Digital Signs and Billboards: Crafting and Enforcing Local - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Digital Signs and Billboards: Crafting and Enforcing Local Regulations

Evaluating Siting Issues, Environmental Concerns and Revenue Sharing Opportunities

Today’s faculty features:

1pm East ern | 12pm Cent ral | 11am Mount ain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

WEDNES DAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

S usan L. Trevart hen, Member, Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. William D. Brint on, S hareholder, Rogers Towers, Jacksonville, Fla. Randal R. Morrison, Part ner, Sabine & Morrison, S an Diego Jerry Wacht el, President , The Veridian Group, Berkeley, Calif.

Tips for Optimal Quality

S

• und Qualit y

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

• f your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-871-8924 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@ straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Qualit y To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the S

END button beside the box If you have purchased S trafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). Y

• u may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the

appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “ Conference Materials” in the middle of the left -

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “ Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of

the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Digital Signs and Billboards: Crafting and Enforcing Defensible Local Regulations Susan L. Trevarthen, Esq., A.I.C.P.

Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L.

• Ft. Lauderdale, FL * 954-763-4242 * @SusanTrevarthen

STrevarthen@wsh-law.com * www.wsh-law.com

William D. Brinton, Esq.

Rogers Towers, PA * Jacksonville, FL * 904-398-3911 wbrinton@rtlaw.com * www.rtlaw.com

Randal R. Morrison, Esq.

Sabine & Morrison * PO Box 531518 San Diego CA * 92153-1518 * 619-234-2864 www.signlaw.com * rrmsignlaw@gmail.com

Jerry Wachtel, C.P.E.

The Veridian Group, Inc. * Berkeley, CA * 510-848-0250 jerry@veridiangroup.com * www.veridiangroup.com

6

Constitutional Basics of Sign Regulation

7

The First Amendment (1791)

Congress shall make no law: [1-2] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or [3-4] abridging the freedom of speech, or

• f the press; or

[5-6] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

8

First Amendment and Sign Regulation

 Fourteenth Amendment makes the First

applicable to all levels of government

 Freedom of Speech clause  Most state constitutions have corresponding

protections

 Some state courts say the protection is

broader under the state constitution

• Most extreme example: Oregon

Protected Speech, Expressive Conduct Lower Level Protection Not Protected

Flag desecration Racist/sexist

comments

Political Religious  Social commentary  “God Hates Fags”  Blasphemy/heresy Commercial

Speech

Erotic or Adult

Entertainment that does not meet the legal definition of “obscene”

Defamation Obscenity or child

pornography

Perjury Fighting words Criminal

conspiracies

Threatening life of

President or VP

Violent or

destructive acts

Deceptive

commercial speech

9

10

Standard of Review

Typical Land Use – City Usually Wins See,

e.g., Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 1995).

 De novo review: No need for record or detailed

statement of legislative intent. After-the-fact justification allowed.

 Rational basis: Is it rational to think that this action or

regulation will advance any legitimate governmental interest?

 Fairly debatable standard: If it’s a tie, the government

wins (“the tie goes to the runner”).

 Presumed constitutional: Courts will not assume that

local government intended to violate the Constitution.

11

Standard of Review

Signs - City May Lose

See, e.g., Tipp City v. Dakin, 929 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 2010)

 Enhanced judicial scrutiny  Not presumed constitutional  Generally, no greater regulation than

necessary to advance a substantial governmental interest

 Need clear, detailed statement of intent (and

record) to establish the governmental interest, and that this regulation advances the interest

Discretion = Legal Risk

 In the typical land use case, courts usually

defer to local government’s discretion and policy choices

 In First Amendment land uses (signs,

billboards, adult uses, newsracks, religious facilities) – discretion is limited, and discretion in permitting creates real legal risk

 Courts want “narrow, objective rules,” not tied

to message, that are consistently enforced

12

13

Medium and Message

Billboards, then, like other media of

communication, combine communicative and noncommunicative aspects. As with

• ther media, the government has legitimate

interests in controlling the noncommunic- ative aspects of the medium, but the First and Fourteenth Amendments foreclose a similar interest in controlling the communic- ative aspects. Metromedia v. San Diego, 453 US 490 (1981)

Sign Regulator’s Mantra

 The medium is NOT the message.  We regulate the medium, not the

message.

 Time, Place and Manner (TPM) rules

 Apply without regard to message  Size, height, setback, illumination,

separation, location, display method

 If you follow the mantra, most courts

approve the sign rules

14

Foundation Case

 Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley

 408 U.S. 92 (1972) – decided when commercial

speech had no protection

 Protest signs outside school admin building  Only labor protest (teacher union) signs allowed  Unconstitutional: The government may not

choose the message, the messenger, or the topic

• f debate

15

16 16

17

18

Types of Speech

Ideological / “noncommercial speech”: Debate in the marketplace of

• ideas. May or may not contain facts, and

may or may not be accurate, but protected because “integrally related to the exposition of thought . . . that may shape our concepts of the whole universe of man.”

