It's obvious that our current digital outdoor advertising signs (the ones you see from the expressways) are too bright. Are they twice as bright as they should be? Perhaps.
So, can we safely say that digital signs in residential areas should be 300 NITS during the daytime, (compared to the 500 allowed on freeway billboards), and 5,000 NITS at night (compared to 6,500 on the freeway billboards)? I'm doubtful. I think we should look at progressive cities with smart lighting codes to see what they require...both on freeways, and in neighborhoods. (I would support reducing the brightness of "digital outdoor advertising signs" to these levels, though! In a heartbeat!)
As for the dwell time, I can't imagine that any church or school needs to display multiple messages that change every 8 seconds. COME ON! The 8-second rule was determined BY THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY so they could maximize profits on their digital billboards on freeways (where cars travel 65 MPH). Our previous City Council bought off on it (thanks to a nice lobbying effort by Lamar, etc.) But that's no reason to "copy/paste" that language into our neighborhood districts!
I can't think of a single reason why a church or a school needs an 8-second dwell time for their messages. That's an arbitrary number that I would replace with another arbitrary number: once every 24 hours. That should be the dwell time.
I would also recommend that any new sign be "monument" style, and not 20 feet in height! (Which isn't even addressed in this proposed amendment.) Again, let's see what progressive cities (even Albuquerque has better sign ordinances than we do!) are requiring when it comes to brightness, height and size of signs....throughout Tulsa!
The "highlights" of my letter I asked to have entered into the file:
Starting with the proposed new language for Title 42, Ch 4 Section 402:
402.4.a (2) There is no logical purpose for a "transition time" between messages. LED technology does not require the transition that older motor-driven signs did.
The only purpose for an exemption for transition time would be to insert an unnecessary animation that might not have been otherwise permitted.
Animations such as strobing, explosions, etc, would be annoying to residents and a potential distraction hazard to a motorist.
402.4.a (3) The brightness of Tulsa's LED signs is far in excess of even that recommended by nationwide sign industry groups.
The Outdoor Advertising Association of America recommends LED sign brightness around 342 Candelas per-square meter, or "Nits," for an average 10.5 x 36 foot digital sign under average ambient lighting conditions.
("Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards" by Lighting Sciences Inc. of Scottsdale AZ, for the OAAA)
http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/DigitalBillboardsIanLewin.pdfRegarding proposed changes to Section 1221, Use Unit 21:
C.2 Language striking the section regulating illuminative brightness (e.) in favor of older, unenforcible language is of concern because the Sign Advisory Board has in the past acknowledged the fact that the old limitation on sign brightness...
"d. No such sign shall exceed an illumination of seventy (70) footcandles measured at a two (2) foot distance."
...is unenforcible and excessive.
To present some idea of scale, the average illumination directly under a typical Tulsa residential streetlight is one (1) footcandle.
To allow 70 times this amount in a residential area is inappropriate, and possibly dangerously out of scale (given typical ambient light in residential zones) as to present a safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians.
Please consider keeping the manufacturer-verifiable limits on "nits" as opposed to the unverifiable and excessive "70 footcandle" rule.
1221.C.2.i The proposed language specifying a static display time of only one second, and also allowing unlimited animations and "frame effects" between those 1-second messages would be unacceptable in a residential setting (or most street settings, for that matter).
Please consider discarding this language.
Section 1403 Allowing non-conforming illuminated signs to operate three months after a complaint is filed is excessive, and unreasonable.
In a residential district a two-week grace period would be more realistic.