision. Using the EB method,the analysis procedure to get the expected number of crashes in the before period has the following steps: 1. Identify the route number and milepost by the site's address. More specifically,the address of the example site is"1234 ABC St,Name of City,Allen County,OH." Follow the data analysis procedures discussed in Chapter 3 to identify that the route number is 657676309 and the milepost is 7.58. 21 Table 3. Coefficients for multi and single-vehicle crash regression model Regression Coefficients Crash Type Road Type* Dispersion Parameter(a) Intercept(a) AADT(b) 2U -15.22 1.68 0.84 3T -12.4 1.41 0.66 Multi- 4U -11.63 1.33 1.01 vehicle 4D -12.34 1.36 1.32 51I' -9.7 1.17 0.81 21J -5.47 0.56 0.81 3T -5.74 0.54 1.37 Single- 4U -7.99 0.81 0.91 vehicle 4D -5.05 0.47 0.86 51 -4.82 0.54 0.52 Note:•U=undivided road,T=road with two-way left turn lane,D=divided road. 2. Based on the route number and milepost obtained above,use R statistical software to select the related crashes and road files from the HSIS dataset,which includes(I)the observed crashes near the target sign site, (2)the observed crashes in the control group sites(10 sites,which are adjusted to the target sign site on the same road),and(3)the target road file,such as traffic volume,the number of lanes,and median type. For example,the number of observed crashes at the example site is 1 in 2004, and the crash counts of the related 10 control group sites are 0,0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, and 1.The AADT of the site is 19,753 (vehicles/day), and it has four lanes. 3. Use Equation 9 to predict the crash number of the example site: A2e04=exp(a+b(Ln(AADT))+Ln(L) A1004,071111 =exp(-12.34+1.36 x Ln(19753)+Ln(0.2))=0.61 Aaaa,,msin =exp(-5.05+0.47 x Ln(19753)+Ln(0.2))=0.13 A70)4 =A20047nwa+A2aoa,.ag:e =0.74 (crashes/year) The estimated crash counts of the site and its control group sites are 0.74 and 6.64, respectively(the estimated multi-and single crash counts of its control group are 5.36 and 1.28). 4. Due to using the SPFs from the HSM instead of the local SPFs from any existing studies conducted in the same study area, it is necessary to multiply the results by a calibration factor to adjust the prediction value(refer to Appendix A in the HSM for more details). The calibration factor of single-vehicle crashes at the example site in 2004 is 3.13,which is equal to the ratio of observed crashes in the control group divided by the predicted crash number in the control group(3.13=(1 x4+0x6)/1.28). By multiplying the above calibration factor,the final crash number estimation for the example site in 2004 should be 0.42(=0.13x3.13). A calibration factor was calculated for each site and each year included in the study. 22 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 to get the final prediction crash number for the example site for each year in the before period.By doing so,the estimated multi-and single-vehicle crash counts of the site in 2005 are 4.65 and 0.21,respectively. Using the summary of this prediction crash number and dispersion parameter(obtained from Table 3)results in the weights(W)for this site for the multi-and single-vehicle crashes,which arc 0.07 and 0.65,respectively: W= 1 1+A,x a I _ 1 W,„,„, 1+(5.43+4.65)x1.32 1+10.08x1.32 -0.07, = I 1 = =0.65 W "gIe 1+(0.42+0.21)x0.86 1+0.63 x 0.86 6. Because traffic volume and other explanatory variables may change between the before and after periods,the researchers used one factor to account for this difference. The crash counts of the example site in 2007 and 2008 can be estimated by repeating steps 3 and 4. The estimated multi-and single-vehicle crash counts of the site in the after period are 0.84 and 0.67, respectively.Factors are estimated by: r= 'Aar IAw r,,p„,,, =(12.76/3)/(10.08/2)=0.84 r,msie=(0.63/3)/(0.63/2)=0.67 Also, if the time periods(1')of the before and after periods are different,one factor is needed to adjusted it.Here,the before and after period are both two years: t, =Y.P•./Ye/n =3/2=1.5 7. Using the EB method,the expected total number of crashes that would occur during the after period had the on-premise digital sign not been installed was 2.63: Mira =�W x(A,)+(I-W)x(ENa) xr,xt, i-1 M.m„i,sa =[0.07x10.08+(1-0.07)x0}x0.84x1.5=1.14 M,. ,Ea =[0.65x0.63+(1-0.65)x3]x 0.67 x1.5=1.49 M;.uaa =1.14+1.49=2.63 8. The variance of the EB estimate at the example site is calculated by: Var(MI,ca)=(1-W)x Mise xr,xi, Var(ML,,,,,,„Ee)=(1-0.07)x1.14 x 0.84 x1,5=1.31 Var(M,,;e&e,EE)=(1-0.65)x 1.49 x 0.67 x1.5=0.54 Var(M,,,,EE)=1.31+0.54=1.85 9. The safety index of the example site is: C r 6 - - :^'Lt 1Nsr = 9 =3.43 £e - it E=E' Mr 2.63 23 10. The 95 percent confidence interval of the example site is given as. BtZ033 4I'ar(M1gs)=[3.43±1.96x41.85]=[0.76,6.10] The same method was applied to other locations using the appropriate SPFs.The next chapter provides the final results of the completed safety analysis. 24 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS The previous chapter explained why the research team chose to use the EB analysis procedure and provided an example of how the EB analysis was conducted. The first section of this chapter provides the results of the before-after study for each state and all the states combined. The second section provides more details about how digital on-premise signs impact traffic safety for multi-vehicle and single-vehicle crashes.The third section provides a description of an analysis of variance of the means of the safety index(0)among the different sign characteristics such as sign color, sign size,and type of business. INDIVIDUAL AND COMBINED RESULTS As described in Chapter 3,the research team acquired the sign dataset from sign manufacturers. However,many signs were excluded from the analysis because of missing information in the dataset provided by the sign manufacturers or limitations in the HSIS crash dataset. The researchers retained only sign sites satisfying the following conditions: 1. the sign was located in Washington,North Carolina, Ohio,or California; 2. the sign was installed in 2006 or 2007 in order to have adequate time in both the before and after analysis periods to compare crash histories;and 3. the sign was located on a major road because the HSIS crash dataset usually does not include crashes that are located on minor roads or private driveways. Table 4 shows the progression in sample sizes based on sites meeting the conditions identified above. For example,the original dataset for Washington included 413 site addresses that might have an on-premise digital sign. In order to make sure there was an adequate before-after crash data period for further analysis,the researchers had to filter these site addresses."the first filter excluded sites where the sign was not installed in 2006 or 2007,which was needed so that there was adequate time before and after the sign was installed to perform the safety analysis. About 40 percent of the Washington sites (159 sites)met this criterion. Then,the research team used the Street View function in Google Maps to double-check whether a digital sign was present at the given addresses and whether the sign was on a major road since the HSIS crash dataset only included crashes on major roads.Only 33 sites fit this criterion.The result was that in Washington,the research team was able to use about 33 of the 400 original sites,giving an 8.0 percent yield on the raw data. Chapter 3 mentions that the main advantage of this study is the large sample size of data and advanced statistical methods that provide more accurate results than in similar studies. Figure 4 shows the sample size of this study in relation to other published papers and reports.This study has 135 sites from four states,a number much higher than the sample size of other similar studies.Hence,the results of this study arc more robust and accurate. 25 Table 4. Sign site sample size yield North All Number of Sites California Carolina Ohio Washington States Included in original list from sign manufacturers 86 249 372 413 1,120 Sign installation time between 2006-2007 27 94 178 159 458 Digital signs&located on major roads 6 40 73 34 153 • With HSIS crash data(all crashes) 6 33 63 33 135 Data yield rate 7.0% 13.3% 16.9% 8.0% 12.1% With HSIS crash data(multiple-vehicle crashes) 6 31 61 33 131 With HSIS crash data(single-vehicle crashes) 6 32 63 33 134 140 --- - -- - - ____. 135 120 - - - - 100 -- s SO , - 6c. AIM rn 60 40 - — - 20 — 4 7 0 --. Smiley et al. (2005) Tantala&Tantala Current Study(2012) (2007) Figure 4. A comparison of sample sizes from similar studies Table 5 presents the before-after results from the ER and the naïve statistical analysis methods. The naïve method results are provided only for comparison purposes as the naïve analysis method does not provide as meaningful results as the EB method. The results are also presented graphically in Figure 5. A safety effectiveness index(0) of 1.0 indicates that there was no change in crashes between the before and after conditions. An index greater than 1.00 indicates that there was an increase in crash frequency in the after condition, while a value less than 1.00 indicates a decrease in crash frequency. The upper and lower bounds indicate the limits of statistical significance. If the value for 0 is between the upper and lower bounds,then the change in crashes is not statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level.A larger sample size usually leads to a smaller difference between the upper and lower bounds, but this may not always be the case since it is also governed by the variability observed in the data. 26 Table 5. Results of statistical analysis of before-after crash condition EB Method Naïve Method State Lower Bound 0 Upper Bound Lower Bound 0 Upper Bound California 0.00 1.25 2.53 0.28 0.85 1.41 North Carolina 0.87 1.14 1.41 0.88 1.13 1.39 Ohio 0.89 0.97 1.05 0.95 1.05 1.15 Washington 0.88 1.01 1.15 0.79 0.90 1.01 All states* 0.93 1.00 1.07 0.93 1.00 1.07 Notes: 'All states"represents the combined data of the four states. Naïve method values provided for comparison purposes only. 3.0 ----upper bound 2.5 - ` • lower bound • • 2.0 - --- - ----- • • 1.5 `�- __________________ 1.0 0.5 • 0.0 -- CA NC OH WA ALL Figure 5. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state(all crash types) The overall results show that there is no statistically significant increase in crash frequency after installing the on-premise digital sign because the safety effectiveness index(0)for the entire dataset(all states) is 1.00,and the 95 percent confidence interval is 0.93-1.07(which includes the index value of 1.00).The results for individual states are similar: no statistically significant safety impacts were observed after the installation of digital signs. In addition. one can see the width of the 95 percent confidence interval is largest for the California data. This is due to the variability of the California data and the small size of the sample set(only 6 sites). Comparing the width of the confidence intervals, from the widest to narrowest, the order is California> North Carolina> Washington> Ohio>All States. 27 RESULTS FOR CRASHES RELATED TO MULTIPLE AND SINGLE VEHICLES The next analysis effort evaluated the possible safety impacts of on-premise digital signs on different types of crashes. "There are several common methods to group crashes into different categories, such as the number of related vehicles,the injury levels, the collision types, and so on. Such groupings may provide some insight into the safety impacts of specific crash types,but the estimated impacts might not be precise because of a smaller sample size. The additional analysis separated crashes into two subgroups: single- and multi-vehicle crashes. All calculations and notations were the same as used previously. By using the EB method to analyze crash data related to multiple vehicles, the researchers determined that the safety effectiveness index is equal to 1.00 for all states, and the 95 percent confidence interval varies between 0.96 and 1.21. Because the confidence interval of the safety effectiveness includes 1.00, there is no statistically significant change in crash frequency after installing the on-premise digital sign. Figure 6 graphically illustrates the results for multi-vehicle crashes. The 95 percent confidence intervals are slightly larger in this figure than in Figure 5. 3.0 ---—--- •• ----upper bound 2.5 . — 0 • •• lower bound 2.0 • • ••• • 1.5 •�` —---- e � 1.0 05 -- 0.0 , CA NC OH WA ALL Figure 6. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state(multi-vehicle crashes) The results for single-vehicle crashes are presented in Figure 7. The overall results are the similar: there are no statistically significant safety impacts from digital signs, except for California. The California results for single-vehicle crashes indicate a statistically significant decrease in crash frequency in the after period. Although the before-after results of California show a decrease in the after period, it does not affect the overall result because the low sample 28 size (6 sites) makes it more difficult to establish statistical significance in the analysis results. It is also worth noting that the North Carolina data has the largest confidence interval, due to the variability in the North Carolina single-vehicle crash data. 3.0 --- -- - —_ — —_ -- ---- ----upper bound 2.5 _ _-- ----- --— ------- ---—- p - lower bound 2.0 -- _- ------- - --------- 1 1` •• 0 1.5 1.0 0.1 0.0 •.. -- - - CA NC OH WA ALL Figure 7. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state(single-vehicle crashes) RESULTS FOR CRASHES RELATED TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS The research team also conducted an analysis to investigate the impacts of specific on-premise digital sign characteristics on the safety impacts of those signs. Specific sign characteristics that the research team evaluated included color(single or multi-color),size (small,medium, or large), and type of business. The research team used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis method to evaluate whether the means of the safety index(0)among the different characteristics of signs are equal. An ANOVA is one of the most common statistical methods used to compare two or more means in the analysis of experimental data. In short,ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the means of multiple groups are all equal, while a t-test is suitable only for the two-group case because doing multiple two-sample t-tests would increase the risk of a Type I error(for datasets containing more than 30 observations). In addition, when there are only two means to compare, the t-test and the ANOVA are equivalent. As a result,the research team chose the one- way ANOVA as the study tool to simplify the methodology,although some digital sign • characteristics, such as sign color, have only two subgroups (i.e., single color and multi-color). 29 The theory of an ANOVA test is to separate the total variation in the data into a portion due to random error(sum of squares for error [SSE])and portions due to the treatment(total sum of squares [SST]). Table 6 shows the typical form of a one-way ANOVA table. If the calculated F value(=treatment mean square [MST]/error mean square [MSE]) is significantly larger than F (k-1,N-k),the null hypothesis is rejected. F (k-1, N-k) is the critical value when the means of each group are equal. Most statistic software will also provide the corresponding p-value for researchers making their decisions in different confidence intervals. Table 6. The typical form of a one-way ANOVA table Source SS DF MS F P(>F) Treatments SST k-1 SST/(k-1) MST/MSE Error SSE N-k SSE/(N-k) Total(corrected) SS N-1 Notes: SS=sum of squares, DE=degrees of freedom,MS=mean of sum of squares,F=F-distribution(because the test statistic is the ratio of two scaled sums of squares,each of which follows a scaled chi- squared distribution),P(>F) = the p-value when the F value(-- MST/MSE)is larger than F(k-1,N-k),k=number of treatments, and N=total number of cases. There are three data assumptions for applying the ANOVA method: 1. Independence: The study data are independently, identically, and normally distributed. 2. Normality: The distributions of the data or the residuals are normal.This assumption is true when the sample size is larger than 30. 3. Homogeneity of variability: Equality of variances—the variance of data between groups —should be the same. If the above conditions do not exist, the ANOVA results may not be reliable. However, if the sample size of each group is similar, one can usually ignore independence and homogeneity problems. Or statisticians may transform data(such as into the logarithmic form) to satisfy these assumptions of the ANOVA. Based on the existing sign dataset, the research team focused on three digital sign characteristics: color(single color or multi-color), sign dimension (small, medium, or large), and business type (restaurants,pharmacies and retail stores, hotels, gas stations,auto shops, or others). The definitions of sign dimension level arc based on the balance principle (making the sample size of each group equal). Figure 8 shows the distribution of signs as a function of different dimensions, and the research team defined signs with an area less than 10 ft2 as small signs. The medium sign size had an area of at least 10 ft2 but no more than 15 ft2, and the large sign size had an area greater than 15 ft2. The sign size represents the area of the electronic display, not the overall size of the complete sign. It was estimated from the Street View image in Google Maps and may not be an accurate assessment of the sign dimensions. 