Types of Speech

Commercial speech: Debate in the marketplace

• f goods and services; regular advertising. No

protection until mid 1970’s. Now protected at “lower level” on a utilitarian basis, because the information is of potential interest in making purchasing decisions, and is not related to “any direct contribution to the interchange of ideas.” Virginia State Bd of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976) (Stewart, J., concurring).

19

Types of Speech

Third category of speech?: Another category for functional information or speech that informs, but is not debate? Stop signs, speed limits, etc. Most courts dodge this issue. Makes sense for it to be approached differently, because there is no motive to censor and no chance of running afoul of the policy concerns of the First Amendment.

20

Central Hudson Analysis: For Commercial Speech

 Central Hudson v. PSC, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)  Four steps:

 Is product or service illegal, or message deceptive? If

yes: no protection, case over.

 Serve a substantial governmental interest?  Directly advance the asserted interest?  More extensive than necessary – is there a

reasonable fit?

 Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) – no

tobacco ad signs within 1,000 feet of schools, playgrounds – goes too far, unconstitutional

21

Litigating the Sign Case

 Usually in federal court  Civil rights case  When challenger wins, often large

attorney fee awards

 Money damages possible  Burden of justification is on the gov’t  Sign regulation is a source of

considerable legal risk – be careful!

22

23

Issues In Regulating Signs

 Content Neutral Regulation



Rule is not based on message – Example: Regulate “temporary signs”, not “political signs” or “campaign signs.”



Functional View vs. Literal View (directional signs, time/temperature signs)

 Viewpoint Neutral Regulation is

required



Rule applies equally to all speakers within the defined class, does not vary by message – Example: Use “A flag is a noncommercial symbol,” not “A flag is a symbol of a government.”

Issues in Regulating Signs

 No governmental review or

discrimination against message content

 Rule not based on message content  Focus: regulate time, place and manner  Graphic design rules (fonts, colors,

logos) – can be risky – need careful drafting

 Sign programs – rarely litigated,

generally approved

24

25

Issues in Regulating Signs

 The governmental purpose is paramount

in determining whether the regulation will be upheld.

 Controlling impacts of the sign,

presenting important and substantial governmental interests? Yes.

 Suppressing free speech? No.

26

Issues in Regulating Signs

 No “one-size-fits-all” solution exists  Strategies and desired outcome

need to be tailored to the circumstances, local needs

 Many (most?) codes have legal

issues, so borrowing can be problematic

 Governing law is very fact-sensitive,

evolving over time, and can be unpredictable

Choosing the Topic?



Special rules for political campaign signs



Display time limits – city usually loses



GK Ltd. Travel v. Lake Oswego, 436 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006)



Display right based on event (election), not message content – okay



Watch out for treating campaign signs more stringently than other similar temporary signs

• r temporary commercial signs (i.e.,

construction site signs)

27

Residential / Yard Signs



Two US Supreme Court decisions



Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977): City cannot ban Real Estate For Sale signs – onsite residential – some states expand this



Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) – people must be allowed to express political / religious views at their homes

• Size limits are probably okay

28

29

30

Metromedia v. San Diego

453 U.S. 490 (1981)



90+ pages long, 5 opinions



Applied Central Hudson



Three basic rules:



Rule 1: Government can ban billboards



Rule 2: Government may not favor commercial speech (lower level) over noncommercial speech (full protection)



Rule 3: Government may not pick and choose between noncommercial categories (Mosley principle)

31

Message Substitution

 An easy way to avoid accidental violation of

Metromedia Rule 2 (no favoring of commercial)

 Anywhere any legal sign displays any legal

message, the message can be changed to any kind of protected noncommercial speech

 No permitting or approval required  Every sign ordinance should include message

substitution

32

Banning Signs in Traditional Public Forum Areas

 Traditional Public Forum – surfaces of streets, parks,

sidewalks, area around city hall

 Complete ban on inanimate (posted, “left behind”) signs

• n Traditional Public Fora, regardless of message type –

many courts approve

 See Sussli v. San Mateo, 120 Cal.App.3d 1 (1981)

 Generally, government does not have to allow

commercial speech or activities in Traditional Public Fora

 But, if commercial speech is allowed, then

noncommercial must be allowed – the “no favoring of commercial” rule applies

 If any noncommercial speech is allowed, door is (usually)

• pen to all types of noncommercial

33

Election Signs in Traditional Public Forum

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191(1992)

 State law: no signs or politicking within 100 feet

• f polls on election day

 Valid – justified by interest in preventing voter

fraud and intimidation

 Narrowly tailored  Extremely rare example of content-based rule

concerning noncommercial speech which was sufficiently justified

 Some states have codified this rule

34

Government Speech



The government does not need to give itself permission to express its own message on its own property



First Amendment does not apply to government speech



Pleasant Grove v Summum, 129 S.Ct. 1125 (2009)



PETA v Gittens, 414 F.3d 23, 28–29 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (as arts patron, District was free to communicate some viewpoints while disfavoring others; guidelines announced in advance)



“Blurring the line” problems: government adopting private speech, inviting private participation



Only constitutional limit on government speech is the Establishment of Religion clause

35

Gittens Party Animals

36

Banning Mobile Billboards

 Bans on mobile billboards (sign trucks) on city

streets have been approved many times

 Key issue: using the road for transportation

purposes or turning it into an advertising theater?

