Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Tacoma: Planning Commission wanted to recommend “digital billboards be prohibited outright”

Post by Lewis Kamb / The News Tribune on May 17, 2011 at 6:01 am with 9 Comments »
May 17, 2011 3:51 pm

Just before the City Council stepped in to consider a billboard moratorium as a way to “buy more time” for city decision-makers, Tacoma’s planning commission was poised to issue recommendations this month that would call for banning digital billboards altogether in the city.

After discussing options to allow the electronic advertising signs during their meeting on May 4, planning commissioners ultimately decided “that their preferred recommndation was that digital billboards be prohibited outright,” meeting minutes show.

“This is the recommendation that they would like to forward to the Council, and (city staffer) Ms. (Shirley) Schultz indicated that an appropriate code amendment would be prepared to accompany the report and recommendation.”

Those recommendations run counter to a proposed settlement agreement that the City Council forged with Clear Channel Outdoor last July that seek to allow the company to build as many as 38 digital billboards in the city. That agreement has an Aug. 15 deadline.

The planning commission is on the verge of finishing its report and recommendations, and likely would have given them to the council some time after its meeting on Wednesday, Schultz, the city staffer assigned to the commission, told me Monday.

But now, with the city council stepping in to float a billboard moratorium just before the commission had delivered its recommendation,  it’s unclear what the commission’s future involvement in the billboard issue will be. The council will discuss and vote on the moratorium ordinance tonight, during its regular meeting in City Hall at 5 p.m.  Citizens can comment on the issue.

Several council members have said they plan to consider the 6-month moratorium on any new billboards as a way to give the planning commission more time for considering potential changes to the city’s billboard code.

According to recent meeting minutes posted on the city’s website, planning commissioners have been concerned about the council and mayor’s expectations for their work in reviewing proposed changes to the city’s billboard regulations that would allow for Clear Channel’s settlement terms.

“There was strong concern that the Council has asked the Commission to review the proposed regulations that are inconsistent with the City’s adopted policies pertaining to prohibition of billboards, and that the Commission should perhaps recommend `no’ to the Council,” the April 6 meeting minutes state.

The settlement seeks to resolve a dispute over Tacoma’s 1997 billboard ordinance, which sought to phase out signs deemed too big, ugly or disruptive by Aug. 1, 2007.  Before that deadline came, Clear Channel sued the city, claiming the law violated its free speech rights. As many as 193 Clear Channel signs would have been deemed illegal under the ban, city officials have said.

Last July, the council agreed to the proposed settlement with Clear Channel, which would allow the company to erect as many as 38 new digital billboards in exchange for removing nearly 300 conventional ones and giving up permits for another 160.  As part of the deal, Clear Channel also promised not to sue the city over the issue.

At the time, Mayor Marilyn Strickland hailed the agreement as a good compromise that would allow the city to better regulate billboard placement and protect neighborhoods.

But, as the planning commission took up review of a new ordinance this year that seeks to allow for the settlement terms,  overwhelming public sentiment has emerged against the proposed revisions.  About 95 percent of input taken by the commission from more than 350 people runs opposed to the proposed billboard law changes, meeting minutes say.

Commissioners “also expressed their frustration on the inadequate time to fully study the issues and the need for a larger public policy discussion before changing city codes,” the meeting minutes say. “The terms of the settlement agreement represented a shift in policy that in some parts was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.”

The planning commission noted that it also hasn’t had time to fully study issues related to digital billboards, such as driver safety, and called their revised draft code of the billboard regulations “a work in progress at best.”  Ultimately, such frustration and lack of time led the city to consider the proposed moratorium, some council members have said.

The moratorium proposal emerged publicly as an agenda item for this week’s council meeting only on Friday, several days after the council discussed billboards issues during a closed-door executive session with attorneys. The measure calls for up to a six month ban on new applications and construction of any new billboards in the city.

If the city does not pass new billboard legislation that allows for the settlement terms by an Aug. 15 deadline, Clear Channel could walk away from the deal, City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli has said. Even if approved, the moratorium would not extend the settlement’s deadline, Pauli said. She added that the city council already had the option to take as much time as it needed to draft any new billboard legislation without the moratorium.

A Clear Channel Outdoor executive said in a statement Monday that if the city approves the moratorium, it could lead to “costly litigation.”

Leave a comment Comments → 9
  1. fatuous says:

    “At the time, Mayor Marilyn Strickland hailed the agreement as a good compromise that would allow the city to better regulate billboard placement and protect neighborhoods.”