30 35 — ---- -- ----- --_ _30 — ------- — -- — 25 - ----- — __— ' -0 �__------ ---- 5 0 -I T ', i i I I 1 I i I I III IIIIIII T I r 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Sign area(ft) Figure 8.The histogram of digital signs for each sign dimension Using the ANOVA method to analyze crash data related to specific design characteristics of the sign led to the conclusion that there is no statistically significant difference among the population means of the safety effectiveness index. The following descriptions provide more detail for each of the digital sign characteristics: • Color: According to images obtained from the Street View feature of Google Maps, 89 signs are single-color signs,and 37 signs are multi-colored signs. "fable 7 shows the ANOVA results. The test statistic (F value) is 2.07, and its p-value is 0.1527. Because the probability is larger than the critical value (0.05 for 95 percent confidence interval),the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected. In other words,the ANOVA table shows no significant difference between the mean of safety index (OFR=crash mean in the before period/crash mean in the after period)among signs having a single color or multiple colors. Table 7.Analysis of variance table(color) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Group 1 4.464 4.4640 2.0704 0.1527 Residuals 124 267.352 2.1561 • Sign dimensions: In the final sign dataset,36 signs have a sign area less than 10 ft2, 56 signs have a sign area 10-15 ft2,and 34 signs have a sign area greater than 15 ft2. In Table 8,the F value is 0.7767, and its p-value is 0.4622. Because the probability is larger 31 than the critical value(0.05 for 95 percent confidence interval),the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot he rejected. Accordingly, researchers conclude that there is no(statistically)significant difference among the population means. Table 8.Analysis of variance table(sign dimension) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Group 2 3.39 1.6950 0.7767 0.4622 Residuals 123 268.43 2.1823 • Business type: In the final sign dataset, 7 signs are for restaurants, 18 for pharmacies and retail stores, 3 for hotels, 3 for gas stations, 7 for auto shops,and 84 for other business types.Based on Table 9,the F value is 0.5401, and its p-value is 0.7455.As with the above types,the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected because the p-value is much larger than the critical value (0.05).The sample size of some business type groups is less than 30, so the research team combined all categories of business types with less than 20 samples into one large group,the"other"category.The resulting ANOVA analysis(Table 10)provides similar results:there is no significant difference among the population means. Table 9.Analysis of variance table(six business types) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Group 5 5.983 1.1966 0.5401 0.7455 Residuals 120 265.833 2.2153 Table 10.Analysis of variance table(two business types) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) Group 1 0.728 0.7289 0.333 0.5649 Residuals 123 271.088 2.18619 IMPACT OF SIGN HOLD TIME As an additional effort for this research effort,the research team worked with members of the SPI advisory panel to identify the potential impact of hold time on the relationship between on- premise digital signs and traffic safety. One of the advantages of digital signs is the ability to change the displayed message. The minimum length of time that a message must be displayed is often an clement of local sign codes because some believe that frequent changing of sign messages can increase driver distraction and lead to increased crashes. Because the researchers were working with a large number of individual sites and crash records for the after period that spanned two years, it was not possible within the available resources of this project to determine what message(s)were displayed at the time of a crash or the hold time used at a particular site at the time of a crash. As a surrogate for including hold times as part of the individual site characteristics,the research team acquired information for the hold time regulations in the jurisdictions where the signs were 32 located. The 135 sign sites were located in 108 jurisdictions. A member of the SFI advisory panel contacted these jurisdictions and was able to identify hold time regulations for 66 of them. The hold time regulations of these 66 jurisdictions are summarized in Table I L Input from the advisory panel indicated that when ajurisdiction has no statutory language regarding digital sign hold times, it most often means that sign users are able to program their sign to change messages as often as they see fit.In some cases, it could mean that the state standard for digital signs applies, which ranges from 6 to 8 seconds in the four states included in the analysis. Table 11. Summary of sign hold times Minimum Hold Time Number ofJurisdictions 2-6 seconds 14 7-10 seconds 12 20 seconds 3 1-60 minutes 2 24 hours 2 Variance required* 4 No specific restriction 29 Total 66 .Hold times were established by variance on a case-by-case basis. 33 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS While there have been significant amounts of research devoted to the safety impacts of geometric design features and other aspects of the publicly owned transportation infrastructure,the same cannot be said about research on the safety impacts of privately owned signs that are directed to users of public roads.This research effort focused on addressing the safety impacts of on- premise digital signs. Previous research by others has documented the safety effects of on- and off-premise digital signs and their potential influence on crash risk to some extent. However,the results of recent crash studies are not consistent,and most studies have some important weaknesses,such as neglecting biases related to the regression-to-the-mean effects, low statistical power,and analysis results based on erroneous assumptions. In addition,Molino et al. (2009)report that the results from these studies are not comparable because of their different study methods,statistical powers,and cares of execution,which affected the quality of the research. The research effort described in this report examined the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs using a large sample size of data and advanced statistical methods that provide more accurate results than previous studies. With the help of sign data provided by sign-manufacturing companies and crash data obtained from the Federal Ifighway Administration Highway Safety Information System,the research team obtained extensive datasets for signs and crashes in four states.The research team began the safety analysis with 1,120 potential study sites,but only 135 sites were usable due to limitations related to the individual signs or the related crash data. Although the yield of usable data was only 11.3 percent,the final sample size of 135 sites was much higher than the sample size of other published papers and reports related to on-and off- premise signs, indicating the results of this research are more robust and accurate. The research team used the empirical Bayes(EB)statistical analysis method,which is the method recommended in the Highway Safety Manual,to conduct the safety analysis described in this report.The Highway Safety Manual is a recently published document that is recognized within the transportation profession as the authoritative document for analyzing the safety impacts of various transportation improvements or treatments. The EB analysis procedure uses a before-after approach,with the before and after values modified to address local safety characteristics,regression to the mean,and other factors.The RB method reports the safety impacts through the use of a safety index indicator(represented by 0). A value greater than I indicates an increase in crashes,and a value less than l indicates a decrease in crashes from the before to the after period. However, for the results to be statistically significant,the 0 value must be outside the limits of the 95 percentile confidence interval. For the entire sample size of 135 sites,the results from the EB method show that there is no statistically significant change in crash frequency associated with installing on-premise digital signs because the safety effectiveness index(0) is determined to be 1.00,and the 95 percent confidence interval is equal to 0.93 to 1.07(which includes 1.00,indicating no statistically significant change). The research team also conducted the analysis for each of the four individual states and obtained the same results:there are no statistically significant safety impacts from 34 installing on-premise digital signs. In addition,the researchers analyzed the safety impacts related to both single-and multi-vehicle crashes. The results for these analyses were also the same:there is no statistically significant increase in crashes associated with the installation of on- premise digital signs. Chapter 5 includes plots that illustrate the safety index values and confidence intervals for all of these results.As a final analysis,the research team performed an ANOVA to evaluate whether the means of the safety index(0)varied as a function of sign factors(color,size,and type of business).The color analysis evaluated whether there was a difference in the means of the safety index for single-and multi-colored signs,and the results did not find a difference.'The size analysis divided the signs in the study into three categories (<10 ft2, 10-15 ft2, and>15 ft2),and the results did not find a difference. Signs were also categorized by the type of business(restaurants,pharmacies and retail stores,hotels,gas stations, auto shops,and others). Once again,there were no differences in the means. Overall,the ANOVA analysis did not identify any factor that led to an increase or decrease in traffic safety for the subcategories evaluated in the ANOVA. Based on the analysis performed for this research effort,the authors are able to conclude that there is no statistically significant evidence that the installation of on-premise signs at the locations evaluated in this research led to an increase in crashes. 35 CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual. Washington,D.C. Abbess,C., D.Jaren, and C.C. Wright. 1981. Accidents at Blackspots; Estimating the Effectiveness of Remedial Treatment with Special Reference to the 'Regression-to-Mean' Effect.Traffic Engineering and Control,pp. 535-542. Bonneson,J.A., and M.P.Pratt.2009.Roadway Safety Design Workbook. Research Report 0-4703-P2. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station,Texas. Danielsson, S. 1986. A Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating the Effect of a Countermeasure in the Presence of Regression Effects. Accident Analysis and Prevention IS (I),pp. 13-23. Davis, G.A. 2000.Accident Reduction Factors and Causal Inference in Traffic Safety Studies:A Review.Accident Analysis and Prevention 32 (1),pp. 95-109. Farbry,J., K. Wochinger, T. Shafer, N. Owens,and A. Nedzesky.2001. Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-071. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Google Earth.2008. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/index.html [Accessed 31 August 2011]. Hauer, E. 1980a.Bias-by-Selection: Overestimation of the Effectiveness of Safety Countermeasures Caused by the Process of Selection for Treatment.Accident Analysis and Prevention 12 (2),pp. 113-117. Hauer, E. 1980b. Selection for Treatment as a Source of Bias in Before-and-After Studies. Traffic Engineering and Control 21 (8),pp. 419-421. Hauer, E. 1997. Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford. Hauer,E. 2005. The Road Ahead. Journal of Transportation Engineering 131(5), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington,D.C.,pp. 333-339. Hauer, E.,and B. Persaud. 1983.Common Bias in Before-and-After Accident Comparisons and Its Elimination.Transportation Research Record 905,pp. 164-174. Hauer, E.,D.W. Harwood, F.M. Council, and M.S. Griffith. 2002.The Empirical Bayes Method for Estimating Safety:A Tutorial.Transportation Research Record 1784, pp. 126-131. Hauer, E., P.Byer, and H. Joksch. 1983. Bias-by-Selection:The Accuracy of an Unbiased Estimator.Accident Analysis and Prevention 15 (5),pp.323-328. Hughes,P.K.,and B.L. Cole. 1986. What Attracts Attention When Driving?Ergonomics 29(3), pp. 377-391. Kuo, P.-F.,and D. Lord. 2012.Accounting for Site-Selection Bias in Before-After Studies for Continuous Distributions: Characteristics and Application Using Speed Data. Paper 12-2070, 9I st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Lee, S.E., M.J.McElheny, and R. Gibbons.2007. Driving Performance and Digital Billboards. Center for Automotive Safety Research, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blackburg, Virginia. Li, W.,A. Carriquiry,M. Pawlovich,and T. Welch.2008.The Choice of Statistical Models in Road Safety Countermeasure Effectiveness Studies in Iowa. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4),pp. 1531-1542. 36 Lord, D.,and P.-F. Kuo.2012. Examining the Effects of Site Selection Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Traffic Safety Improvement Countermeasures. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42,pp. 52-63. Lord,D.,and F. Mannering.2010. The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data:A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives.Transportation Research -Part A 44(5), pp. 291-305. Mace,D. 2001. Chapter 2: On-Premise Signs and Traffic Safety. In Context-Sensitive Signage Design,American Planning Association,Chicago,Illinois. Maher,M.,and L. Mountain. 2009.The Sensitivity of Estimates of Regression to the Mean. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4),pp. 861-868. Miranda-Moreno, L.F. 2006. Statistical Models and Methods for Identifying Hazardous Locations for Safety Improvements. Ph.D.thesis,University of Waterloo. Molino, J.A.,J. Wachtel, J.E. Farbry,M.B.Hermosillo,and T.M. Granda.2009.The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs(CEVMS)on Driver Attention and Distraction:An Update. Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-018. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,D.C. Noland, R.B. 2003. Traffic Fatalities and Injuries:The Effect of Changes in Infrastructure and Other Trends, Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (4),pp. 599-611. Persaud,B., and C. Lyon. 2007. Empirical Bayes Before-After Safety Studies: Lessons Learned from Two Decades of Experience and Future Directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39(3), pp. 546-555. Persaud,B.N.,R. Retting,P. Garder, and D. Lord. 2001.Observational Before-After Study of U.S. Roundabout Conversions Using the Empirical Bayes Method. Transportation Research Record 1751,pp. 1-8. Quddus,M.A. 2008.Modeling Area-Wide Count Outcomes with Spatial Correlation and Heterogeneity; An Analysis of London Crash Data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4), pp. 1486-1497. Smiley,A., B.Persaud,G. Bahar, C.Mollett, C. Lyon,T. Smahel, and W.L. Kelman. 2005. Traffic Safety Evaluation of Video Advertising Signs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1937,pp. 105-112. Tantala, A.M., Sr., and M.W. Tantala. 2007. A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County,Ohio. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education,Washington,D.C. Tantala, A.M.,Sr., and M.W.Tantala. 2009.An Update of a Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education,Washington,D.C. Tarko, A., S.Eranky, and K. Sinha. 1998. Methodological Considerations in the Development and Use of Crash Reduction Factors. Preprint Paper(unpublished) at 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, U.C. U.S. Small Business Administration.2003.The Signage Sourcebook: A Signage Handbook. U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, U.C.,and the Signage Foundation for Communication Excellence, Inc., Sherwood, Oregon. Wachtel,J.2009. Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs. Final Report under NCHRP Project 20-7(256). Transportation Research Board, Washington,D.C. 37 Wachtel,J., and R.Netherton. 1980. Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHWARD-80-051. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 1994. Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study: Impacts of an Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic. Internal Report(unpublished). District 2, Freeway Operations Unit. Wright, C.,C.Abbess,and D.Jarrett. 1988. Estimating the Regression-to-Mean Etlect Associated with Road Accident Black Spot Treatment:Towards a More Realistic Approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention 20,pp. 199-214. Ye, Z.,and D. Lord.2009. Estimating the Variance in Before-After Studies.Journal of Safety Research 40(4), pp.257-263. Ye,Z.,D. Veneziano,and D. Lord.2011. Safety Impact of Gateway Monuments.Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (1),pp. 290-300 38 APPENDIX A: STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS TO RECORD SIGN DATA I. Open one SFf sign dataset(e.g.,"Washington_2006-2007.xls"). This dataset includes about 150 signs located in the state of Washington during 2006-2007. 2. Input the address information (such as Primary Street Address, City,ZIP Code,County Name,and State)of each sign in Google Maps and use the Street View function to identify the target signs. Please see this link, http://maps.googl e.comlhelp/maps/starthere/index.html#streetview&utm_campaign=en& utm_medium=et&utm_source=en-et-na-us-gns-svn&utm_term=gallery, for a demo about how to use the Street View.If you did not find any on-premise digital signs near this site, please make a note in Table 12.Check the characteristics of each sign(including colors, dimensions, and business types)and fill out Table 12. Then, use the"Print Screen"button to copy each sign's picture, and paste it in this document(such as Figure 9).The different business types are classified as(1)Restaurant,(2)Pharmacy and Retail Store,(3)Hotel, (4)Gas Station, (5)Auto Shop,and(6) Other. Table 12.Example work table of site data collection procedure Google Maps Google Earth Sign Installation Color Address Dimension Business County Route Mile- Note ID Date Picture (Single/ (Cstimated) Type ID g Distance post Multi.) 79016 19330 N US 2006/9/15 Fig 2 S 3 ft x 6 ft 6 Mason 101 19.3 335.72 HIGHWAY (23) 101 Shelton 98584 Mason County,WA 3. Then, use Google Earth to determine the county and route number, and to measure the distance between the closet county boundaries and sign location along the route(recorded in the distance column). The corresponding ID for county and route number is based on the HSIS data manual (file name: guidebook_WA[l].pdt).Then,estimate the milepost value of the sign by the distance and the milepost of the route in the boundaries(based on the HSIS road file, such as wa04road.xls). Take Figure 10;for example,the end mile point of Highway 101 in the county boundary is 355.18,and the distance between the sign and the county boundary is 19.3;so,the milepost of our sign is 335.72.Generally, the milepost value increases from south to north and from west to east. However,the best way to check it is to compare the value of the milepost of adjusted counties.For example, the milepost of US 101 in Mason County is 313.96-355.18,and the milepost of US 101 in Thurston County(located south of Mason) is 355.18-365.56. So, it is known that the mileposts increase from north to south in Mason County.The above variables will be used in the R software to select target crashes from HSIS crash datasets. 4. Write down any questions or comments in the note column. Feel free to ask us if you have any questions. 39 p. NOni�!x r CDs anxuwsxH.raia..e:.awu1ancw,y.aA.lb. 0 SW Ytr•... Gogi 1swx1ssanuTroiamatww.”psx • ME DietiDll •9. di T1InD rI .".10I Duth Ism uFPVGx. Yy Figure 9.Example screenshot of Google Maps 4�wu� w — wv, vmwou — Li �uuxaxa- al vassnio [ 1®. o 9 % /IN -. ••DV.. c 0 ®o •v a—. ion usv -I spoi oaru IMaim Figure 10.Example screenshot of Google Earth 40 APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL SYMBOLS The following statistical symbols are used throughout this report. 0=the safety effectiveness,0 < 0 5 1 (can be theoretically higher, but not in this study). n=the sample size. a =the dispersion parameter(of the negative binomial model). t=the time period. 0�. =the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the CS method. 0,,,, , =the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the naïve method. Oct =the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the control group method. OE, =the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the EB method. d =the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period. it =the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the before period. =the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the after period. jt =the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the before period. N,�,N,u`, =the observed responses for site i (T=treatment group and C=control group) and year] (in the before period). N:2,N,[ =the observed responses for site i (T=treatment group and C =control group) and yearj (in the after period). Myr =the expected responses for site i for the EB method, Mo =W x(A1)+(1—W)x(EN,,,) • W =the weight for sites for the EB method, W= ! 1+A1xte A, =the estimate for the average crash rate of all sites in the before period. a =the estimate of the dispersion parameter(from the negative binomial model). 41 E M F K a - ryp0RATEDfi Attachment C Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-15 PC RESOLUTION 17-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE-FACE AN EXISTING FREE STANDING SIGN WITH A NEW LED DISPLAY THAT WOULD FLASH A NEW SLIDE EVERY TEN SECONDS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD(APN: 8594-008- 039), IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/D-O) ZONE. WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to re-face an existing free standing sign with a new LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard; WHEREAS, 3940 Rosemead Boulevard is located in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, on July 6,2017,46 notices were sent to property owners within a 300- foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 17-02; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Design Review 17-02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 1 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; Installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify denying Design Review 17-02, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the RMC as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with an apartment complex abutting the south property line. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been taken in regards to the health,safety, and welfare of the residents living in the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded,therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double-sided LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments because there are no LED signs or other electronic or flashing signs within the vicinity. The proposed LED sign would stand out because it would be a lit screen rather than a front-lighted or internally-lighted display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise,vibrations,and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. While the applicant is only proposing to re-face an existing freestanding sign, the plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line. The proposed double-sided LED sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double-sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light would spill out onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site 2 developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. No existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED lighting. Further, the proposed double-sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double-sided LED sign is also not shielded, and therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the proposed double-sided LED sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause material depreciation in the value of such properties. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. FINDING: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign are not in conformity with the standards of the RMC. Per RMC Section 17.116.030(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public-right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(6)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC sections 17.116.030(6)(2) and 17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. While the proposed double-sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double-sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds. In addition, since the proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health, 3 safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex would be affected. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double-sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed double- sided LED sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is unshielded and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity.The proposed double-sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public-right-of way. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY DENIES approval of Design Review 17-02 for a proposed re-face of an existing free standing sign with a new double- sided LED display that would display a new slide every ten seconds. SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040—Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: ENG, HERRERA,TANG NOES: DANG, LOPEZ ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 6.The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, DENIED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2017. Sean Dang, Chair 4 CERTIFICATION _ I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 17'h day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: ENG, HERRERA,TANG NOES: DANG, LOPEZ ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE a Lil . Valenzuela, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke,Williams & Sorensen, LLP 5 Al 411,4\ecl ^' rr 'I1 ORrgyq Attachment D Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated July 17, 2017 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 17,2017 The regular Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Lopez in the Council Chambers located at 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION—Chair Lopez ROLL CALL—Commissioners Eng,Herrera,Tang,Vice•Chair Dang and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT—City Attorney Thuyen,Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela,Associate Planner Hanh,Assistant Planner Lao,and Administrative Assistant Lockwood ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE—Administered by Administrative Assistant Lockwood REORGANIZATION• Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated nominations are now open for Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng made a motion,seconded by Chair Lopez to nominate Commissioner Dang as Chair. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Valenzuela stated the motion passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and passed the gavel to the newly appointed Chair Dang. Chair Dang thanked the Planning Commission and opened the nomination for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Lopez made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera to nominate Commissioner Tang as Vice-Chair. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated motion passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and announced Commissioner Tang as Vice-Chair. 1 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-04—Kenneth Yong has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to increase the scope of an existing legal nonconforming beauty school (trade school use) at 8531 Valley Boulevard. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C-3(D-0) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to increase the scope of an existing legal nonconforming trade school use within a Medium Commercial zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-13 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-04, PERMITTING AN INCREASE TO THE SCOPE OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING BEAUTY SCHOOL (TRADE SCHOOL USE) AT 8531 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5372-020-047),IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY(C-31D•0)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 13 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-04,subject to the 25 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification of what exactly is the increase of the scope and if it is for the massage. Associate Planner Hanh replied the use previously was approved to include instruction for cosmetology,skin care, and manicure. He stated the request is to also provide instruction for massage therapy. Commissioner Eng asked if massage therapy is the increase in scope. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a licensing board for massage therapy. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if it is included in the conditions of approval that it is required to provide the appropriate board licensing. Associate Planner Hanh replied any state licensing required will need to be provided. Commissioner Eng asked if that is included in the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is included in Condition of Approval number 10 and read it to the Planning Commission. 2 Commissioner Eng asked if there are clinic areas also and if they will be providing services as well at this site. Associate Planner Hanh replied the clinic is located in front of the building off of the main entrance on Valley Boulevard and the class for massage is in Classroom F. Commissioner Eng stated for clarification and asked if services will be there so that the students may practice. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, but only in the front. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on what the applicant is exactly requesting and has the required licensing been obtained. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the applicant is requesting for the allowance to instruct massage therapy. Commissioner Lopez asked if state licensing is required first. Associate Planner Ranh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Vice-Chair Tang asked what are the elements or qualities that make this properly nonconforming. Associate Planner Hanh replied today, if a person wanted to operate a trade school use they would have to obtain a conditional use permit, but because the use was established before the zoning code required a conditional use permit,they are considered a legal non-conforming use. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the proposed use verses the current scope expands the square footage at all, or is it still 5,400 square feet. Associate Planner Hanh replied it does not increase the floor area. Commissioner Herrera asked where the massage lessons will take place. Associate Planner Hanh replied they will be in Classroom F,which is located in the rear of the building. Commissioner Lopez asked if during the class, will students be practicing on each other or will the public be able to come in. Associate Planner Hanh replied he believes it is the students but that question can be deferred to the applicant. Vice-Chair Tang asked if there is a charge for their services at the school (cosmetology, skin-care, and etc.).and if they do,are they still categorized as a trade school. Associate Planner Hanh replied the question regarding fees may be deferred to the applicant. He replied the zoning code definition of trade school does not have verbiage regarding fees. Commissioner Herrera stated that the public can get haircuts at this facility at a low cost fee, so it may be possible this may happen for massages. Chair Dang asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None 3 Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Representative Patrick Yang addressed the haircut fees and stated there is a low cost fee, but he does not have details on massage therapy fees,or if it is available. He added he believes they have all the required licenses also for all the courses. Commissioner Lopez asked if they will be open to the public in regards to massage therapy. Representative Yang replied basically they will practice on the students, but he believes they will be open to the public also. Commissioner Eng asked currently what the maximum number of students is. Representative Yang replied there are 60 students. Commissioner Eng asked currently they have 60 students and if the same number of students will be maintained. Representative Yang replied yes. He explained they are requesting an extended location and if approved some of the students will be moved to that location. Commissioner Eng asked if the business parking lot on Walnut Grove Avenue, across the street from this trade school, is being leased by the school for parking. Representative Yang replied in the past they have and explained that they have been told by Planning to remove their sign"Rosemead Beauty School Parking' and that they cannot use the parking lot. Commissioner Eng commented there is no extra parking. Vice-Chair Tang asked if students are still parking there even though the sign has been removed. Representative Yang replied currently he believes the students are still parking there. Vice-Chair Tang asked if they will continue to park there. Representative Yang replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang stated that the required parking spaces for students and staff are listed in the staff report and asked staff if parking spaces are accounted for visitors that utilize the services that are offered. Associate Planner Hanh replied according to the zoning code, the minimum requirement for trade schools only account for the employees and students. Vice-Chair Tang stated because this is a unique trade school where it is open to the public for the services they provide, he asked if a condition of approval should be added regarding the public, as any business institution that provides cosmetology services. Associate Planner Hanh asked for clarification. Vice-Chair Tang stated that parking is probably inadequate when it is only based on the calculations of employees and students,when you know there is surplus of students. 4 Associate Planner Hanh replied that the Planning Commission may impose conditions of approval if they feel it is necessary. Vice-Chair Tang asked the applicant if they have adequate parking onsite plus offsite parking located on Walnut Grove. Representative Yang did not reply. Vice-Chair Tang stated that is what he would like to recommend. Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant would have to apply for offsite parking. He added the site mentioned does not meet the requirement for offsite parking, because it is too far away and within the C-4 zone. Representative Yang asked if customers can park in the street. Commissioner Herrera commented that it does seem to change things when the school is selling their services. Vice-Chair Tang asked where customers currently park. Representative Yang replied his client is not present and suggested the Planning Commission add a condition of approval, so they will stop the service if necessary. Vice-Chair Tang slated he does not want the services to stop, the Planning Commission just wants their business to operate and still have ample parking for the students,employees,and their guests. Commissioner Lopez stated the furniture store is going to eventually sell their business,because it is up for sale, and then the students will not have anywhere to park. He added it is not guaranteed the new owner will allow parking,so this will open up the parking situation again. He stated that Vice-Chair Tang is recommending that a condition of approval is needed to open the parking structure or open the parking to the beauty school for the community. Vice-Chair Tang stated the problem is that businesses located in major corridors and because the zoning code does not adequately address parking in regards to some of these establishments, there is always this issue with parking and their driveways. He added the City must get complaints on this issue and he would like to solve this parking issue before it escalates to a problem where a neighbor may complain. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela clarified that during the investigation of this project by staff, it was identified that Rosemead Beauty School was parking behind the site of 'Prim Furniture" without City approval. She added that staff then contacted Rosemead Beauty School to let them know that it does not meet the municipal code because it is more than 500 feet and the code requires 300 feet. The applicant was then informed that they would not be able to use that parking lot site and will not be able to continue to use that site as parking. Commissioner Eng asked where customers that use the services currently park. Representative Yang replied they currently park in the parking lot adjacent to the school. Commissioner Eng asked staff in regards to trade schools, and when looking into parking standards,what would be a practical solution. 5 Associate Planner Hanh replied the school could reduce the amount of students or employees, which would reduce the amount of the minimum requirement of parking for the site, He added the surplus amount could be used for customers. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated if the Planning Commission wishes, the beauty salon parking requirement is 1 per 250,so depending on the square footage of this student clinic area,staff can divide that up by 250, and reduce the number of students and employees that this beauty school has at this location. She added in regards to the surplus of students, maybe they can go to the next public hearing location. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang which services besides haircuts are provided. Representative Yang replied he believes it is just haircuts. Commissioner Eng asked if all the other services will not be available to the public. Representative Yang replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the students will only be able to give haircuts. Representative Yang replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a clinic onsite for this and how big is it. Commissioner Herrera commented that there are also pedicure and manicure services offered to the public also. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang if these services are also provided. Representative Yang replied not to his knowledge. He stated when he goes in there, he only sees the haircut sign. Commissioner Herrera commented that this is not complete. Commissioner Eng recommended looking at the square footage of the different clinic areas and maybe providing 1 or 2 parking spaces for customers. She stated that she is not sure how that would work out in terms of calculations. Associate Planner Hanh replied he would work out the calculations. City Attorney Thuyen referred to page 3 of the staff report and stated it appears that based on what is existing in the Municipal Code; this use does meet the minimum requirements for parking. He added that are if there are concerns in regards to parking, perhaps the Commission can consider continuing this item, so that staff may re- evaluate student ratios that may work or limit the use of the school to not provide services to the public. He stated to address the concern of additional or unexpected parking due to members of the public using these services, it seems additional information is needed, as to whether or not, this use and the proposal of providing services to the public will create additional parking issues that will require deviation from the municipal code requirements. Chair Dang stated that he is concerned about parking and the fact that certain patrons come in but the municipal code does not account for that particular service. He referred to page 3 of the staff report and stated it shows 60 students and 11 employees with a total of 71. He stated that is the all-time maximum number of people in the school and he does not know if there is a program where the instructors would work in shifts starting at different times. He stated theoretically, you would not have all 71 people in the building at one time, and recommended it be discussed with the owner to bring the schedule to staff and Associate Planner Hanh can work out the numbers. He stated the parking issue is at a mute point because they cannot foresee how the entire school is fully operated at one time. He 6 added this is a recommendation to help clarify this parking situation. He asked the City Attorney what is needed to proceed with the determination of this item. City Attorney Thuyen stated this is one of the municipal code requirements and one of the requirements of this proposed conditional use permit and use. He stated if this is the sticking point then the proper thing to do is to continue this item to a date certain, perhaps to the next Planning Commission meeting. He added it looks like additional information needs to be gathered so that staff, the applicant, and the representative can address this issue for the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Tang stated he agrees to continue this item so that staff can do additional research and come back to the Planning Commission with more information and asked if the Public Hearing still needs to be continued. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the Municipal Code currently states that parking is based on students verses its employees, so therefore, staff cannot force the applicant to provide parking spaces for their service patrons. She added staff is currently updating the Municipal Code and through that process it can be considered to add additional parking for trade schools that provide services. She recommended if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the number of students being lowered,for example,if you dedicate 50 students,then there will be an additional 5 parking stalls,those 5 can go to the service patrons. City Attorney Thuyen clarified his suggestion if the Planning Commission feels they are unable to make the findings to approve this item then the proper course of action would be to continue this item. He added then staff can do the research, and find a way to accommodate,or find the basis for denial or better address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng stated the parking spaces are not going to change and that regardless of how students and employees are staffed, there will be the same number of parking spaces. She asked from a practical enforceable item, who will be enforcing this. She recommended that if this item is delayed it still will not change the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Lopez recommended going back to the scope of this item, address what the applicant is requesting, and not delay this item. He stated what needs to be approved is the scope of the item. Chair Dang asked staff if the City of Rosemead allows bicycle stalls to off-set required parking. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Chair Dang re-iterated what Commissioner Lopez just stated and to focus on the issue and the issue is to whether or not allow a massage education at this site. He stated the floor area and number of students did not change. He added the project currently has nonconforming rights, which was granted awhile back and whatever vested rights they have, they should be able to maintain it. He added the owner, for the sake of his business, made a private arrangement with Prim Furniture to facilitate his business and was not intended to circumvent the Municipal Code. He recommended that the Planning Commission put that into perspective and separate that from their decision. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang if someone wants to become a massage therapist are there currently schools in this area for that. Representative Yang replied not to his knowledge. Commissioner Eng asked if someone wants to become a massage therapist where would they go and asked staff if there are any massage schools locally in the area. 7 Associate Planner Hanh replied not to his knowledge. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant conducted a market study to determine if there is a need for this type of training. Representative Yang replied yes, he thinks so. Commissioner Eng asked what the result of the study was or does he have that information. Representative Yang replied he does not have that information. Vice-Chair Tang stated he agrees with the discussion that the Planning Commission should focus on the applicants proposal. He stated he does support the expansion on their scope of work, but he wants to make sure that the updates of the Municipal Code adequately address these types of trade schools that do provide services to the public. He added that he does foresee that there will be issues with parking because the current parking is not adequate, as the owner had to go out of his way to find another source of parking for his students, employees, and patrons. He stated now that the Prim Furniture location is not allowed to be used for parking, there will be some spillover into the streets and there should be an issue. He stated it may not incumbent the Planning Commission to tackle this issue this evening, but it is something that should be looked at for approving projects like this. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang if he knows if other beauty schools have been offering this type of training as well as part of their programs. Representative Yang replied no. Commissioner Eng stated she understands they are requesting to increase the scope to include massage services and she is trying to see if trade schools are trying to provide another outlet for services currently out there. Chair Dang asked if the Municipal Code defines an ancillary use,for example if he has a beauty salon and there is a portion of the salon where he could sell shampoo and conditioners. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes and began to research it. Vice-Chair Tang stated while Associate Planner Hanh is researching this, the Planning Commission can look at the scope of what is being requested, and approve this today, but in regards to the parking situation, he asked staff if the Planning Commission can revisit this,without continuing this project. He asked what are their options and resources. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that the applicant does meet the Municipal Code, but in the future, for other establishments with this type of service use for the public, staff will look into parking requirements, and has noted that this has to be added for this type of use. Vice-Chair Tang asked if it would be able to be done specifically for this project. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no, specifically for this project the applicant meets the parking requirement. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commission is allowed to place a condition of approval on a project like this if they should ever decide to, because their trade school operates in a way that it's a public service that they will need to provide 5 parking spaces for their customers. He asked if the Planning Commission has that authority. 8 Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it has not been done like that in the past, but the City Attorney may address that question. City Attorney Thuyen clarified that this hearing is a granting of a permit and the Planning Commission's role would be to almost be like a judge and take the existing code as it exist now and see if the current facts justify granting the permit. He added right now, it seems the main concern is the parking and it does meet the minimum requirements. He stated if they would like to add additional conditions of approval that is not impossible. It is permitted as long as they can justify it by raising some type of special impact that is related to this land use and that would have to be mitigated and justified for that condition. He stated in general, in terms of suggestions for further studies on parking in the future that is something that staff can evaluate, but that is something more appropriate for a legislative role, and the creation of an ordinance, as opposed to a particular hearing item on whether to grant the permit. Associate Planner Hanh read, An ancillary use is an activity on a property that is incidental and subordinate to the main use of the site. Chair Dang asked if it gives a percentage and how is it determined. Associate Planner stated it is about 25%, but that is not in the Zoning Code. Chair Dang asked if that is an internal policy. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang asked if that is an ancillary use does it have to be parked at an ancillary rate or it is parked at the main use rate. Associate Planner Hanh replied they look at the main use, which is the trade school, and the minimum requirements for that. Chair Dang commented that the topic of patrons coming in using that facility,the concern of the parking, the building is quite large, and even if the patrons come in and use about 25% of the square footage, they are still within the requirements of the Municipal Code. He stated he does agree that traffic is an issue,they should take a look at it, but he does not think it is fair for this particular project and they are still within the Municipal Code,even if they consider with all the patrons coming in. Commissioner Lopez stated he agrees. Chair Dang asked if there were any questions or comments from the Public. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng stated before a motion is made,for a point in discussion, as they all know there is a major influx in just the San Gabriel Valley itself of massage services. She stated unfortunately as part of this application there is not any information to educate the Planning Commission as to beauty schools providing this type of service and where massage therapist are getting schooling from. She commented she is not leaning one way or another, but she is concerned they do not have enough information for her to say yes or no, in terms of the scope, to increase the scope to include massage services. 9 Chair Dang thanked Commissioner Eng and asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tang, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-13 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-04,subject to the 25 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: Eng and Herrera Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 3 Ayes, 0 Noes, 2 Abstained,and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-06—Kenneth Yong has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a satellite campus for the Rosemead Beauty School (trade school use) at 3505 Hart Avenue, Suite 124. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C-3/D-0) zone. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing commercial building. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a trade school use within a Medium Commercial zone. PC RESOLUTION 17.14 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-06, PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR THE ROSEMEAD BEAUTY SCHOOL (TRADE SCHOOL USE)AT 3505 HART AVENUE, SUITE 124(APN: 8594-023-046), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY(C-3/D-O)ZONE. Staff Recommendation • It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 14 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-06,subject to the 23 conditions. Chair Dang stated he will have to recuse himself from this item due to the fact he resides within the 300 square feet radius of this item and handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Tang. Vice-Chair Tang requested the staff report be presented. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Vice-Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked staff to explain what a satellite campus is and is everything going to be done through a computer instead of a class. Assistant Planner Lao replied no and explained that Rosemead Beauty School has a lot of students and they are looking to expand. She stated they are renting this suite located at 3503 Hart Avenue, and are offering the same services, however,this is not a customer service location,and solely instructional. Commissioner Eng asked what the square footage of Unit#124 is. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is 2,820 square feet. 10 Commissioner Eng asked if they are proposing to provide classes for cosmetology, skin care, manicuring, and massage therapy. She stated she does not have the site plan and asked if there will clinic type spaces in this area as well or is it purely training. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is purely instructional and the public cannot go in a get a haircut or a massage. Commissioner Eng asked so this is purely training. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated the parking standard for this item is based on the floor area of this shopping center. She stated there are a number of intense uses in the shopping center, such as restaurants, and schools may be a part of that because there is a conditional use permit. She asked currently under the municipal code how is it mitigated or adjusted for uses that are more intense than your typical, retail,office space that is 1 per 250. Assistant Planner Lao replied currently the shopping center is parked at 1 per 280 and since this is a beauty school that requires a conditional use permit, in addition to the 1 per 280, they also have calculated for the number of students and employees. She stated the shopping center currently has a surplus of 197 spaces, the property management gave an additional 19 parking spaces, so there will still be an additional few hundred parking spaces in that shopping center. Vice-Chair Tang explained that what Commissioner Eng is trying to get to is, that the requirement is anything that is over 100,000 square feet,there is 1 parking space per 280 square feet,and asked what the requirement is if it is a restaurant space. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied the Municipal Code does not specify use. If you are identified as a shopping center,the parking rule is 1 per 280,regardless of use. Vice-Chair Tang asked Commissioner Eng if that helped her. Commissioner Eng replied yes. She referred to Condition of Approval number 20 and stated she would like to recommend that it be clarified that this site shall not have any practicing clinic areas, unless that is what the applicant is proposing. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant is proposing not to have any customer service at this location. Commissioner Eng asked the City Attorney if this may be clarified and if it would be appropriate. City Attorney Thuyen replied that Condition of Approval number 20 can be modified to address the concern of not opening any of these services to the members of the public and to allow the use for only instructional training. Commissioner Eng stated the applicant should be asked if they are acceptable to this clarification. Commissioner Herrera referred to Condition of Approval number 20 and asked if it already states that solely for the purpose. Commissioner Eng recommended that it is important to be clearer. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated a sentence can be added that states no services. 11 City Attorney Thuyen stated he can work on that language while the Planning Commission continues the hearing of this item. Vice-Chair Tang asked if this site is formally the Work Source Center, Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang stated one of the areas is a circuit room and asked if this is with a circuit board. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes,it is like a control panel where the electricity is. Vice-Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Kenneth Yong stated his request is to move students to a new location to solve the parking issue. He added there will be a maximum of 50 students only for training and instruction purposes only. He stated there will be no public service and they will be open from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm (daytime classes only), and closed on weekends. He added they are only trying to minimize the parking concern. Commissioner Lopez asked what the current maximum amount of students located at the Rosemead Beauty School located on Valley Boulevard. Applicant Yong replied currently it is a little over 70 students and they are trying to move some over. Commissioner Lopez asked if this other facility is not for new students or is he just moving some of the students. Applicant Yong replied it will be for both new and old students, but so far the current number of students is high, and in a few months some will be graduating,so the number will be less. He stated it is hard to control. Commissioner Lopez asked if the new location will have a maximum number of 50 students and if the existing location has a maximum of 70 students. Applicant Yong replied the new location will have a maximum of 50 or 45 students and at the old location,they will try to maintain a maximum of 60 students. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant is going to try to reduce the number of students at the old location. Applicant Yong replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang asked the applicant if they will want to eventually open the new facility to the public for services like the existing school. Applicant Yong replied no,this location will be for training, instruction,or teaching only. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the students wanted to get hands on training then the students would go to the existing school. Applicant Yong replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None 12 Vice-Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. None Vice-Chair Tang asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 17-06 and Adopt Resolution 17-14 with the amendment to Condition of Approval number 20. Vice-Chair Tang asked City Attorney Thuyen for clarification on the language for the amendment to Condition of Approval number 20. City Attorney Thuyen stated Commissioner Herrera has made a motion to go ahead and adopt staffs recommendation with the modification to Condition of Approval number 20 which should be read as follows; 'The operation of the satellite campus for the Rosemead Beauty School (trade school use)shall solely be for the purpose of providing instruction and training,and may not be open for the provision of any services to the general public. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,to ADOPT Resolution No. 17.14 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-06, subject to the 23 conditions. (Modification was made to Condition of Approval number 20 by the Planning Commission on 7-17-17). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Recuse: Dang Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Recuse.She explained the 10-day appeal process. C. DESIGN REVIEW 17.02 • Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages has submitted an application for a Design Review to re-face an existing free standing sign with a new double-sided LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds. The project site is located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard, in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-0)zone. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form,texture,color,exterior facade,or landscaping in a Design Overlay zone. PC Resolution 17-15-A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE-FACE AN EXISTING FREE STANDING SIGN WITH A NEW LED DISPLAY THAT WOULD FLASH A NEW SLIDE EVERY TEN SECONDS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (APN: 8594-008-039), IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD(D-0)ZONE. Staff Recommendation • Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission DENY Design Review 17-03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 13 17-15 with findings. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Deng asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff. Vice-Chair Tang asked if there are any other sites where there are LED signs or other sites that have LED signs with rotating images every 10 seconds. Assistant Planner Lao replied not within the vicinity. She added Rosemead High School does have a sign, but it is under El Monte School District,and the city does not have jurisdiction over it. Vice-Chair Tang asked if that sign is the same as they are referring to as an LED sign. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated the staff report states the applicant would like to start with 4 slides with the intent to add additional slides in the future. She asked staff if they know how many more slides they are planning to add or how is that determined. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant did not specify how many more and the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Eng asked where is the marque/sign located currently, what is the height of it, and is the height changing. Assistant Planner Lao replied the existing free-standing sign is not changing. The applicant is just re-facing the interior of it. Commissioner Eng commented that they are changing how the sign functions and they are not re-facing it. She asked what the height of the apartment is that is directly impacted by this project. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is two-stories, but she does not have information on the height measurement. Commissioner Eng stated the height of the sign is about 15 feet, but the screen looks to be about 8 feet 10 inches based on the rendering. She confirmed whether the information on the height of the apartment is available. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes that it is not available. Commissioner Eng asked if there are any other large lettering types of signs in the neighboring cities. Assistant Planner Lao replied there is a digital billboard in Temple City. Commissioner Eng stated she knows where that one is located and it is much higher and it does not abut a residential area. Vice-Chair Tang stated it does. Commissioner Eng stated this question may be for the applicant. She added currently the slide will change every 10 seconds and asked if the timing is changeable. 14 Chair Dang asked if there is a definition for re-facing in the Municipal Code. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the city sign code is outdated and that is something staff is working on. She replied that re-facing is not defined and is a policy that staff uses when an applicant comes in and wants to change the face of the sign,staff considers it a re-face. Chair Dang asked if the City Attorney would like to comment on that statement. City Attorney Thuyen stated he did a brief review of the Municipal Code and he did not see an expressed definition for re-facing also, but as with all municipal codes the entity is entitled to a little bit indifference on how to interpret their codes when there is not expressed definitions. He added this may be a term expressed by staff that best captures what the proposed item is about. Chair Dang stated what he would consider re-facing would be like materials and size. He stated for example if you had a plexi-glass wall sign and if you replace the pexi-glass with a different message, same material, same size that would be his definition of re-facing. He stated just looking at this proposal; 1)you are going from plexi-glass material to something that is illuminated LED technology, something that is quite different, 2) when you look at the Exhibit Al,. there are 4 colored pictures shown in the staff report, labeled A, B, C, and D. He added A is the existing sign and there are two pieces to it(a square piece and a rectangular piece), so with that in mind when you look at B, C, and D they look like the sign has gotten bigger,two-panes of the plastic acrylic signs has been replaced by one LED. He stated it looks to him like that sign is getting bigger and for him it seems difficult to say it is a re- facing. He expressed that to him this seems like a new LED sign. Commissioner Eng stated she can understand his view, but the function is changing and to her that is the bigger point. She added it is not a matter of changing the paint,the background,or putting new verbiage, it is how the sign will be changing. Vice-Chair Tang stated given this is a new technology, they can change slides anytime they want, and they don't just have to put their logo there, and may be used to advertise promotional advertising purposes. He asked if the Municipal Code adequately addresses that, and should the Planning Commission move forward and approve this, would anything stop them from advertising anything on the LED, and could they sell rights to use their LED signage for advertising promotional purposes. Assistant Planner Lao replied it was related to the applicant that no offsite advertising would be permitted in the sign or else it would be considered a billboard and those are not permitted in the City of Rosemead. Chair Dang stated he would like to add on to Vice-Chair Tang's comment that if you look at Exhibit"B", the same 4 graphics previously discussed, that is an advertisement for a law firm. He stated in a way they can say they are not advertising because they are showing a book, but at the same time if you look at the book they are advertising the law firm. He stated so in a sense, they are advertising because he recognizes the law firm and if that particular picture was displayed he would think that would be an advertisement. Vice-Chair Tang stated it could be interpreted as an advertisement. Chair Dang stated he echoes' Commissioner Eng's comment that there is a concern with the information and how it is displayed. He added what he said earlier was the zoning analysis and that this is not really a re-face but a brand new sign. He asked staff if this is not a re-face and is considered a brand new digital sign would this be considered an LED monument sign,would it have any nonconforming rights,and would there be any potential violations. 15 Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied even if the applicant proposes this as a new monument sign, the LED portion, and flashing of the sign where it changes every 10 seconds, to staff it still does not meet the sign code. Chair Dang asked if there were any nonconforming rights that the applicant can preserve if they were to say it was a re-face as oppose to a new sign. He asked if there is any particular nonconformance right to help shelter the grandfather rights to this. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium, Representatives for BK Signs, Brian Kanner and Adrian Castaneda,stated there is a misconception about LED signs and he understands some of the concerns the Planning Commission may have with offsite advertising, which is definitely not the intention here. He stated the intention here is to advertise their services and goods that they provide on their site. He added they are not trying to do something else. He stated electronic message signs seem to have an alum about them or the best analogy he can use is that if you would look at the earth and say it was still flat,today electronic message signs are not like the earth,they are not flat,they are able to be programed to address each and every one of their concerns. He added the term flashing has been stated and they do not like that term because they feel it does not meet the definition of flashing. He stated the messages do change but they do not flash by any legal means of the definition. He stated as far as brightness they have a regular lit sign and a LED sign in the corner(two actual signs were presented by BK Signs for comparisons and placed in the chamber)and they are able to program the LED sign to bring the brightness down so it is not brighter than the current sign. He explained as far as size constraints, and a re-face was mentioned, they do commonly re-face signs and they use different types of materials, unlike the current materials. He stated for example they will change out the plastic sign face and they use a vinyl material now. Here they are using LED and it is different and it is still not the same but what they call a re- face they are usually taking the existing facing of the sign, remove it,and put another type of face in it, be the same or different. He stated he heard a comment about the sign maybe changing the way it works, but no, it is the same intention it is there to advertise but it expands the ability to get a message out to the people in the city. He added they can just put lettering instead of a big bright picture and can be limited to just copy. He explained at that they can black out the background, so that the copy is dimly lit enough to be read, but not obnoxious and definitely not bothering neighbors and their windows, Representative Adrian Castaneda slated the term flashing is being referenced to staff, but even in the staff report it states it is not technically flashing and he requested that flashing not be used as a term or as animation because the image does come in-and-out. He reference to paperwork that defines everything and stated that staff has even said this is not a flashing sign nor does it blink. He stated it is important to illustrate that this sign does not flash nor does it blink to get people's attention but to convey a message is what is really important to this. He referred to the traffic safety for pedestrians and stated there is no proof that there are ever accidents where there are LED signs,and there is no study, and the staff report shows that it is inconclusive. He stated the terms that have been used are incorrect and they are there to educate and show what LED signs can do, they have put so many LED signs in residential areas and have not had any issues with staff. He stated conditions of approval can be added and the slide can be put up to 20 seconds, 15, seconds, 10 seconds, or anything that they are comfortable with, but flashing is usually coming in-and-out really quick. 16 Representative Brian Kanner stated another question that was asked was if there were any other programmable LED signs in neighboring cities, he said El Monte has several and there is one right in front of their City Hall and their Civic Center. Commissioner Eng stated the applicant is proposing to start with 4 slides and they intend to add additional slides and the slides are just changing. She asked what is the maximum number of slides they can have in the size of the sign you have now, and how is it determined how many slides it can have. Representative Brian Kanner asked if she is asking what it is capable of or what is the applicant intending to do with it. Commissioner Eng stated she is asking both. Representative Brian Kanner replied it is like your computer, you are able to do a lot of things with it, and it is programmable. Commissioner Eng asked what he means by slides. Representative Brian Kanner replied slides would be what you see in the sample sign, it would be possibly a text or a photograph. He stated this is onsite advertising, so it would not be anything outside of services that they provide and or products that they provide on that site. Commissioner Eng asked if the timing of the slides can be changed and is it programmable. Representative Brian Kanner replied yes,and if it is requested by the Planning Commission is can be increased to 20 seconds. Commissioner Eng asked if BK Signs is the vendor, and the applicant's business is to provide advertising, will the clients of the business be able to pay more to have their advertisement on this sign. Representative Brian Kanner replied no,and by legal definition that would be considered as offsite advertising. Commissioner Eng staled she would like to hear the applicant's response on this also. Vice-Chair Tang stated BK Sign has mentioned that flash is not an appropriate word to describe this sign asked which word would be appropriate to describe their sign would it be illuminate. Representative Brian Kanner replied 'changeable message'.and explained that is the standard definition that is used by the industry. He added their industry has put a great deal of time with studies such as traffic because there a number of bad examples on the roadway and the sign industry does frown on them. He stated they are present to clear that up and show the City this is something they would like,enjoy. and see possibly more. Vice-Chair Tang stated he has a few questions for the applicant. Chair Dang asked if the content displayed fully controlled by the applicant(Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages) and be changed at when they want,or is there an extra fee paid to BK Signs to change the message content. Representative Brian Kanner replied the applicant would have complete control. Chair Dang asked if the applicant would have to complete control of the illumination, intensity, and speed of the messaging. 17 Representative Brian Kanner replied that would be all in the program. Chair Dang asked if BK Sign can set the programming to a 20 second interval, if the Planning Commission requests this. He also asked if it can be programmed to be set at 20 second intervals and is there a feature that it be locked, and there is not access to it, so it may not be changed. Representative Brian Kanner replied yes,and explained the programmers may set it that way. He added BK Signs is the vendor and as the contractor they will build and install the signs, but for the electronic parts they outsource and they buy. Chair Dang asked if the programmers work for BK Signs or do they work for the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages. Representative Brian Kanner replied no,they work for the LED Electronic Manufacturer. Representative Michael Ehrenberger from Leder USA stated they are the manufacturer of the LED switchboards. He added there are many manufacturers in the market, but they pride themselves in being one of the finest. He stated they recently worked with the City of El Monte and they have adopted a Billboard Ordinance and he worked with them for about 18 months on that project. He added recently the City has approved overlays to allow them and that is a different situation. He stated there is some expansion from the cities to take a look at this technology and they talked about re-facing it and polycarbonate was patented in the late 1800's, never commercialized until the 1950's, and didn't get into the sign industry until the late 60's. He stated what did they use before polycarbonate (which is plastic), they used wood and canvas,so technology does change. He added technology is changing and he said they have discussed with other cities the topic of the definition of re-face and they keep a generic because technology does change. He stated with that in mind polycarbonate may not be best source of signage 20 years from now,there may be others and this technology may be one of the leaders in this area. He stated that cities have worked very closely with the manufacturer and industry to assure that the product is used properly and within an area that is community friendly, He explained at one time they did not have brightness controls,or how often the timing changes, now they all do, and have unlimited timing, and what messaging can hold. He stated there are a lot of things that cities have asked from them as manufacturers to put into their technology to assure that it become community friendly. He added that brightness is what is the most critical and they are seeing it across the board where people do not want to see things blaring at night, so they now have photo cells where they actually dim the signs automatically and there are other ways of doing it also manually, like adjusting it down to 5 or 10 percent, compared the two technology's displayed, and stated one becomes brighter than the other. He stated that there have been a lot of studies done with LED technology and from a community perspective it has been a benefit, it has allowed amber alerts, emergency information, and you see them on the highways now. He stated over time technology has incorporated these signs to be a part of the community. Commissioner Eng asked Mr. Ehrenberger if he is the manufacturer of the programming, will the applicant have complete control of the settings such as the number of slides. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes, and it would be predicated on how many seconds they would ask them to hold. He stated they have a variety of different cities on how long to hold them. He added as part of transportation they have a 4 second hold on the highways and they have done extensive studies. He added El Monte did a huge undertaking of environmental and study of that hold time and has accepted that 4% will not harm the environment or safety of the people traveling. He added other cities have said let's be cautious and eased into this and start off at 10 or 20 seconds. He added then over time if there is not an increase of accidents in that corner and not had one,then they will come back and request more seconds. Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates the change in technology and she understands that change is needed in time and will make things more functional. She added this project has had the Planning Commission start to think 18 about terms of how to facilitate this type of technology in the City of Rosemead but at the same time safeguard the residents. She commented the messages will be changing(even though it is not flashing),and even though the light can be dull,there are residents nearby so the light will still be there, and it will be noticeable. She stated in terms of traffic the report stated that in was inconclusive and she does not know what they are looking at. She expressed that she is concerned about the disturbance and nuisance of the changing light and sign. She expressed that there is a lot of traffic on Rosemead Boulevard and it is congested enough, so if the messaging is too fun or interesting she is concerned on how this may contribute to the traffic. She stated that she is not educated enough to appreciate how much of an impact this will be. Representative Michael Ehrenberger stated that is a very common experience when they are getting to know the technology. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng and the constant changing in just that expression would have some alarms, but they are not doing constant changing. He added the changing, when you look at it, is not something that sticks out, it is a transition slide. He stated the more important thing is the brightness and if you change the brightness,which is what will catch people's eye more. He said for example, you have one slide and the next slide comes in brighter,or even has a little bit of flash to it,or a turn of the LED,or a change to it like movement, he stated they are not asking for that. He stated they are asking for a static moment,for an ex amount of seconds,that would not be any different from their sample sign in the back of the room. He stated it would actually hold itself, so the two are equal except that in 10 seconds it will have a different image on it. He requested that the Planning Commission look at the signs in the back to see there is no difference other than the change of image every 15 seconds. Commissioner Eng asked if the screen on this type of sign not only displays text but it also can display pictures. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes. He added most cities prohibit videos and you will see those type in Las Vegas, but most cities have said no to that technology but static pictures and text have been acceptable, as long as there is no constant changing of movement within the LED's. Chair Dang stated the graphics can change and asked if there is a way to fade in the next graphic as opposed to a quick snap and a new graphic pops up. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied there are multiple varieties of transitions. Chair Dang asked if fade-in be one of those options. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes. Chair Dang stated with the capability of fading in, it would seem to help alleviate the concern that there is a flashing type of situation. He stated if you fade-in it is sort of a graphic slowly overlaying on top of another. He expressed if you are not really paying attention a new graphic will not just pop up and surprise you and that is why he brought up if there is a fading option. Representative Michael Ehrenberger stated there is a fade-in functionality option for transition of slides. Chair Dang stated in comparing the images and signs that you have presented in the back of the room, they are all different images, and to compare apples to apples it would have been better to have the same image on all the signs including the LED. He asked if there were any further questions for this representative. None Chair Dang called the applicant to the podium. 