Billboard regulations would ban most digitals and restrict supergraphics

The Los Angeles Planning Commission voted this morning to approve a dramatically reworked billboard law that would ban digital billboards in most parts of the city and place new restrictions on supergraphics -- vinyl signs placed on the sides of buildings.

On a 6-3 vote, the commission forwarded the new sign ordinance to the City Council, which hopes to vote on it by June, when a sign moratorium is set to expire.

The three opponents of the measure were commissioners Michael Woo, Cindy Montanez and Father Spencer Kezios. Last week, all three voiced dismay that the plan provided too many exceptions for new signs. Outdoor advertising companies have used such exceptions to strike down the city’s 2002 billboard ban in court.

Commissioners Sean Burton and William Roschen disagreed, saying the new law would result in a significant reduction in billboards and outdoor signs.

Although the measure would still allow the council to create as many as 21 sign districts in neighborhoods such as Encino, Westwood and Boyle Heights, the commission voted to require that for each new sign erected, another one of equal or greater size would have to be taken down in the surrounding area.

-- Phil Willon

Comments

[P J Evans]

These are traffic hazards - they're _designed_ to catch the attention of drivers. I hope that the restrictions are approved.

[Ed A]

Some digital billboards are so bright (along 605 N auto dealers and 405 N before the 55) that at night or early mornings, they're almost blinding. Just as bad as a driving with high beams coming at you. I'm glad this regulation is here!

[tom]

puhlleeaaseee...

Flashy billboards are a small part of what makes LA and NY great cities. What, do we want to be like Chicago? Bleck!

[SCM]

Come on here, instead of trying to supress new technology, lets embrace it and use it to our advantage, The City should require that 10-20 % of the ad time go to Public Service. Just think how great it would be after a child abduction every billboard in the City would show a picture of the suspects license plate. If in the case of a traffic accident the boards on the area could warn of it, if the City could even use them to advertise community events. As far as the brightness, the billboard companies are smart enough to use technmology that dims the board as the sun goes down, they should be required to dimt the boards to an acceptable level over night.

[Scott H.]

I agree on the digital billboards that the flashing and the brightness is an issue. But when I saw my son's elementary school advertising their local fundraiser on one of them, I realized what an opportunity it CAN be.

What I think is that the advertisements (and the billboard technology itself) need regulation so that there's a balance between information and "flash" that's simply meant to take your eye away from whatever you were doing -- driving, maybe?

Supergraphics -- on the other hand -- I think are super cool...

[Steve]

The billboard companies have shown ZERO respect for current city regulations regarding outdoor advertising and continue to flaunt their disregard for applicable codes behind an army of well funded lawyers, injunctions and neverending threats of lawsuits to further erode the quality of life for residents in this city. As for SCM's arguement that 10-20% go towards public service, look at how the major TV networks handle their 5% requirement: they show them at 3am to 5am. To Tom: we have the ugliest and most pedestrian unfriendly environment in the country, and billboards are making it much worse. Everyone at my neighborhood council meetings are against these digital monstrosities. SCM & Tom are shills for Regency, CBS, World Wide Rush. Don't think that they represent the citizens of this city.

[fezco]

Two words: Blade Runner

That is the future folks if we don't stop rampant billboard blight.

[Lainey]

Digital billboards are both a hugely unique part of LA and a HUGE distraction. I have an incredible amount of LA pride, and the glamorous, flashy signs that light up the night do help to add to the glory that is LA life. But, something does have to be done to decrease driving hazards: everyone knows we Californian drivers are all such experts. It's good this thing's getting passed. I'm glad SOMEONE in LA is finally thinking for once.

On that note, does it make sense to anyone that TALKING on the phone was banned before TEXTING?!

[lw]

These digital billboards are ugly, and I always drive around with my sun visor down as not to be needlessly distracted by them. The idea that they are better and "cool" is only an idea pushed by the outdoor ad companies. They have way too many of them concentrated in certain areas (the westside) and they create a consumer backlash. I will not buy into anything shown on these flashing screens. Remove them and give us back our city. We have been completely taken advantage of by large ad companies and their lawyers. The supergraphics create a fire hazard and should be seriously regulated.

[whatever]

Every time I drive on the 101 by the Citadel with its huge signs, I can't believe that city officials have not considered them a major traffic hazard. They really distract. Would love to see these go away!

[Enforcer]

With all of the graffiti in L.A., the planning commission should take a vote to ban graffiti. L.A. has become an "ugly city".

[Joe]

Working in a building that has these super graphics over the windows is the urban version of visual waterboarding. It feels suffocating and your view is through a hazy gauze like cover. It is one of lifes little pleasures now and then to rest your eyes with a view off into the distance... but with a super graphic covering your window even that small pleasure is obscured by the screaming suffocating ad man. No, Scott H. super graphics are not cool they are invasive and cheapening to our fragile environment.

[Steven C.]

If the billboard industry hasn't followed the old law, why should we expect they will follow the new law? We ought to ban billboards outright, because the industry itself has voiced the opinion in court that being selective is "unfair".
This is becoming less a public safety issue and more a legal issue. Has the city attorney or any of the city's legal advisors
voiced their opinion as to whether the new law will survive the legal challendges we know will come, given that they can still make their "allowing in some places but not others" argument?

[SJC]

-Since digital billboards often display 6 or so message every minute or two, every new or existing board (even in allowed districts) should require the removal of 6 standard billboards.
-The city should significantly tax the rental income of all billboard income, since without city streets providing viewers, their value is negligible.

[Doug B.]

Are billboards that big of a problem in LA? I think there are more important things that the city should deal with.

[BeBop]

Three words to those obsessed with billboards - "Get a LIfe!"

[Victoria Talbot]

Supergraphics and digital signs should not be lumped together into the same category; neither should be lumped in with plain billboards, which are perhaps the greatest visual blight of all.
What chills the blood is that sign companies violate all the laws already on the books and get away with it. So will making a new law have any effect at all?