 Fifth Ave Coach v. NYC, 211 U.S. 467 (1911)  Railway Express Agency v. People of New York,

336 U.S. 106 (1949)

 Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. West

Hollywood, 166 Cal.App.4th 816 (2008)

 BUT – beware of possible pre-emption under state

law (any licensed and registered vehicle can use the public roads and streets)

37

38

39

What is a Digital Sign?

 Physical method of image presentation  Electronic display uses LCD, LED, plasma, or

projected images

 Much finer detail than traditional freeway info

signs or sports stadium scoreboards

 Full color, digital effects  Images easily changed – slide show or full

motion, even interactive – giant TV

40

41

Digital Signs: the New Frontier in On and Off Premise Signs

 Fast-moving technological developments leading

to sophisticated signs that are economically feasible to deploy

 Can display full motion video, with sound and

special effects like smoke or odors

 Safety and status under the Highway

Beautification Act to be addressed by Bill and Jerry

 Costs coming down because of economies of

scale and competition

Regulating Digital Signs

 Factors in regulation include whether to allow

animation or motion, length of delay in change

• f static advertising messages, standards for

illumination

 Much more expensive to install, but generate

much more revenue

 Much more expensive to remove – road

widening, redevelopment, private property rights statutes.

 Consider cumulative impact on aesthetics and

safety

42

43

Best Practices

 Okay to ban digitals, but watch out for

exceptions that undermine the prohibition.

Naser Jewelers v. City of Concord New Hampshire, 513 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2008); Carlsons Chrysler v. Concord (NH Supreme Ct); Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)

 If not a complete ban, regulate where and

when they are allowed

Digital Signs and the Highway Beautification Act

Controls billboards along freeways and interstates

44

“DIGITAL” BILLBOARDS AND THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT (HBA): PENDING FEDERAL LITIGATION

 Most “digital” billboards now operating in the United States are

located along federal interstates and federal-aid primary highways, and are subject to the federal HBA (known as the Lady Bird Act).

 Scenic America, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation,

et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00093-JEB, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Suit filed on January 23, 2013.

 Lawsuit challenges a Federal Highway Administration “Guidance

Memorandum” dated September 25, 2007.

 Core issue: whether “digital” billboards that display commercial

messages by utilizing LEDs, changing every 4-10 seconds, violate the HBA’s mandatory customary use standards as implemented through Federal State Agreements.

 The history of the HBA and the implementation of its restrictions on

size, lighting, and spacing-to what was then customary use-is critical to an understanding of the legal issue framed in the suit.

45

HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT TIMELINE RE: BANNING INTERMITTENT LIGHTING

 1965 – October 22, 1965: HBA enacted. Limits size,

lighting, and spacing on interstates and federal-aid primary highways in commercial and industrial zoned areas to what was then “Customary Use.”

 1966 – March-May. Public hearings in every state. Six

committees established. General Counsel’s Report

• released. Intermittent lighting only to display Public

Service Information (time, date, temperature).

 1967 – First State-Federal Agreement (Vermont).  1968 – HBA Amendment. Only 12 Agreements in place.

Five more years to complete the process.

 1973 – Last State-Federal Agreement (South Dakota).

46

HBA TIMELINE (2)

 1978 HBA Amendment - House-Senate Conference

Committee rejects House proposal to allow Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) for off-site signs under the HBA.

 1990 - FHWA: CEVMS/Billboards are Illegal.  1996 - FHWA: intermittent lighting signs not allowed.  2007 - FHWA internal controversy over letter and spirit of

the HBA. Guidance Memo issued on September 25,

• 2007. FOIA request by Scenic America led to disclosure
• f internal fight over agency action. No discussion of

1966 Public Hearings or the 1978 rejection of a change to the HBA to allow CEVMS.

47

HBA TIMELINE (3)

 2007 – FHWA Guidance Memo states that every 4

seconds would not be deemed intermittent. This would mean that 21,800 times per day would not be deemed “intermittent.”

 2009 – Scenic America consults with Georgetown

Law Center’s Institute for Public Representation (IPR).

 2010 – Scenic America (through IPR) files petition

for rulemaking. FHWA promises to address it

• ASAP. Rulemaking petition then ignored for three
• years. Digital billboard proliferation spreads based

upon FHWA Guidance Memo.

48

HBA TIMELINE (4)

 2012 - Scenic Arizona victory in state appellate court.

Digital billboards that change every 8 seconds are intermittent and illegal. Scenic Arizona, Inc. v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, et al., 228 Ariz. 419, 268 P.3d 370 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2012).