19 Applicant Gordon Kao gave a narrative on why he is requesting this sign. He stated their business moved to the City of Rosemead in the year 2001 and has had the same current monument sign since they have moved in. He explained they have had to repair the sign at least 30 times because has been subject to graffiti, homeless people sleeping there, and there have been a lot of other issues. He stated they started looking for solutions because this corner gets hit for graffiti all the time and homeless squatters. He stated when they started looking for other options in regards to try to deter them,one of the possible suggestions they were given was to a LED screen to have slides that change in terms of their company, and not to advertise them, but to make the area less desirable,so people will not squat there. He stated there is a misconception because they are an advertising company but the end goal for putting the LED screen there is for two main reasons: 1)deter homeless people from squatting there and 2) to make the City of Rosemead much better. He stated at the end of the day technology is changing and their company has been there since 2001 and they have always done their best to support the community as much as they can, they have been major donors, and their goal is to work with staff and the Planning Commission. He added they are open to any suggestions,willing to change the second intervals,and willing to work with staff. Vice-Chair Tang stated the applicant has answered his first question on intent behind this request and asked if they could still achieve their goals with a more illuminated sign. Applicant Gordon Kao replied the problem would be then that the sign would be very bright and then would affect the apartment building behind them. Chair Dang asked if that is the sign he currently has. Applicant Gordon Kao replied the sign they currently have is barely illuminated and is dull as the one displayed. He stated when the spoke with the specialist they were told that that things that are constantly turning or technology like LED generally deters squatters from being around the general area, especially if there is new construction or remodeling around the area. Vice-Chair Tang stated what normally deters squatters when you see them is to call the City to report them. Applicant Gordon Kao replied they keep coming back. Commissioner Eng stated it has been stated that the applicant will have control of the LED screen and this is an advertising company for the yellow pages. She asked if there are any plans moving forward,to offer or provide their customers to advertise on this message board. Applicant Gordon Kao replied no,they have no plans in the future to do so, and they are willing to work with the City to come up with any restrictions and to have open transparency for what they are planning to do with the screen. Commissioner Eng asked the purpose of their signage is to display their company name. Applicant Gordon Kao replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how this will change with this new technology. Applicant Gordon Kao replied their plan is once they are approved by the City, they will provide the final images that they will be using. He stated there is a concern that the phone book may have an actual advertisement on it or something else, but they are willing to work with staff on the final images and displays on the screens. Commissioner Eng stated that this technology has a lot more of capabilities. She added they would not be putting that type of investment to underutilize the technology. 20 Applicant Gordon Kao replied that is correct and it would be like resurfacing their office, repainting the exterior of it, there is cost to it, but at the end of the day they like being here in the City of Rosemead, and would like to make the City much better. Commissioner Eng stated she thanks them for that and is considerate, but her concern is that it is a constant change, it is not a stationary message that the community is use to, and is a nuisance if you Dye by it. She added even though it can be slowed down the constant changing will make an impact and the Planning Commission is not caught up with this technology,they have not had the opportunity to see what can be mitigated with the visual impact. She stated one of the findings that need to be found is in regards to the harmony of the change to the rest of the area and it will definitely stand out. Eventually it will stand out down the line because the City will have to venture that way, but the City needs to be sensitive in how this progression will take place and at the same time minimize the impact. Vice-Chair Tang stated their business mono is selling and advertising in their yellow pages and asked how much is their business getting from a sign for this building. Applicant Gordon Kao replied they have looked through the numbers and it is not really worth it. Vice-Chair Tang asked if it is worth just knocking down that sign and placing the sign inside,where they are closer to their property,and will prevent the squatters. Applicant Gordon Kao replied the main goal as he mentioned is to catch up with the times and also deter the squatters, because it is the year of 2017, and this conversation may start occurring also in the near future as everyone is now moving in the direction of digital signs. Vice-Chair Tang asked if they have considered updating their sign by just taking down or moving the sign somewhere else,closer to their property as a secondary option. Applicant Gordon Kao replied at the moment no,they have not considered it, because they did not make plans to do major changes to the property itself other than what exists,or finding a new area for the sign. Commissioner Eng asked how often they change their messages currently. Applicant Gordon Kao replied they have not changed their message since 2001, and have just had it resurfaced because of graffiti,vandalism,and eggs have been thrown at it. Vice-Chair Tang commented that installing an LED sign may not stop someone from spraying graffiti on it, or throwing eggs at it,or defacing it in anyway. Applicant Gordon Kao stated that the cost is less expensive to repair an LED screen. Vice-Chair Tang stated people spray graffiti on it because it is at ground level and is easy access, so regardless whether it's a sign or brick wall, it will get tagged up because they want to. He expressed he does not see how changing it to a LED sign will might prevent someone from doing this. Applicant Gordon Kao replied that it is harder because an LED surface is not perfectly smooth, so if you were to tag on to it, it would not stay as much as a regular sign, because it has a crater type surface. He stated in closing, he would like to say they are willing to work with staff, open for transparency, so if comes down to the time delay, the actual artwork,or possibly giving the City access they are more than willing to discuss this. Resident Brian Lewin recommended that planting roses and bougainvillea can be effective deterrents to squatters and taggers. He stated thorns make people want to stay away and anti-graffiti coatings can also help in 21 terms of graffiti. He expressed that looking at both of the displayed signs, they both do not belong in the City, because you are still putting a 7' x 9' sign right next to the sidewalk, about 10 feet away from where cars are driving. He stated he reviewed the study information that has been discussed and he did not see anything that addressed the variations, visualization impacts,and distractions regarding the placement,angle,and proximity to the roadway. He added some of the samples cited were very small samples,so effectively you are talking about a 7' x 9'TV right next to the sidewalk. He stated it may only be showing pictures here and there but it is still a TV and a shining light aimed at the apartments. He added this may be dimmable but if you look at it, it is still an eyesore. He stated the nature of the illumination is different if you are viewing it up close and the distance from a billboard is one thing, but this sign is in your face, which is a different experience. He requested the Planning Commission consider this and that technology races ahead our ability to understand all of the impacts, proper uses, and ethical impacts of it. He added looking at that kind of thing, just because you can doesn't mean you should, and requested the Planning Commission consider that and that they do not set this precedent for their neighborhoods. Chair Dang asked if there any further comments or questions. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further comments or questions. Commissioner Lopez asked staff to define the word flashing verses the movement of the pictures. Assistant Planner Lao replied the Municipal Code does not define the word "flashing', however staff spoke with the City Attorneys office and through staffs interpretation because it changes every 10 seconds, although it is not flashing in the traditional sense,it is still changes,so it can be considered as flashing. Commissioner Lopez asked what it will take to not consider it flashing, is there a time limit such as 2 or 5 minutes. He stated he is not convinced of anything flashing other than the than the fact it is moving a picture. He stated brightness is something staff can work with the applicant and he needs to know the definition of flashing before the Planning Commission can move forward to say no to something and they need to understand what it really is. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the City Municipal Code does not define what flashing is. She added the City sign code is very outdated and one of the goals is to update code, which staff is currently working on. After speaking with the City Attorney's office, explaining that the sign would be changing every 10 seconds, staff was told yes, it would be considered as flashing. She recommended that the question be deferred to the City Attorney's office on what would be considered as non-flashing. Commissioner Lopez agreed and explained he would not like to deny an item when he really does not understand what the concept of it is. He asked the City Attorney if this item should be continued until the definition of flashing is confirmed. City Attorney Thuyen recommended that this item be continued to further address the concerns of the Planning Commission on what is or isn't flashing and a motion to that effect can be made. He stated previously, comments made by staff were on whether or not there is a definition in the Municipal Code on what is blinking or flashing and staff has directly noted there is not. He stated just like the re-facing terminology,cities are entitled to implement their own reasonable interpretation of what is considered as undefined terms in their code. He stated the City Attorney's office did review staffs review and agreed that 10 second blinking would be a reasonable consideration as to whether or not this is blinking or flashing. He stated they are entitled to interpret the code accordingly and if the Planning Commission has concerns, would like to further revisit this concept, this can be continued, and provide additional information for the next Planning Commission meeting. 22 Commissioner Eng stated she is inclined to agree with staff in denying this item. She also encouraged staff to take up the applicants offer to work with the applicant in developing some guidelines, in which they would be able to have this type of sign in the City, and to be able to mitigate the impacts to Public Safety as well as to the residents. She stated she does not want the Planning Commission to put together a plan based on one project and would like to develop something that will be fair and be applicable city-wide. She stated she appreciates that this applicant has brought this project to the Planning Commission for consideration in that direction because the technology is here and they need to look into it. Vice-Chair Tang commented it is not necessarily about how flashing is defined or rather that it is flashing every 10 or 20 seconds,to him it is about the illumination. He stated this sign is on ground level,8 feet high, 7 feet wide,and it is illuminating. He added it will be bright, however way you see it and it can be dimmed, but when the sun goes down you will still see some kind of light. He stated his second concern is this is a big wall and it is easy for someone to want to tag it up. He added it is in a major corridor, it's a big wall, and it is a blank canvas for them. He encouraged staff that they work with the applicant instead of recommending a denial on this motion to see if they can find creative ways to support the applicants concerns with graffiti and squatters. He added that the Planning Commission and the City needs to support their business owners to address those types of nuances. He stated he is open to this type of technology but in terms of this technology being on the ground floor or 8 feet high at eye level, he would prefer it would be elevated much higher like the sample of Temple City, which is not shining in your face, but looking up at it instead. Commissioner Herrera asked staff what is the height requirement for signage for businesses. Assistant Planner Lao replied for free-standing signs the maximum height is 15 feet. Chair Dang asked if that is for a monument sign or a pole sign. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is for any free-standing, so a monument sign would he considered a free- standing sign. Chair Dang asked what the difference is between a monument sign and a pole sign. Assistant Planner Lao replied a monument sign has a decorative bottom made of natural materials such as stone and is more eye level, and has a low profile. She stated a pole sign is basically a pole and it is elevated up. Chair Dang asked if the monument sign would also be subjected to the 15 feet height. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained that it can go up to 15 feet, but typically monument signs will be brought to the Planning Commission. so that the Planning Commission may limit the height. Chair Dang asked if a pole sign is proposed then it will not go before the Planning Commission, Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it may, if staff feels it needs to, it would proceed as a Design Review. Chair Dang asked if it is mandatory to go before the Planning Commission if it is a monument sign. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that they have been taken if they are new proposals. 23 Chair Dang stated he walks by the Grocery Outlet and he has never noticed this Yellow Page sign. He stated he wants to mention this because he has lived here for 20 years. He stated if an LED sign is installed there, it will catch the eye a little more,it is something that is static, and the one thing that was not stated by the vendor was that with LED the graphics are much more detailed, He stated if they get a plexi-glass sign with detail they are going to pay for it and pay for it once, but if you get LED, you get the detailing and you will have it in multiple phases, so it economically more feasible for them. He stated because you have these fine details you are more able to catch their attention. He stated the second thing he would like to mention is that the business building is actually hidden behind the apartment and it makes every business sense to put the sign adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard, because that is a major thoroughfare and will get a lot more visibility that putting it on Steele Street. He stated he would not support putting it on Steele Street because that is a residential street. He stated the applicant also has mentioned the sign can be dimmed to 3 luminous, and asked what would that be considered to a candle, flashlight, or what is a 3 luminous. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied it is equal to 3 candle lights. Chair Dang asked if the LED panels can come with photo cells, so they will be placed every 3-5 feet, or whereas directly mounted to sense the 3 luminous. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied that is correct, the photo cell in the software can be adjusted to the City's requirement on luminous. He added each city has does have different 300 or 500 luminous and his personal experience is that the lower the light is,the better it is for visibility at night. Chair Dang stated that is true because if it is too bright you will tend to look away. He stated because they have photo cell that could give them the equivalency of 3 foot candles and foot candle means given 1 foot above ground level and asked if that is correct. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes. Chair Dang stated in terms of brightness it can be conditioned if the Planning Commission wishes, that they add a photo cell to restrict the intensity. Representative Michael Ehrenberger stated many cities do require that in their code. Chair Dang stated if it is decided to go that route, then staff will be requested to look into that afterwards. He added in regards to the blinking every 10-20 seconds, perhaps what he suggested earlier about if they just fade-in, meaning for instance if someone just walks by, they won't even notice it changing. He stated it can be a 5 second fade and the second image will slowly take over the prior image,and that will take care of the sudden imagery. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied that is possible,they can do that. Chair Dang addressed the concerns of brightness and sensitivity to the apartments and recommended talking to the applicant,if the City receives a complaint, that it is too bright from the adjacent apartment,even after the lighting has been limited to 3 foot candle,would the applicant be open to providing some trees and shrubbery to block the window and plant it on the other side of the parking lot. Applicant Gordon Kao replied yes, and reiterated that he is willing to work with the Planning Commission and staff. He stated at their own cost they are willing to be open to plant additional shrubbery or anything that would alleviate any possible nuances to the local apartment. 24 Chair Dang stated the applicant is showing due diligence in trying to reach out to the City to offer any support he can to the LED boards. He asked if the Planning Commission would be more comfortable deferring this item or would they like to make a motion to support the LED boards. Commissioner Eng stated her inclination would be to support staffs recommendation to deny. Chair Dang stated before a motion is made he would like to make clear if this motion will be to deny this item or to defer this. City Attorney Thuyen stated the procedure would be whatever motion is moved and becomes the standing motion to be voted upon. Unless there is another motion above it,then that one becomes the one to be voted upon. He stated the Planning Commission can entertain the motion to adopt this as well,but someone else did suggest superseding a motion to continue if they wish. Chair Dang asked Commissioner Eng what is her motion. Commissioner Eng stated her motion is to support staffs recommendation to deny this Design Review. Commissioner Eng made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Tang,to DENY Design Review 17-03 and ADOPT Resolution No.17-15 with findings. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng, Herrera,and Tang Noes: Dang and Lopez Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 3 Ayes and 2 Noes and explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 (DENIAL) - On May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02, a request to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use)at 8518 Valley Boulevard,Unit#8110. After considering all testimony and facts available,the Planning Commission took no action on the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 17- 02), as the motion to deny CUP 17-02 resulted in a vote of two ayes and two noes.Since no action was taken with the initial vote,City Attorney Murphy explained two options to the Planning Commission: (1) continue this matter to a future Planning Commission Meeting where five Planning Commissioners are present or [2] continue to discuss the matter. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19,2017. On June 19, 2017,the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny Conditional Use Permit 17-02. In addition,the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for the denial of Conditional Use Permit 17-02. PC RESOLUTION 17-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02, A REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 25 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #110 (APN: 5371-010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY(C-3(D-0)ZONE. Staff Recommendation •Itis recommended that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 17- 10 to deny Conditional Use Permit 17-02. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and corrected the address in the subject line in the staff report. Commissioner Lopez stated the Planning Commission has met twice on this item and the recommendation for denial has been made. He stated he would like to motion in place for approve the Denial. Commissioner Lopez made a motion,seconded by Chair Dang,to approve Resolution No. 17-10 to deny Conditional Use Permit 17.02. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote and explained the 10-day appeal process(barely audible). 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 6-19.17 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve the Minutes of 6-19-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela reminded the Planning Commission to complete and submit their Ethic's Training Certificate to the City Clerk's office. She also announced the date, time, and location of the following City's upcoming events; Concerts in the Park, the Community Area Watch Committee Meeting, and National Night Out. 26 7. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chair Tang stated he would like to congratulate the Planning Commissioners that have been re-appointed. He also thanked the former Chair Lopez for his steadfast leadership this past year. He also thanked Chair Sean Dang and congratulated Interim Community Development Director Lily Valenzuela. Chair Dang stated he would like to thank the Planning Commission, he appreciates the nomination,the trust in him, and he will not let the Planning Commission down. Commissioner Herrera congratulated everyone. 8. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday,August 7,2017,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 27 4S1111A4 F CIVIC PRIDE '401LIIII ,NCC PORATED ‘4; 9 Attachment E Handouts Distributed to the Planning Commission, dated July 17, 2017 CHINESE CONSUMER YELLOW PAGES LED MESSAGE BOARD Design Review 17-02 3940 Rosemead Blvd We are here to help educate government regulators about LED Signs with appropriate sign code wording and the many misconceptions that follow this topic. For instance, the rate of speed each slide changes,traffic safety, illumination and the impact to the surrounding community. "Flashing" Furthermore,per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2)and 17. 116.050(F),no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone,except for time and temperature signs.While the proposed double-sided LED sign does not fash in a traditional sense,the proposed double-sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds • Given that the Planning Dept.; has stated that this sign is not a flashing sign we would like the word"flashing"to be removed from all context of the agenda and not define the sign as such • "Flashing"as define by Webster dictionary reads'to give off light suddenly or in transient bursts" i • "Transient"as define by Webster dictionary reads passing especially quickly into and out of existence: : passing through or by a place with only a brief stay or sojourn • Flashing is an effect in which the content of a display switches rapidly in a very short period of time • LED sign can be program to charge sides every 8 seccnds.This is enough time for a sign not to be°flashing"or `blinking" • Some cities define a slide to be 6 seconds or less as flashing we are proposing 8 seconds of stationary display • Sign will not have an animation or fade and can be program to not allow this • Flashing content is often seen as an attention getter instead of communicating a message in which are client is trying to convey a message not seek attention • The LED can be program to show frames in a slide-show-like arrangement • Easily eliminate flashing using LED software equipped • Some cities are unaware that digital displays can be programmed to display frames in a slide-show-like arrangemert similar to a PowerPoint presentation. • On-premise digital display operators commonly use frame effects for the purpose of transitioning smoothly from one static image to the next. Many areas embrace frame effects,especially where animated signs are not necessarily appropriate • City councils can ensure that on-premise digital displays use only static images by prohibiting animation and implementing hold-time guidelines for each frame • For Residential areas, it is recommended to use static images with a 8 second minimum hold times 1 I Illumination ! Brightness Staff has several concerns relating to the proposed double-sided LED sign,relating to the illumination and flashing components of the sign. The unshielded light will also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public-right-of-way. • LED sign will not have an intense illumination and will be the same illumination or less than the current sign • Electronic message centers shall come equipped with dimming technology that automatically adjusts the display's brightness based on ambient light conditions • For specific orightness limitations, using a set standard of.3-foot candles above ambient light conditions as a measurement is more appropriate than using nits for the following reasons: o Rather than setting minimum and maximum nits levels,foot candle measurements above ambient light ensure such signs adjust appropriately to the surrounding ambient conditions. o Unlike nits-measurement devices that are more costly and difficult to use, foot candle measuring devices are less expensive and very user friendly. o NIT:A unit of measurement of luminance,or the intensity of visible light,where one nit is equal to one candela per square meter. Nits are used to describe the brightness of computer displays, such as LCD and CRT monitors. ▪ Sign has an automatic dimmer during night hours to lower the brightness and can be program. This technology ensures automatic adjustments of brightness levels for optimum legib'lity. "Traffic Safety" Ei In addition,oecause the proposed double-sided LED display is adjacent to the public-right-of-way,the unshielded light will also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public-right-of-way. • Experts have been researching to see if a connection exists between electronic message displays and traffic • accidents.When looking at LED signs and traffic safety, its important to remember that the statistical studies show accidents do not increase around digital displays. • b Researchers have also conducted human factor studies that focus on the glance patterns of drivers.These studies have discovered that the level of distraction caused by viewing a digital display is much lower than other driver actions going on inside a car, including eating, drinking, changing the radio dial,or checking on a child in the vehicle. • There are several other studies and researches around LED displays o "Driver Visual Behavior in the Presence of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS).' o "Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between On-Premise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety." o "A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in the Greater Reading Area, Berks County, PA." o "A Study of the Relationship between Dicital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Henrico County and Richmond.VA." o "A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Albuquerque, NM." o "A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Rochester,MN." o "An Updated Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio." 2 Staff has not presented any scientific reports or research that proves that pedestrians or traffic will be affected by the LED sign Annoyance to Neighboring Properties I Staff has several concerns relating to the proposed double-sided LED sign,relating to the illumination and flashing components of the sign.Per RMC Section 17. 116.030(B),illumination signs shah be located,and light sources shielded, to prevent glare,annoyance,or hazard to the public or neighboring properties.The proposed double-sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to the public or neighboring properties.As illustrated below,the south property line of the subject site abuts an existing two-story apartment complex. • LED sign will not have an intense illumination and will be the same illumination or less then current sign • Electronic message centers shall come equipped with dimming technology that automatically adjusts the display's brightness based on ambient light conditions reducing annoyance to the adjacent residential area • Sign can be turned off at a specific hour in order to prevent an issue with the neighboring properties The sign to the apartment complex is 85 feet away,enough distance for light to dispense equally and less ambient according the"Night-time Brightness Level Recommendations for On-Premise Electronic Message Centers" D Sign Area of LED sign is 60 sq. ft. D The brightness or illumination will not exceed 77 ft. measured in 0.3 foot candles at night, as mention the apartment complex is 85 ft. away from the sign thus the illumination brightness will not reach the complex. Even more if the sign is dimmed for night time viewing as stated in Page 8 of "How to Measure the Night-time Brightness of an EMC with Operational Control" Additional Remarks • As city officials regulate this valuable technology, understanding how their community can benefit from LED signs is very important.When considering LED sign regulation and public service, regulatory officials should take into account the benefits these displays provide to the public. LED signs contribute to a community's well-being by helping businesses,especially small businesses. Even municipalities use digital displays to welcome visitors,promote local businesses and act as the community message board. How do digital displays contribute to the well-being of the community? • Increase the city's tax base as retailers attract more business • Boost property values • Provide community support • Run AMBER®Alerts • Inform about criminals at large • Broadcast severe weather warnings 3 L As stated in the staff report we were told in numerous occasions during oJr visits to the city that we were not going to be allowed the sign.The sign was being classified incorrectly and tne Rosemead Planning staff is not following the municipal code as there is nothing in tne code that specify states that this type of sign is not allowed • Because of the misconceptions and inappropriate sign code wording the Rosemead Planning staff preferences becomes misleading to the community and the Rosemead city council, • Furthermore, the Planning Dept. staff has made many claims and opinions, however,they have failed to submit or present any studies or research that strengthens their action against a programable message sign. 4 Night-time Brightness Level Recommendations for On-Premise Electronic Message Centers (I) Updated August 2076 III 1-Y PRODUCED BY: LA INTERNATIONAL SION ASSOCIATION i l I I i I ISA RESEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS V. INTRODUCTION 2 \ . F CASE STUDIES 4-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 U 1 � RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE 8 A SIX STEPS: EMC BRIGHTNESS LEVELS WITH OPERATIONAL CONTROL 9 •1__2..„A__ I\_ WITHOUT OPERATIONAL CONTROL 11 -A 1 _ LEARN MORE ABOUT EMCS The International Sign Association offers an Electronic Message Center(EMC)Resource Center,with resources on: EMCs and traffic safety . A framework for developing EMC sign code language The differences between EMCs and digital billboards www.signs.org/local ADDITIONAL SIGN CODE RESOURCES The International Sign Association has developed numerous tools to help communities develop better sign codes.All are housed at www.signs.org/local,including: The Supreme Court ruling,Reed v. Town of Gilbert Model sign codes Best practices in regulating temporary and wayfinding signs The Economic Impact of On-Premise Signs ISA's advocacyteom is available to provide complimentary assistance on sign codes and sign-related issues. Contact SignHelpwsigns.org or 703.836.4012. • . International Sign Association 1 ' I 1111111111=111r '1111111111•111MMOMINIMMII JIM ISA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS (EMCs) Electronic message centers,or EMCs,continue to grow in popularity for business and community use.You may have heard EMCs being referred to as changeable message displays or digital signs. EMCs are not digital billboards,which advertise a good or service that is located away from the sign. Rather,EMCs are digital signs that ore located on the premises, and that advertise goods and services that are available at the location. Nrj FIRST �. - er Cho�role BANK t fJ T tli0`'' Low pSot KANSAS ' ts V,+o:rQS i ,. 511.7121•e. ,� Soda Sprits, ^?t i ;�fJ YOUR 1s'• I r.-._-- * r• • -w.e ±m I Irl Electronic Message Center(EMC/on-premise sign advertising a bank that is Digital billboard/off-premise sign advertising on automobile business in another located on the some premises as the sign location There is often confusion regarding on-and off-premise digital signs.I lowever,EMCs and digital billboards have very distinct capabilities and purposes,each targets a specific audience and each has traditionally been treated under separate legal and regulatory regimes,a zoning practice which was noted in the 2015 U.S.Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. the Town of Gilbert. For the purposes of this publication, we are focusing solely and exclusively on EMCs. EMCs that are too bright at night can he offensive and ineffective.Night-time EMC brightness is an issue where sign users,the sign industry, and local offices have a common goal:ensuring that EMCs ore appropriately legible. We know the messages that these signs convey can be rendered unattractive and perhaps even unreadable if they are programmed too bright. That's why many sign companies recommend to their customers that in order for these signs to be most effective,their brightness be set at such a level to be visible, readable and conspicuous. `• A •EN• LA11hh li.. OPEN LTE'IIt 2 'International Sign Association ISA RESEARCH The International Sign Association(ISA)retained noted lighting expert Dr.Ian Lewin of Lighting Sciences to help the industry develop scientifically- researched,understandable recommendations for EMC brightness.Dr.Lewin was a past choir of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America(IES),and was greatly respected within the lighting field.His work for ISA was conducted with the input of experts within the sign industry. As a result of his research,Dr.Lewin recommended two different brightness settings based on whether the EMC was located in an area of high or low ambient light.After field testing and utilizing Dr. Lewin's recommendations,it was determined that using the more conservative recommendation is appropriate in areas of both low and high ambient light.In order to simplify Dr.Lewin's recommendations,and to take a more reasonable approach to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently visible but not overly bright,It is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance,based on the EMC size. The research and the recommendations contained in this report pertain only to EMCs, not traditionally internally illuminated signs,such as these channel letter and neon signs below. EMCs use a different lighting technology than most of these types of signs,and as such the scientific approach differs. Community leaders should understand that,while it is recommended that brightness measurements be taken perpendicular to the sign, sign viewers rarely see the sign at that same perpendicular approach.At any viewing point away from or off the forward angle,the apparent brightness will be reduced. In other words,the measurements will capture the recommended brightness levels, but, unless viewers are looking at the sign directly perpendicular,they will not perceive the brightness at the full level. We have provided recommended statutory language and tips to measure brightness with and without control of the EMC.If you need further assistance,feel free to contact ISA,signhelp@signs.org or at(703)836 4012 to answer any of your EMC questions. ge16 .4-:- . a/ - 4NA N(ATTRL: M •11 OM romp ' ViliiriFFET . ‘.. FOOTCANDLES VS. NITS: WHICH MEASUREMENT IS BETTER? This document recommer ds communities adopt illumination measurements in footcandles as compared to nits. Here ore o few reasons why more than 200 localities and many state departments of transportation have adopted the footcondle measurement for EMCs: FOOTCANDLES NITS Measures illuminance Measures luminance Accounts for ambient light conditions Measures only the amount of brightness emitted Luxmeter measuring device$100 Luminance spectrometer(nit gun)-$1,000 "Twilight' measurement possible Does not allow adjustment based on ambient light Measures light mpact and appearance Does not measure appearance Works with roadway lighting standards Difficult to measure accurately Easier to chec<and enforce Difficult to enforce •While the main advantage of using nits as compared to footcandles is that daytime measurement is possible, EMC brightness is typically more of an issue at night. . 's' International Sign Association 3 i; i ISA RESEARCH CASE STUDY: Columbus, Ohio THE CITY OF COLUMBUS COMMUNITY Columbus,Ohlo POPULATION 836,000 LOCATION As Ohio's largest city and state capitol,Columbus is the country's 15th largest city. SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE Crafting a reasonable,enforceable code that addresses complaints while preserving the ability for businesses to use what it termed automatic changeable copy signs. As automatic changing copy signs—as Columbus refers to EMCs—grew in use,so did community complaints. By 2011,city planners began to edit the graphics codes to limit special effects.The goal was to continue to allow for a variety of commercial graphics,'but not at the expense of neighborhoods,'said Lisa Russell, the city's Planner II who facilitated the code development project. The city had in place certain limits on automatic changing copy signs,aka EMCs,in the graphics code, limiting their use to commercial and manufacturing zoning districts and requiring that only half of the sign could be used for the changeable copy.But signs lacked brightness limits and a hold time. Russell led a team to draft the new code,which incorporated a brightness limit for both on-premise and off-premise signs.The testing method also is included in the code. It was the result of much scientific discussion. 'I believe that the best answer is revealed if you have enough information,' Russell said.The committee included a community group leader who was on architect specializing in lighting and representatives from the sign and graphics industry. "When we started exploring brightness,it appeared the footcandle method was the way to go, Russell said. 'However,some group members wanted us to explore the luminance method.ISA believed so strongly that the luminance method was problematic that they brought a demonstration to us! The demonstration included a field trip to visit o sign to show the impact of the two measurement methods. 