We should be so lucky to work in an industry that can accommodate the viewpoints of three separate model codes for exterior on-premise signs.

 

Last month saw the introduction from the United States Sign Council of its model sign code, joining two other codes published since 2009. Here is the line-up:

 

1. (SFI) From March 2009, a code titled “A Framework for On-Premise Sign Regulations.” Authors are Alan Weinstein and David Hartt, who hold the copyright. Available at http://www.thesignagefoundation.org/OnPremiseSignRegulations

 

2. (UDA) From late 2009, a code titled “An Evidence Based Model Sign Code.” Authors are Dawn Jourdan, H. Gene Hawkins, Robin Abrams, and Kimberly Winson-Geideman. Available at http://www.dcp.ufl.edu/urp/research/centers/cbbc.aspx

 

3. (USSC) From March 2011, a code titled “Model On-Premise Sign Code.” Authors are Andrew D. Bertucci and Richard B. Crawford. Available at http://www.ussc.org

 

The SFI and UDA model codes have been reviewed previously in this column. I like each. The SFI code offers a framework using the “character areas” of a community to control signs. The UDA code, the most academic of the three codes, reinforces the core protection of signs as speech. The USSC code joins them in an enviable regulatory trifecta for the on-premise sign industry.

 

The three codes align in many respects. But, as in all things legal and regulatory, words and the concepts behind them matter. For instance, see Chart 1: Code Comparison—EMCs. USSC relies on a definition of EMCs as (correctly) only activated electronically. The UDA and SFI code use definitions that include both electronic and mechanical means of changing the message, an older definition that unnecessarily legally conflates EMCs with older readerboards.

 

See also Chart 2: Code Comparison —Nonconforming Signs. Here, the definitions of what constitutes a nonconforming sign are similar to a degree. What constitutes structural alteration can be of immense importance to the sign owner, and care needs to be taken in definitions here. As a legal practitioner, I would like to see nonconforming sign language that allows as routine maintenance the change of sign lighting technology from, for instance, white neon to LEDs.

 

One difference surfaces quickly—the two authors of the USSC code are experienced sign professionals, deeply exposed to sign design, sales, manufacturing and installation. Between them, Bertucci and Crawford have been part of innumerable variance hearings. But their real-world experience is only part of the strength of the USSC model code.

 

BASED ON 14 ACADEMIC RESEARCH STUDIES

Instead, the USSC code is influenced throughout by the scientific findings of the 14 academic research studies funded by the USSC and its Foundation since 1996. These studies have examined nearly every critical aspect of the relationship between traffic safety, signs, and the motorist, including optimal sign legibility, sign face area and height, and the impact of lighting source (internal versus external.) 

 

USSC notes, “Because of this research, it is now possible to craft sign regulation that is both objective and in concert with observable human factors performance criteria. Both the Model, and the performance data and numerical quantities within it, are based on the objective observations and measurements that are the result of this research effort into the form and function of on-premise signs as a principal means of roadside communication and situational awareness for motorists.”

 

The Code showcases several deeply held USSC approaches, including a distaste for design review boards and a dependence on using luminance (measured in nits) rather than illuminance (measured in foot candles) as the appropriate standard for sign brightness regulations. 

 

Here the USSC approach differs from the recommendations forwarded by the International Sign Association, with the USSC code document implying that the use of illuminance measurements “may result in a more confusing and complicated regulatory scheme and may compromise public safety.” 

 

TWO APPROACHES = CONFUSION FOR PLANNERS

I would argue with the USSC whether any verifiable evidence exists that public safety is compromised. But there is no argument that use of these different standards—luminance versus illuminance—is confusing to the planning field and regulatory authorities.

 

The USSC model code has several great features. First, in places where the model language is referencing a particularly thorny topic, such as regulation of electronic message centers (EMCs) there is a separate box titled “author’s clarification notes” with detailed commentary on that subject. The EMC “notes” run two pages alone.

 

Second, the Code concludes with a section detailing “computational methodology” for sign face area, with grayscale images ready, I assume, to be made part of a permit or variance application. Also, there is a section with a specific mathematical formula for measuring common geometric shapes, such as a circle, triangle, ellipse, trapezoid or regular polygon. From this section alone, I feel like my math skills just spiked.

 

A REMARKABLE CAREER

The fingerprints of Rick Crawford, the USSC legislative consultant, are clearly on the model sign code. It is a solid and competent document. Yet without the vision, passion and perseverance of Andy Bertucci, now retired as USSC executive director, there would be no research base to bring to this model code.

 

Bertucci’s long career in the sign industry is so distinguished it may not be possible to say one part of it has been more important than another. He was designing signs long before many of us were born. But, for me, the period from 1996 until now is worthy of superlatives. The 14 USSC-funded traffic safety studies are unequaled in this industry. Andy Bertucci is the responsible party for this research.

 

Kudos to Andy Bertucci for this body of work. It is my fervent hope that access to and understanding of  each of these research studies is maintained and built upon into a long and more prosperous future for our industry—an industry made so much better by Andy’s contributions.

 

---

 

Why A Model Sign Code?

 

The USSC, UDA and SFI model codes each represent a particular approach to regulatory controls for on-premise signs. But with a third code now available in just two years, the question arises: why a model sign code at all?

 

The primary reason is for guidance to a municipality. No self-respecting city attorney is going to take any of these model codes and adopt them verbatim. Doing so would be a dereliction of responsibility to the governing authority. Used as guidance, however, these codes are illuminating in very substantial ways.

 

The municipality first will need to understand these model codes deal only with on-premise signs, rather than off-premise types, or billboards. None of the codes offered analysis on the distinctions between on and off premise signs. For me, that is a missed opportunity to argue the unique value of on-premise signage.

 

When one of these model sign codes does become part of a municipal review, another question that comes is: is it “objective”? This is a conversation worth having, particularly when considering either the USSC (14 research studies) or UDA (“evidence-based” only) codes. 

 

An argument from a disgruntled participant could be that the USSC code is “from the sign industry” and should be rejected merely because it is available only to “put money in their pockets.”  But is the USSC really subjective? Or is it, more to the point, “informed” by documented research, adopted in part by the American Planning Association?

 

What is subjective also must confront the fact that anti-sign contingents—without research—are not de facto more objective when they wrap themselves in the flag of what is good for a community. Growing businesses are good for a community, too, and well-regulated signs directly contribute to that growth.