Planning Commission reviews proposed change to sign code to allow political signs in certain rights-of-way

City legal counsel presented a proposed amendment to the Lacey sign regulations at the Planning Commission meeting on May 28 that would allow political signs in portions of the public right-of-way adjacent to private property, reversing the current blanket prohibition on signs in rights-of-way.

"We're proposing this because we feel this amendment would help ensure that Lacey sign code aligns with constitutional standards," said Dave Schneider, attorney, identifying the code section under discussion as Lacey Municipal Code 16.75.0.1. Schneider told the commission the change would not alter existing size, duration or safety standards elsewhere in the code but would remove the location-based ban that confined political signage to private property only.

Schneider said the proposed amendment would still prohibit signs on rights-of-way adjacent to public property because that would conflict with Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) rules regarding use of public facilities. The language in the draft limits the allowance to rights-of-way adjacent to private property and leaves other sign-size and safety rules in place.

Commissioners raised several concerns. Multiple members expressed safety and visibility concerns about allowing 10-square-foot signs in areas near intersections and roundabouts and asked whether the city could craft heightened size or placement restrictions specifically for signs placed in the public right-of-way. One commissioner asked whether flags or other flexible signage types were covered by the safety provisions; Schneider replied that safety and sight‑triangle restrictions elsewhere in the code would still apply and that code enforcement could remove signs that violate those safety provisions.

Commissioners also asked how the amendment would affect homeowner associations and whether private property owners would have the ability to refuse signs placed on adjoining rights-of-way; Schneider said the property owner would still control use of the property beneath an easement and could refuse a sign placed adjacent to their parcel. Commissioners asked about post-election cleanup; Schneider noted the code already requires political signs to be removed within seven days of an election and said enforcement and cleanup remain concerns raised by residents.

Several commissioners asked staff and the attorney to return to the public hearing with additional information and recommended criteria tied to traffic safety and sight lines so the city could show a clear basis for any heightened restrictions. Schneider said the city could consider narrowly tailored limits (for example, smaller maximum sign sizes in rights-of-way) but cautioned that any restriction must meet the constitutional scrutiny required for regulations in a traditional public forum.

The commission concurred that the item should proceed to a public hearing; staff indicated the hearing would be scheduled for June 11. No vote was taken on the amendment at the May 28 meeting; commissioners requested additional background and safety-related evidence be provided at the public hearing.

The proposed change and the public hearing will be noticed according to the city's standard procedures.