 2012 - Rutgers Law Review Article – Digital Billboards

Violate Letter and Spirit of HBA.

 2013 – Scenic America files lawsuit against USDOT and

• FHWA. Outdoor Advertising Association of America

(OAAA) intervenes. USDOT, FHWA and OAAA file motions to dismiss, which are denied.

49

HBA TIMELINE (5)

 2013 (October 23, 2013) – U.S.

District Court denies motions to dismiss with a 24-page memorandum

• pinion. Discussed below.

 2014 (January-April) – Briefing

schedule for any and all cross motions for summary judgment. Final brief due on April 11, 2014.

50

President Johnson Signs HBA February 8, 1965

• Association with beauty can enlarge man’s

imagination and revive his spirit.

• Ugliness can demean the people who live among

it.

• What a citizen sees every day is his America.
• If it is attractive, it adds to the quality of his life.
• If it is ugly, it can degrade his existence.

51

HBA: The Lady Bird Act Enacted on October 22, 1965

52

The “Customary Use” Provision Added to the HBA (as underscored) During Its Consideration in the House

 In order to promote the reasonable, orderly

and effective display of outdoor advertising while remaining consistent with the purposes of this section, signs, displays, and devices whose size, lighting and spacing, consistent with customary use is to be determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary, may be erected and maintained…

53

The 1966 Hearings

 Section 303 of the federal HBA required public

hearings in each state.

 Took place in March-April-May, 1966.  8,000+ attended and 2,000+ testified.  For what purpose?  … for the purpose of gathering all relevant

information on which to base such standards, criteria, and rules and regulations.

 … report to Congress not later than January 10,

1967 all standards to be applied.

54

1966 Hearings; Six Committees

 Six committees established to review the relevant

information.

 One committee evaluated the criteria for size, lighting

and spacing of signs permitted in commercial or industrial zones; evaluation of customary use for size, lighting and spacing.

 Report of the Bureau of Public Roads’ General

Counsel Lowell Anders was made on July 12, 1966 at the Workshop on Highway Law in Boulder, Colorado.

 Report attached to Circular Memorandum distributed

by Deputy Director of the Bureau of Public Roads on July 19, 1966.

55

General Counsel Ander’s Report --July 12, 1966

 Our first lighting requirement would prohibit

flashing, intermittent or moving lights except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information.

56

General Counsel Ander’s Report -- July 12, 1966 (cont’d)

• During the [1966] public hearings testimony

from Industry spokesmen made it clear that it is customary in outdoor advertising to provide public service information on signs, by the use of intermittent or moving lights.

57

Typical Federal State Agreement --1968 (California)

February 15, 1968 - California Federal State Agreement (7th agreement). Typical agreement identifying “customary” use for “Lighting” as follows: Lighting: Signs . . . shall not include . . . flashing, intermittent or moving lights (except that part necessary to give public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information);

58

South Dakota – 1973 -- Last Federal State Agreement

LIGHTING Signs may be illuminated, subject to the following restrictions: Signs which contain, include, or are illuminated by any flashing, intermit- tent, or moving light or lights are prohibited, except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather, or similar information.

59

August 18, 1978 Discussion on Floor of U.S. Senate 124 Cong. Rec. S26,917-18

 Mr. JACKSON. . . . Purely and simply, what this amendment will

allow is the use of electronic signs on the premises of businesses adjacent to interstate highways. It does not extend beyond this as some have advocated to off- premise commercial and industrially zoned properties. That is an entirely different

• matter. . . .

 Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I do, indeed, share the same

concern as the distinguished manager of the bill on the majority side, with respect to further electronic signs beyond those which might be under this amendment authorized on premise for activities carried

• n premise. . . . I have examined the existing law and the

amendment of the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. Jackson). . . . Mr. President I want to register my concern over any proliferation of these electronic signs off premise. My concern is that these signs, if sanctioned off premise, may be a threat to highway safety.

60

August 18, 1978 Discussion on Floor of U.S. Senate 124 Cong. Rec. S26,917-18 (cont’d)

 Mr. STAFFORD: . . . As I understand the

distinguished Senator’s amendment it removes any Federal barrier only to electronic signs which provide public service information or advertise activities on the property on which they are located. This does not change Federal regulations forbidding these signs in commercial or industrial areas, where the signs are not on premise. Is that correct?

 Mr. JACKSON. That is correct.

61

The 1978 Amendment to the HBA Surface Transportation Assistance Act

• f 1978 (November 6, 1978)
• The House version would have allowed

“commercial” electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) under the HBA.

• The House version to change the HBA failed

in Conference Committee on Oct. 14, 1978.

• The Senate version, advocated by Senator

Jackson, was adopted in lieu of House

• version. This was the topic of the colloquy
• n the Senate floor on August 18, 1978

(above).

62

FHWA Memo Jan. 19, 1990 Director of Right-of-Way

 We have received several inquiries concerning the off-

premise advertising use of commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) which change their advertising messages by electronic process or remote

• control. These outdoor advertising signs use various

types of evolving technology such as lights, glow cubes, rotating slats, moving reflective disks, etc.

