Planning Commission debates permit terms, enforcement and free‑speech risks in proposed temporary sign code

Senior Planner Lauren Albert and long‑range planning manager Jeff Churchill presented a draft zoning‑code amendment at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting to create a content‑neutral framework for temporary non‑commercial signs in Redmond. Albert said the draft replaces the existing political‑sign provisions with a broader temporary non‑commercial sign section and creates a no‑cost, renewable permit that lasts 60 days per issuance.

"This temporary non‑commercial signs code will allow temporary non‑commercial signs to be in the public right‑of‑way with limitations," Albert told commissioners, describing key limits on size, placement, materials and durability. Staff emphasized safety measures including minimum setbacks—at least 2 feet from the curb, or 6 feet from the roadway edge where no curb exists—and a prohibition on placing signs in sight‑distance triangles, medians, and roundabouts. Staff also said signs on private property must be posted with the property owner’s permission and meet the same size and height limits.

Commissioners focused questions on practical enforcement and the public rollout. Staff said the city will rely first on education and code‑compliance outreach and that right‑of‑way crews and planning code enforcement will share permit information to address violations; staff can escalate to penalties set in the zoning code or remove signs that are unsafe or expired. "With a permit, that means we can contact somebody and we can say, 'Hey, you have some signs out that are beyond their expiration date,'" Jeff Churchill said.

Commissioners pressed whether permit indications must be stickers, printed numbers, or handwritten identifiers; staff said the permit number can be written on the sign, printed by a sign shop, or provided as a sticker and that the city may provide stickers on request though the code need not mandate the sticker option. Several commissioners urged clearer, concrete timing tied to elections rather than open‑ended 60‑day renewals. "It strikes me that it's a bit contradictory when you have a sign that's temporary, yet it can be renewed indefinitely," Vice Chair Woodyard said, calling indefinite renewals effectively de‑facto permanent signage.

The commission debated whether permit traceability should include contact information searchable online. Some commissioners promoted transparency—permit numbers tied to contact information to identify who posted offensive or dangerous signage—while others warned that traceability could invite retaliation or create legal risk; staff said they will consult the city attorney and report back. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify how anti‑clustering provisions would be implemented on the ground and how staff would decide which signs to remove first when congestion is an issue.

Staff noted the draft was developed with land‑use counsel and that similar provisions have been used around the region; they promised follow‑up from the attorney on lessons learned elsewhere. The commission scheduled continued discussion and a public hearing: staff said a public hearing has been advertised for April 22 and the commission will revisit the topic in two weeks.

Next steps: staff will consult with the city attorney on issues raised (duration/renewal limits, permit traceability versus free‑speech protections, fair removal protocols and disposal of signs), refine code language, and return to the commission for further review and the scheduled public hearing on April 22.