City planners and the city attorney’s office presented an information session on a full rewrite of Bellevue’s sign code on Nov. 25, saying the update seeks to simplify regulations, comply with recent case law and balance business visibility with the city’s aesthetic goals. No adoption was requested; staff said they will use outreach feedback to draft code and return to the council for review.

Nick Whipple (code and policy) framed the effort as a rewrite that will reorganize permanent and temporary sign standards and create district‑based requirements. Assistant City Attorney Robbie Seppler grounded the discussion in recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance and the controlling case law, citing Reid v. Town of Gilbert and warning about content‑based rules: “If you have to read the sign in order to know how it's regulated, that's generally not permissible anymore,” he said, explaining why some prior sign standards must be rethought.

Charlie Engel reviewed phase‑one outreach (March–June), noting 130 questionnaire responses and multiple stakeholder listening sessions in several languages. Outreach themes included concerns about temporary signs (damage, accumulation in medians) and enforcement, a desire for clearer measurement techniques and a community preference to reduce visual clutter while preserving business visibility. Staff highlighted that 94% of respondents supported requiring removal of damaged or faded temporary signs.

On enforcement, staff discussed a range of options: a registry or label system for temporary signs with expiration dates; clearer maintenance and removal standards; and tradeoffs related to removal logistics and storage. Council members pressed for clarity about enforcement resources and processes (complaint‑based vs. proactive enforcement), permitting timelines (including the suggestion of shot clocks), and consistency to avoid disadvantaging small businesses. Staff said they are exploring a pathway for iconic signage (for example, to accommodate businesses such as Dick’s Drive‑In) tied to location‑based approvals that the council could authorize.

What happens next: staff will use the phase‑one input to draft code language (phase 2), conduct stakeholder follow‑up, and bring a fuller draft back to the council for public hearings and eventual adoption. Staff provided a project webpage (www.gov/signcodeupdate) and said they will return early next year with a draft code and more detailed enforcement analysis.