 FHWA has interpreted the Federal law as implemented

under individual state/federal agreements to prohibit

• ff-premise variable message signs, irrespective of the

method used to display the changing message. The prohibited CEVMS must be considered to be illegal.

63

FHWA Memo July 17, 1996 Director of Right of Way

 In nearly all States, these signs may still not

contain flashing, intermittent or moving lights.

 Note: The 1996 FHWA memo does not

refer to “commercial” electronic variable message signs, but to “changeable” message signs. The available record does not indicate whether the change in terminology was deliberate or inadvertent.

64

FHWA CHANGES ITS POSITION September 25, 2007 - Guidance Memorandum Signed by Associate Administrator

 FHWA changed its longstanding interpretation of the HBA on

September 25, 2007 re: intermittent lighting.

 FHWA advised that a range of acceptability was between 4-10

seconds and recommended 8 seconds for the frequency of a changeable message sign utilizing lights. FHWA again omitted the term “commercial” in describing the variable message signs and made no reference to the public service information exceptions set forth in the FSAs.

 In 2013 U.S. District Judge Boasberg described it this way: “In

2007, the Federal Highway Administration issued a ‘Guidance’ that paved the way for the construction of digital billboards along the nation’s highways. . . . Historically, the FHWA believed that digital billboards violated key language in federal-state agreements related to the Interstate Highway System.’

65

FHWA Stalls 2009-2012 Federal lawsuit filed 2013

 Efforts were undertaken by Scenic America to have FHWA

and USDOT reconsider the Guidance Memo. A formal petition for rulemaking was unanswered for three years.

 In 2012, two significant events occurred.  A state appellate court in Arizona ruled that digital

billboards did use intermittent lighting.

 A law review article concluded that FHWA had failed to

adhere to the letter or spirit of the HBA.

 On January 23, 2013, Scenic America filed suit.  On October 23, 2013, U.S. District Judge Boasberg denied

motions to dismiss filed by USDOT, FHWA, and intervenor

• OAAA. A briefing schedule will conclude in April 2014.

66

Excerpts from U.S. District Court Opinion Oct 23, 2013

 “Historically, the FHWA believed that digital

billboards violated key language in federal-state agreements related to the Interstate Highway System.”

 “But the agency recently shifted gears and gave

the green light to its Division Offices by providing a new interpretation of that language that would permit digital billboards in certain circumstances.”

 Court’s Overview of Scenic America’s claims:

67

US Dist. Ct. Summarizes Scenic America’s Position

 “First, it is a legislative rule promulgated without the

notice-and-comment procedure required by the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553.”

 “Second, it creates new lighting standards for billboards

without "agreement between the several States and the Secretary [of Transportation]," as required by the HBA. See 23 U.S.C. § 131(d).”

 “[Third], it establishes lighting standards for

billboards that are inconsistent with "customary use," another violation of the HBA. See id.”

68

Court Opinion re: Scenic America’s Standing and Injury

 “Prior to the Guidance, most States did not allow

digital billboards because they did not believe that the language of their FSAs [Federal State Agreements]

• r the decision makers at the FHWA would permit

such proposals.”

 “After the Guidance, States may now successfully

petition the FHWA to amend their regulations to allow the construction of such billboards because the agency has made clear its position that doing so does not violate their FSAs.”

69

Court Rejects Claim that the Guidance Was Not Final Agency Action

 “It is clear that the 2007 Guidance reflects the

‘consummation of the [FHWA]’s decision-making process’ on the issue of whether digital billboards violate FSA prohibitions on ‘flashing,’ ‘intermittent,’ or ‘moving’

• lights. Id.”

 “The Guidance states plainly, and in bold, that ‘Proposed

laws, regulations, and procedures that would allow permitting CEVMS subject to acceptable criteria (as described below) do not violate a prohibition against “intermittent” or “flashing” or “moving” lights.’ 2007 Guidance at 1-2 (emphasis added).”

70

Court Rejects Claim that the Guidance Was Not Final Agency Action (cont’d)

 “Nothing else in the document suggests that the

FHWA’s conclusion on this point is ‘tentative, open to further consideration, or conditional on future agency action.’ City of Dania Beach, Fla. v. FAA, 485 F.3d 1181, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2007).”

 “The 2007 Guidance does not just announce the

FHWA’s vision of the law – that digital billboards are not ‘flashing,’ ‘intermittent,’ or ‘moving’ lights; it also commands Division Offices to turn that vision into reality.”

71

More Excerpts from Court Opinion re: FHWA’s Interpretation of the Law

 “Here, where Scenic America’s challenge is not to the

FHWA’s failure to enforce the law but rather to its interpretation of the law, the Court believes it better to stick with the traditional ‘adequate remedy’ inquiry by ‘focus[ing] on whether [the] statute provides an independent cause of action or an alternative review procedure.’ El Rio Santa Cruz, 396 F.3d at 1270.”