    Why the residents voted for her I just don’t understand. I wasn’t impressed with her when she worked was the Tacoma library foundation. She is a very poor leader and representative for Tacoma.

  2. This is just another example of why Tacomans are leery of serving on commissions. They donate time and money to prepare a serious study/advice and it is often ignored by government officials.

  3. troublemaker says:

    So why wouldn’t the Planning Commission issue its recommendations anyway? It would be nice if they were on record opposing billboards. The Planning Commission is independent from the City Council, right? The CC can overrule them but the Planning Commission can still have its say.

  4. Why Not allow them for period of time (5 Year Limit) if the City could make some extra cash.
    It seems to me that city light would get some action and then maybe they would not raise their rates.

  5. worktowardsabettertacoma says:

    BREAKING NEWS – JUST RELEASED
    TACOMA’S BILLBOARDS – DIGITAL & STATIC!!
    HAVE YOUR SAY BEFORE YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER!

    Tuesday, May 17 at 5:00 p.m.
    747 Market St
    First Floor
    Tacoma, WA 98402
    City Council Chambers

    Tacoma’s City Council has thankfully chosen to consider by emergency measure an immediate suspension of ALL applications for ALL billboards.

    You can help support our continued fight against billboards denigrating our city’s streets and neighborhoods by attending Tuesday’s meeting. We need a LARGE turnout to show our support of the City Council’s fresh step towards reconsidering the long term impacts of billboards – digital and static.

    Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting (5 minute time limit) and/or you can also submit written comments if you so choose.
    HELP US HELP YOU!!
    GRAB A FRIEND AND LET’S SHOW BILLBOARD COMPANIES THEY CAN’T PUSH TACOMA AROUND

    LET’S STOP
    LIGHT * BLIGHT * NOISE * SAFETY PROBLEMS * TRAFFIC * ENVIRONMENTAL * HUMAN IMPACTS * DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY VALUES

    1. Look for updates as follows on:

    *Facebook, Turn Out That Light Tacoma – http://www.facebook.com/pages/Turn-Out-That-Light-Tacoma/105050642910536

    *Central Neighborhood Council – http://cnc-tacoma.com/

    2. You can email the City Council as follows:

    Jake.Fey@cityoftacoma.org

    Spiro.Manthou@cityoftacoma.org

    Lauren.Walker@cityoftacoma.org

    Marty.Campbell@cityoftacoma.org

    Joe.Lonergan@cityoftacoma.org

    Victoria.Woodards@cityoftacoma.org

    David.Boe@cityoftacoma.org

    Ryan.Mello@cityoftacoma.org

    LET’S TURN OUT THAT LIGHT, TACOMA!!!

  6. I think ALL digital billboards should be banned. During the day they’re not so bad, but at night, when they start flashing bright colors, they’re a blinding distraction. It’s like driving into a strobe light at times. At the very least they should have some kind of adjustment to tone down the brightness after dark, that would only make them less annoying, not less of the hideous eyesore they are now.

  7. This controversy, and the threat of “costly litigation” demonstrates the fundamental flaw of the legal system in our country.

    What the symbolism of the statue showing the blind scales of justice means in fact is that, yes, justice is indeed blind. The only thing that really matters is the amount of gold each side is able to put on the scales. The one with the most gold gets the “justice.”

  8. cindybrady says:

    “Last July, the council agreed to the proposed settlement with Clear Channel, which would allow the company to erect as many as 38 new digital billboards in exchange for removing nearly 300 conventional ones and giving up permits for another 160. As part of the deal, Clear Channel also promised not to sue the city over the issue.

    At the time, Mayor Marilyn Strickland hailed the agreement as a good compromise that would allow the city to better regulate billboard placement and protect neighborhoods.”

    I think this is the part that pisses me off the most. That as a whole, everyone of them, approved this settlement. Not one said, “No.”? That Mayor Strickland even thought it was a good idea, not just a way to get out of litigation? I cannot believe that BS. That sounds about as reasonable as Sarah Palin.

    There is already a small digital billboard at 56th & S. Tacoma Way, it’s a fraction of the size and I’ve still never been a fan of it. It feels a bit crass I don’t think it works with the historic feel of the neighborhood. When it rains it makes the intersection all the more visually chaotic. I appreciate that it is owned locally and it advertises for other local businesses, but I find myself looking at it instead of the the little local businesses.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0