'They wanted to make sure that we didn't go down the wrong path.They rented a Oft and showed us that with the luminance method you'd hove to get up in the lift,raise it and shine the nit gun at the sign.with the footcandle meter,you con stand on the ground? Russell helped the group to see that the"members of the professional sign and graphics industry are not the same as end-users of signs,such as an owner of a carryout who wants to draw attention to his shop aver others.We all had on interest in developing reasonable regulations instead of just banning these signs.We also did not want to take owoy the rights that businesses had to display electronic signs." The new code has significantly lessened complaints about sign brightness.And when a complaint is received,the code enforcement officers have a verifiable process for determining whether the sign complies with the code. 4 r International Sign Association ISA RESEARCH CASE STUDY: Kitsap County, Washington Aorarttook 18 ! — 57 COMMUNITY Kltsap County,Washington �J POPULATION 260,000 LOCATION Across the Puget Sound horn Seattle and bordered by rural communities on the west.It is the third most densely populated county in the state. SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE Existing codes did not cover electronic signs. As o'transition'county between rural Washington and the metropolitan city of Seattle,Kitsap County had the challenges of creating regulations far electronic signs that fit the county's dual personalities. 'The first step was to identify where these signs would be allowed,'said Darren Gurnee,a planner with the county.'We wanted to make sure these were restricted to areas of increased density and primarily non-residential use such as industrial zones and commercial zones within the urban growth area.' Previously,the county had allowed electronic signs'as a matter of interpretation,'Gumee said.Crafting more defined electronic sign regulations would provide a measure of stability—and help business owners know what was allowed and where.An added bonus:Gurnee felt the signs would be mom attractive than the block letters signs that had to be changed manually. While the county wanted to make it easier for businesses to convert existing static monument signs into electronic signs,it also wonted to ensure that the regulations were not written in a way that would allow billboards to convert. We were able to croft our regulatbns in a way that required signs be brought into conformance before any change could be made,'Gurnee said.'Billboards were nonconforming,so that would not be an issue.' ISA provided Gurnee with industry standards—contained in this publication—and same background on the technology that today's electronic signs offer,such as automatic dimming.It also incorporated some of the recommended language on animation,hold times and transitions. 'The regulation is written in a way that it would be easy to enforce,'Gurnee said,and easy to understand, without the ambiguities contained in the previous method.The ending code created a perfect fit for both of the community's personalities. _:International Sign Association 5 , .5A RESEARCH CASE STUDY: SPARKS, NEVADA • • COMMUNITY Sparks,Nevada POPULATION 93,500 04.4 Q_ LOCATION A rapidly growing community,Sparks is located near Lake Tahoe, 15parks California,and Reno,Nevada,and is Nevada's fifth largest city. � , SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE Existing regulations were difficult to enforce and outdated. Sparks,Nevada had existing regulations of electronic message centers—or electronic variable signs as the communiry deemed them.But"itwasn'tvery explicit;said senior planner Karen Melby.The brightness standards were in lumens,which we didn't even know how to measure.' The regulations were outdated os well—having been drafted in 2002.Technology had changed dromaticolly and the costs of EMCs had dropped,putting them in the range of more businesses'budgets.'We felt we could see more coming and felt that we needed to get a handle on it.' As a first step,planners required that those seeking an EMC permit meet their standards before approval was granted,but nothing was written into the code.That method can create problems. So Melby led the city through the code revision process. She sought out industry expertise from both the planning community and the sign and graphics industry.For industry insight,she turned to ISA ISA provided feedback on how other communities were regulating electronic message centers,and rec- ommendations on what was working for these communities. One outside group felt strongly that the standards should be regulated ki nits,not footcandles.They brought in on expert who opposed the proposed regulations.But Melby held strong on the issue of footcandles. "In my research,it seems like footcandle is what you can see with your eyes while a nit is pinpointing a spot on a sign.When you look at a sign,you're looking at the whole thing,not just one small spot! The city adopted the widely recognized standard of 0.3 footcandles above ambient light,using the distance measurements outlined in this publication.Meloy took that table,determined the formula and wrote the formula into the code. The community allows smaller signs—those under 32 square feet—to include scrolling,while those larger do not. The result has been a city that has successfully navigated the balance between business interests and community aesthetics. 'We've had very few complaints,' Melby said. 'When we do get a complaint about a sign being too bright,we go out and measure it.When they bring it down to standards,we don't get complaints.' Being able to use o simple light meter to measure brightness is far easier than simply guessing whether the sign is in compliance,Melby said.'The other method(meosuring nits)was really based on opinion. What may seem bright to me may not seem bright to you.Now,we can soy,This is what the meter says." By having clear standards that ore easier to enforce,both community and business win. 6 @International Sign Association ISA RESEARCH EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISA ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS RECOMMENDATIONS This summary hos been developed with an understanding that EMCs that are unreasonably bright ore not effective for the communities or end users.Thls intends to help communities and stakeholders develop brightness standards for on-premise EMCs.The summary comprises: I) An overview of the Importance of ensuring appropriate brightness, 2) Technology utilized to ensure appropriate brightness,and 3) Recommended brightness standards 1. Overview of the importance of ensuring 3. Recommended night-time brightness standards. appropriate night-time brightness. Dr. Lewin recommended the development of brightness criteria EMCs that are too bright at night can be offensive and ineffective. based on the Illuminating Engineering Society's(IES)well-established There are significant advantages to ensuring than an electronic standards pertaining to light trespass,IES Publication TM-11-00. display is not overly bright.These advantages include: The theory of light trespass is based on the concept of determining the amount of light that con spill over(ar'trespass')into an adjacent 11 Conservation of energy area without being offensive. E Increased life expectancy of the electronic display components In order to simplify Dr. Lewin's recommendations, and to take a more reasonable approach to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently 11 Building goodwill with the community visible but not overly bright,it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions 11 Ensuring the legibility of the display when measured at the recommended distance,based on the ERIC size. It is in the best interest of all stakeholders to ensure that EMCs are suffidenthf bight to ensure clear legibility, while at the same time Email signheipesigns.org to receive Dr.Lewin's original research. avoiding a display that is overly bright. 2. Technology utilized to ensure appropriate ; ©INGHAM • brightness. "YON avF b-•. S.d, ty Most EMCs are designed to produce sufficient brightness to ensure dear legibility during daylight hours.However,daytime �! ` brightness settings are usually Inappropriate for night-time viewing. The following general methods are used to dim an EMC for appropriate night-time viewing: . 1. Manual Dimming.Using this method,the sign operator dims the display in response to changing ambient light conditions. 2. Scheduled Dimming. Sunset-sunrise tables allow an EMC to be programmed to dim at the same time that the sun sets ...it is recommended that EMCs riot and rises.This method is generally acceptable, but is more effective when used as a backup to automatic dimming controls exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient capability,such as photocell technology. lighting conditions when measured at 3. Photocell Technology.An EMC that utilizes photocell technology can automotically dim as light condhions change.A photocell the recommended distance, sensor alerts the display to adjust brightness according to ambient light conditions. based on the EMC size. R.International Sign Association I S ISA RESEARCH • RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE14 1 i II .1 14 f. Electronic Message Center(EMC) Criteria:The night-time illumination of an EMC shall conform with the criteria set forth in SIGN AREA VERSUS MEASUREMENT DISTANCE this section. I te. z, A. EMC IBumination Measurement Criteria:The illuminance of an EMC shall be measured with on illuminance meter set to measure 10 32 footcandles accurate to at least two decimals.Illuminance shall be 15 39 measured with the EMC off,and again with the EMC displaying a 20 45 white image for a full colorcopoble EMC,or a solid message for a 25 50 singlecolor EMC.All measurements shall he token as close as practical too perpendicular plane of the sign at the distance determined by the 30 55 total square footage of the EMC as set forth in the accompanying 35 59 Sign Areo of a Sign versus Measurement Distance table. 40 63 45 67 B. EMC Illumination Limit=The difference between the off and 50 71 solid-message measurements using the EMC Measurement Criteria 55 74 shall not exceed 0.3 footcandles at night. 60 77 65 81 C. Dimming Capabilities:All permitted EMCs shall be equipped 70 84 with a sensor or other devicethat automaticallydeterminesthe ambient 75 87 illumination and programmed to automatically dim according to 80 B9 ambient light conditions,or that can be adjusted to comply with the 85 92 0.3 footcandle measurements. 90 95 D. Definition of EMC:A sign that utilizes computer-generated 'I 95 97 messoges or some other electronic means of changing copy.These 100 100 signs include displays using incandescent lamps,LEDs,LCDs ora 110 105 flipper matrix. 120 118 /I 130 114 140 118 150 122 • 160 126 170 130 • 180 134 190 138 200 141 220 148 240 155 260 161 280 167 300 173 For signs with on area in square feet other than those specl0rolly listed in the table (i t, 12 sq ft 000 sq ft etc)the measurement distance may be calculated with the following formula.Measurement Distance-4 Area of Sign 5q FL x 100 In r..: 8 International Sign Association ISA RESEARCH HOW TO MEASURE THE NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS OF AN EMC WITH OPERATIONAL CONTROL (Note.This method can be completed by one indisiduol but requires operational control to shutoff the EMC) Sl EP I STEP 3 OBTAIN AN ILLUMINANCE METER. DETERMINE THE MEASUREMENT DISTANCE. Punliase or otherwise procure an illuminance meter.Most arty/county Using the total square footage found in Step 2,look up the measurement traffic departments hale an illuminance meter,which are also referred distance in the table provided in the Recommended Legislative to as lux orfootcondle meters(lux is the metric measure of illuminance; Language on page 8, to determine the distance to measure the footcandles is the English measure of illuminance).The illuminance bnghmess of the EMC The distance should be measured perpendicular meter must have the ability to provide a reading up to two decimal to the EMC sign face.The use of a measuring wheel loser finder places and must be set to read footcandleskis preferred to have or a smartphone app are the most convenient ways to measure an illuminance meter with a screw-mount that allows the sensor to the distance. be mounted on a tripod.A tripod ensures that the highly sensitive sensor is held perfectly still;otherwise it may be difficult to obtain an accurate reading. / STEP 2 DETERMINE SQUARE FOOTAGE • d Determine the square footage of the face of the electronic message sign(EMC)by multiplying the height and width of the EMC.This infor- 0 motion may be available in a permit appliomon,orcan be determined by physically measuring the height and width of the EMC.Do not include the sign face square footage attributable to any additional • static signs associated with the EMC(if applicable). • r IOW aJ` r e ter® R : Ji :n C+International Sign Association 9 ISA RESEARCH STEP 4 STEP 6 PREPARE THE DISPLAY FOR TESTING. ENSURE THAT THE DISPLAY CAN ADJUST TO DIFFERENT AMBIENT CONDITIONS. Ensure that the EMC is programmed to alternate between a solid white (or in the case of a monochrome display-the solid color of the display) Inspect the sign to ensure that it incorporates o photocell or other message and a blank message.The community may require that the technology to ensure that the display can adjust according to ambient sign owner cooperate with testing by programming the EMC for lighting conditions. testing upon written notice. STEP 5 el, • USE AN ILWMINANCE METER TO MEASURE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE EMC • Mount the sensor of your illuminance meter to o tripod and orient r • the sensor directly towards the face of the EMC at the measurement distance determined in Step 2. - - _ ... Ensure that the illuminance meter is set to measure footcandles up to two decimal places.As the display alternates between a solid white message and an'off'message,note the range of values on the ) SENI< 'i illuminance meter.If the difference between the readings is less than 7 0.3 footcandles,then the brightness of the display is in compliance. TI If nob the display will need to be adjusted to a lower brightness level using the manufocturers recommended procedures. As the display alternates between a solid white message and an "off" message, note • the range of values on the illuminance meter If the difference between the readings is + less than 0.3 footcandles, then the a brightness of the display is in compliance. 6 10 G� International Sign Association ISA RESEARCH HOW TO MEASURE THE NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS OF AN EMC-WITHOUT CONTROL OF THE SIGN (Notts This method requires two individuals,but does not require operational control of the EMC) There will be instances where the EMC illumination needs to be STEP 4 evoluoted to ensure that it does not exceed the brightness levels POSmON THE TESTERS. estoblished in the municipal sign ordinance. If the municipality is unable to obtain access to the sign controls or attempting to take the Based on the size of the digital display,the person conducting the test measurement after business hours,this method should be followed. should posibon themselves as close to directly in front of the digital display as practical,at the appropriate distance(calculated in Step 3). Unlike the six-step processdescribed previously,this process measures the difference in brightness between the sign in operation and when A helper should position themselves about 7 ft.to 10 ft.in front of the sign is completely blocked from the illuminance meter.This proce- the light meter and hold up on opaque,black sheet of material that dure is extremely simple and requires only an illuminance meter and is roughly 12 in.high by 40 in.wide. (Regular cardboard pointed a piece of painted cardboard cut to the proper size. matte black works well for this.)The sheet should be positioned so it blocks all light from the EMC,but still allows the remaining ambient light to register on the illuminance meter. STEP 1 OBTAIN AN ILLUMINANCE METER. (See previous Step 1) HMC Area Moo.wenrem Di:or 24 ft> 49 ft 32fts 57ft STEP 2 50 ft' 71ft 00k' Taft DETERMINE SQUARE FOOTAGE (See previous Step 2) This helper should use a cardboard sheet to Rock the DAC light from the footcandle meter.This will establish the baseline footcondle reading. STEP 3 r / A DETERMINE THE MEASUREMENT DISTANCE. I ) 7 T in (See previous Step 3 or use (Area of Sign in Sq.Ft.x 100)) Aker the cardboard block is held in place,a reading should be taken for the Let. .i ce., ombient light. r.wswn In talc(sample,e,venouslight surng are i'11 impacting f photocellmeasuring 23 footcandles of ambled fight. 11 This is the baseline for themeasurement Write it down. 1 k_r International Sign Association 11 ' ISA RESEARCH STEP 5 USE AN ILLUMINANCE METER. The illuminance meter should be held at a height of about 5 ft. (which is approximately eye level)and aimed directly at the EMC. The illuminance meter will account for surrounding sources of light or the absence thereof. I. In this case our ambient light reading was 2.3 k.The new light reading with the LED displaying a NII white frame cannot mad above 2.6 k or 2.3 (ambient)+0.3(threshold).No kb white frame canna bearanged.watch the meter to see if any ad exceeds 2.6 k. C1 • At this point,readings should be taken from the illuminance meter to establish a baseline illumination level.(ISA recommends that the illuminance meter is capable of levels to 2 decimal places 0.00). Once the baseline level is established,add 0.3 footcandles to the baseline level to calculate the max brightness limit.(for example: Baseline reading is 3.15 footcandles.The max brightness level is 3.45 footcandles.) STEP b DETERMINE THE BRIGHTNESS LEVEL Remove the opaque sheet from blocking the EMC.Watch the foot- t� candle meter for 3 to 5 minutes to see if the max brightness level is MSS res exceeded by any of the images on the sign.If the readings do not vlrr ;, v exceed the max brightness levels,then the EMC illumination is in compliance. If any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level,the lighting level is not in compliance.In this scenario,the municipality will need to inform the sign owner of noncompliance and take appropriate steps to ensure that the EMC be adjusted to a lower brightness level using the manufacturer's recommended procedures. if any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level, the lighting level is not in compliance. 12 = International Sign Association It INTERNATIONAL SIGN ASSOCIATION 1001 N.Fairfax Street,Suite 301 Alexandria,VA 22314 703.836.4012 Ph 703.836.8353 Fax www.signs.org y�. Ik 4�mf. �3LJ 4f�.e Ili" `\\\\ uv.- ra!oe 0 KPorra.co 'g° Attachment F Letter of Appeal, dated July 24, 2017 RECIEVED cm(OF ROSMEAD JUL 2 4 2017 Design Review Decision Appeal cm ccgscsopfcE Br: 1-1 July 24, 2017 BK Signs, Inc. 1028 W. Kirkwall Rd. Azusa, CA 91702 City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 917700 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 17-02 3940 ROSEMEAD BLVD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 To Rosemead City Clerk office: Per the Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 - Appeals of Decisions, we are filing an appeal on the Planning Commission vote to deny Design Review 17-02 and Adopt Resolution 17-15 since staffed denied the application based solely on opinions and did not consider or accept the scientific support documents present to them during the meeting. An opinion regarding illumination was brought forth by the commission; an explanation and study reports we presented to the commission that helped understand and solidify our claim that the illumination not become an annoyance to the adjacent apartment complex. Per RMC section 17.116.030 we accept the condition brought to us by one of the members to install an adequate source to shield or prevent glare to the said adjacent property as a further measure. We also appeal the commission to abandon the use of"flashing", when associating it with the LED sign as it has been proved to be incorrect by the state and many surrounding cities. Flash is defined; "sudden or brief, occurring, done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning". Also stated by one of the board members that creating a "fade effect"would be a more desirable fitting and would remove the"flashing effect". We agreed and acknowledge that this can be accomplished and suited for all parties and help the adjacent property. We believe the sign can be approved with conditions that will help improve the community response and not become an annoyance to the community.