 “As Defendants do not allege that HBA provides either

in this case, Scenic America may bring its claim under the APA.”

72

Recap – Scenic Arizona Decision

“Because the combination of LEDs used to display each brightly lit image on the billboard changes every eight seconds, the billboard’s lighting necessarily is intermittent under the plain meaning

• f the statute. Thus, we are not persuaded by

American Outdoor’s attempt to exempt its billboard from the bar on intermittent lighting.” “The billboard uses multiple arrangements of lighting to display images that stop and start at regular intervals, which means it uses intermittent lighting.” Scenic Arizona, Inc. v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, et al., 268 P.3d 370, 378 (Ariz.App.

• Div. 1 2012).

73

Recap – Rutgers Law Review

 “A court need not consult a dictionary to know that

digital signs violate the letter and spirit of the HBA, and the failure of the FHWA to do its part "to promote the safety and recreational value of public travel, and to preserve natural beauty" has created an imbalance of power that leaves the general public at a loss.”

• Quote from Between Beauty and Beer Signs: Why

Digital Billboards Violate the Letter and Spirit of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, Susan C. Sharpe, Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 64, Issue 2, (Winter 2012), at pp. 325-326

74

Recap – 1966 Post- Hearings Report

• Our first lighting requirement would

prohibit flashing, intermittent or moving lights except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information.

• During the [1966] public hearings testimony

from Industry spokesmen made it clear that it is customary in outdoor advertising to provide public service information on signs, by the use of intermittent or moving lights

75

Traffic Safety and Digital Signs

Accepting the Technology – Reducing the Risks

The Veridian Group, Inc.

76

Some Common Distractions While Driving

 Cell phones  Texting  Entertainment systems  Navigation systems  Adjusting temperature  Talking with passengers  Disciplining children  Grooming  Reading  Eating  Viewing scenery  Reading signs*

*Even reading official traffic signs is a distraction from driving; that’s why there is constant research to ensure that they are as simple and obvious as possible.

77

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Billboards are the only roadside objects designed and intended to distract the driver.

The driver cannot choose the time or place to accept distraction by the billboard.

The Veridian Group, Inc.

78

Digital signs are far more effective than conventional billboards at triggering distraction, and keeping the driver distracted longer.

There are two principal reasons and a host of unstudied but growing concerns

The Veridian Group, Inc.

79

Digitals Can Change their Message at Will

 Typical “dwell time” is 6-8 seconds.  The more frequent the change, the more the

billboard appears to “flash” when approached.

 This is called apparent motion  Think of a theater marquee where the “movement” of

light is only the pattern of individual bulbs turning on and

• ff in sequence.

 The message change draws the eye because of

its intermittently changing color and brightness.

 A simple solution exists – employ a formula that

extends message duration to minimize apparent motion to drivers.

80

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Digitals are far brighter at night than conventional billboards, and far brighter than needed

 Conventional billboards use floodlights to

illuminate the sign at night.

 Digitals are “self-illuminated”

 The LEDs that form the message are also the light

source.

 Digitals, even when dimmed at night, can be the

brightest object in the view.

 Research shows that these bright lights attract our

attention, even unconsciously (“moth effect”)

 But we can easily reduce nighttime brightness

to acceptable levels.

81

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Digital Billboards - the Brightest Objects in the Field of View

This DBB is 6 miles from the camera

This photo is exposed normally for the scene.

82

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Digital Billboards - the Brightest Objects in the Field of View

This DBB is 6 miles from the camera

This photo is exposed normally for the scene.

83

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Digital Billboards - the Brightest Objects in the Field of View

This DBB is 6 miles from the camera

This photo is exposed normally for the scene.

84

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Digitals have new techniques to capture the driver’s attention and hold it longer.

 Message Sequencing  Personalization  Interaction  Knowing who you are to better target ads  Moving with you in traffic

85

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Message Sequencing

 Advertisers use the Zeigarnik Effect to hold the

viewer’s attention longer.

 They reveal only part of the message at a time.

• This maintains suspense; hence interest.

 80 years ago, Burma Shave spaced 6 small signs

along the road, each containing one line of a poem.

• The final sign displayed their logo.

 They were highly successful, and became an icon.

• But speeds were lower then, and traffic lighter.

86

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Artist’s Rendering of Burma-Shave Signs

87

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Today, digitals reveal parts of a message at a time

Either on a single sign

88

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Today, digitals reveal parts of a message at a time

Either on a single sign

89

The Veridian Group, Inc.

…or by starting the message on one sign, and completing it on another

90

The Veridian Group, Inc.

…or by starting the message on one sign, and completing it on another

91

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Message Part 1 Message Part 2

Digitals send personalized messages to the driver

92

The Veridian Group, Inc.

and bar code scanning All from the comfort of the driver’s seat. They encourage texting

93

The Veridian Group, Inc.

and bar code scanning All from the comfort of the driver’s seat. They encourage texting

94

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Some use cameras capable of driver facial recognition …others use automated license plate readers to know where you are.

95

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Some use cameras capable of driver facial recognition …others use automated license plate readers to know where you are.

96

The Veridian Group, Inc.

And they can display video (and audio) messages on trucks moving in traffic.

97

The Veridian Group, Inc.

But the new threat is from

• n-premise signs

 Zoning controls were originally meant to

protect mom-and-pop stores.

 Now we have mega-malls, casinos,

arenas.

 On-premise signs can be:

• Larger
• Closer to the road
• Brighter
• And can display full-motion video, sound,

even aromas

 Our focus on safety must adjust.

98

The Veridian Group, Inc.

This video sign is 7-stories high, adjacent to an elevated highway.

99

The Veridian Group, Inc.

What about the research?

 Billboard safety research for more than 70 years.  5 basic study types:

 Critical literature reviews

• Show strengths and weaknesses of studies done; explain findings.

 Theoretical research

• Help explain behavioral observations, validate principles and

constructs

 On-road research

• Show performance under realistic but constrained settings; small

sample sizes

 High fidelity driving simulators.

• Good control of variables – but real world applicability must be shown

 Statistical analyses of crash info

• Crash data is the “gold standard,” but…
• Can’t control for real world variables
• Limited to post-hoc summary reports
• Studies often biased
• Few crash report forms even allow for distraction (except phoning/texting)
• Drivers rarely volunteer this information - fear points on license/ insurance rate increases
• When they do volunteer (in 3 studies) they report actual crashes or near misses

100

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Limitations of crash studies lead most researchers to avoid them

 Instead, they use simulators and on-road studies

with surrogate performance measures.

 Lane deviation, speed variance, hazard avoidance, near

misses, perception-reaction time,“time-to-crash,” etc.

 Only 3 sets of studies in past 10 years evaluated

crash statistics

 The first two were industry sponsored and showed no

correlation between crashes and digital billboards.

 The third was conducted by the Israeli government and

showed a dramatic decrease in crashes when billboards were covered.

101

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Since the most recent (2009-AASHTO) update 8 research studies have been reported, worldwide.



U.S. – University of Massachusetts (Funded by NSF and NHTSA)



Australia – Austroads



Australia – Monash University



Canada – University of Calgary*



England – Transportation Research Laboratory



England – East London University



Norway – Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics



Sweden – Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute#

 All found driver performance decrements in the presence

• f billboards.



*Statistically significant relationship between video billboard and delay in responding to a lead vehicle braking in time to avoid a collision

 #Sweden removed all digital billboards upon study completion.

102

The Veridian Group, Inc.

We now know - driver’s eyes off road for 2+ seconds leads to 2.8x increase in crash risk.

And we know from the research, including industry sponsored studies, that digital signs take drivers’ eyes off the road for 2, 3, even 5 seconds at a time.

The Veridian Group, Inc.

103

We can’t ban digital signs simply because of their display methodology – but we can set sensible and enforceable guidelines and regulations that permit them to operate with reduced risk to traffic safety.

104

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Some Simple Guidelines for Traffic Safety

 Set minimum dwell time per simple available formula

 No driver should see more than one message change

 Set maximum luminance* levels with sign full bright

 Require fail safe default in case of system failure  Require owner to certify sign meets standard

• Thus, local government need not get into the measurement business

 Set minimum spacing requirements for



Signs from each other; from intersections, interchanges, curves, hills, right-of-way  Prohibit:

 Interaction; personalization; sequencing; privacy violations; motion or

animation; advertisements on vehicles moving in traffic.

 Ideally, limit amount of info, and establish minimum font size  Consider similar controls for on-premise signs

*Industry “recommends” (it does not require) the use of illuminance for this measurement. This is inappropriate and, typically, unobtainable.

105

The Veridian Group, Inc.

There is one area where we agree with industry

Contact us at: jerry@veridiangroup.com; (510) 848-0250

106

The Veridian Group, Inc.

Making Deals and Living With Digitals

108

Areas Defined by Signage

 Las Vegas, Times Square

109

Best Practices

 Require sign to go dark if malfunction  Shutoff during emergencies, energy brownouts  Brightness  Impact, and regulatory approach will vary

depending on the type of surrounding activity

• residential vs. non-residential

 Automatic brightness adjustment tied to ambient

light levels

 Provide brightness measurement  Control visual clutter and proliferation  Have all stores in the shopping center share time

• n one digital sign

110

Best Practices (2)

 Motion

 Static  Animated  Intermittent  Full video  Prohibit flashing, strobing, racing,

images/colors that could be confused with traffic safety lights and signs

La Tour v. City of Fayetteville, Ark., 442 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2006) (prohibition of flashing, blinking and animated signs is not content based restriction, and is therefore constitutional)

111

Two Sign Industries

Outdoor Advertising

* Billboards

• General advertising for

hire; usually “off-site”

• New name: “Out of

Home Advertising”

• Sign itself is a

separate business, profit center

Sign Shops

 Make and install

custom signs for stores

 Traditionally: one

permanent image (usually a logo)

 Past – no

association with OA

112

Convergence

 Now, with digital, the image on a store

sign can be easily changed

 Some “on-site” signage is now “time

sharing” or “hybrid” use

 Sign can be both onsite and offsite  Sign becomes a separate profit center  Co-operative advertising

113

Policy Considerations

 Signs on private property  Apply Metromedia rules  Regulate based on impacts, not content  Some impacts may be acceptable in one

area, while not acceptable in another. Okay to differentiate by location, zoning district, lot size, nature of land use.

 Have specific definitions and rules for digital

signs – do not rely on old rules about “flashing, blinking, intermittent light”

114

Regulating Digital Signs (1)

 Separation

 Distance between digital signs

• Can create haves and have-nots
• First come, first entitled

 Distance from residential or other

negatively impacted uses

 Visibility of one or more signs at a time

 Okay onsite, but not offsite?  On-site definition – not limited to “same

parcel”

115

Regulating Digital Signs (2)

 Government interest findings in ordinance  OTR Media Group, Inc. v. City of New York, 83

A.D.3d 451(N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2011) (regulations for billboards facing arterials directly advanced the stated governmental interests of promoting traffic safety and preserving aesthetics, and were narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.)

 Prohibit or regulate  Sizes: Digital sign; Portion of sign face  Regulate placement, orientation, spacing  Limit flashing, animation, video  Provide dwell times, transition times  Cap brightness and require automatic controls

116

Regulating Digital Signs (3)

 Goals:  Be as clear, unambiguous, non-discretionary

 Act promptly  Regulate in the most even-handed way possible  Watch for possible inadvertent discrimination  Always focus on the impact or other neutral

justification, not the content of the speech

 What works today may be invalid next year –

check for latest developments in the law

 Get expert assistance

Bargaining For Digital Rights

 Billboard companies see digital as the key to

their financial future

 Potentially huge increases in revenue  Offers for digital rights

 Take down old signs in sensitive areas  Amber alerts, emergency messages  TPM rules

 Special permit fees for digital = auctioning the

First Amendment?

117

City As Billboard Landlord

 If city owns land near a freeway,

expect a “partnership offer”

 Under lease, OA companies will agree

to content restrictions (alcohol, tobacco, adult, etc.)

 Up front signing bonus, % rent  Impressive cash flow predictions  New revenue that is not tax

118

City as Billboard Landlord

(2)

 Percentage rent – “15% is industry

standard”

 True only for naïve landlords  Market rate for percentage rent is

based on value of location, not an arbitrary standard rate

 Premium locations can draw 30-35%

rent, super premiums even more

119

City As Billboard Landlord

 Possible deal points  City can have one slide out of 8 for its

• wn messages

 Technical rules on brightness, energy

consumption, dwell, transitions, etc.

 Pre-emption or co-operation for

emergency message

 Open for competitive bidding  PSAs required

120

Sacramento California

 City is landlord to four billboard

locations, total seven faces

 Signing bonus: $330,000  Monthly rent fixed for 5 years:

$60,000 per month

 After 5 years, possible rent increase

based on formula in place at the beginning

121

City as Billboard Owner

 If City uses the sign exclusively for its own

message, presumably okay

 If the sign is a hybrid of government speech

and paid advertising, many unanswered legal questions

 Does City have staff with skill set to sell

advertising?

 City property only? Metro Lights v. LA, 551 F.3d

898 (9th Cir. 2010) – advertising on street furniture, no obligation to allow private parties to do the same

122

Development Agreements

 New trend–legal frontier–many qns  OA company granted right to install

new digital billboards on private land

 OA company removes old signs  OA states intention to refrain from

alcohol, tobacco, SOBs etc.

 Consistent with current law?

123

Development Agreements

(2)

 Substantial processing fee, annual

maintenance fees

 Annual fees targeted to mitigating

impacts

 Result: money to city from signs on

private land

124

Development Agreements

(3)

 Precedent: if city says YES to one

proposal, and NO to another – then what?

 Competitive bidding? Exclusive

negotiation period?

 “Auction off the First Amendment”

argument

125

Large Scale Developments

 New shopping centers / malls / sports

/ convention / tourists facilities

 Developer demands signage rights  No distinction between onsite / offsite  Deal “won’t pencil out” without broad

signage rights

 If digital signs are allowed on new

developments, why not elsewhere?

126

More Resources

 Newsletter: Sign Regulation and Public Forum

Bulletin – free, national

 Distributed only by email  Requests to: rrmsignlaw@gmail.com

 Website: www.signlaw.com

 Lots of basic info, cases

 Safety issues and research requests:

 jerry@veridiangroup.com

 Land use newsletters and links to First

Amendment materials:

 strevarthen@wsh-law.com  www.wsh-law.com

127

Political Signs and the Law

 Available now on Amazon:

128