SEQUIM — A longtime Sequim real estate broker asked City Council members for fairness in the treatment of temporary off-premise signs when considering a new city sign code.

After hearing comments Monday night, the council voted to continue its public hearing on the sign code at its July 11 meeting.

On Monday, real estate broker Mike McAleer asked the council that “we get the same consideration as garage sales do.”

City Attorney Craig Ritchie proposed that garage sales be permitted up to three signs off-site, while real estate properties would be limited to one.

Council members, including Bill Huizinga, questioned the difference.

“What’s so special about a garage sale over an open house sign?” Huizinga said.

Ritchie said the problem in general was widespread.

City Manager Steve Burkett chimed in, saying, “That’s why we’re having this discussion. The overall intent of the ordinance is to limit the proliferation of signs all over the city.”

Tightening sign law

City leaders are tightening up the sign ordinance to crack down on a proliferation of sandwich-board signs and off-premise temporary signs, primarily targeting those in public rights of way that block motorist visibility.

Bill Littlejohn, a senior care home and ambulance service business owner, told the council he attended city workshops on the sign code that said such signs were a distraction to motorists.

“I see people going around the roundabouts, and they can’t be distracted by signs,” Littlejohn said.

He also called for the elimination of sandwich-board signs that block sidewalks.

Under Ritchie’s proposal, portable signs such as those advertising the buying of gold and silver would be restricted to one off-site.

McAleer said the city could tighten up the proposed 10 days given to real estate agents to remove open house signs.

“The Sequim Association of Realtors has a policy or rule that says if the property is sold, the sign has to be removed within four days,” McAleer said.

Ritchie said the city was fixing a problem by regulating everything but the content of signs.

Restricting content has been ruled unconstitutional.

Ritchie has said the city had a “perfectly good sign ordinance” until a court challenge known as the “Blazing Bagels” case.

The issue of a need for changes in Sequim’s sign ordinance was presented in September, the result of a 2006 9th Circuit Court case in which the court invalidated the city of Redmond’s ordinance that prohibited off-premise commercial signs, except real estate open house directional signs.

The court held Redmond’s ordinance to be an improper content-based regulation.

Ritchie said in terms of “risk avoidance,” a revision of the city’s ordinance was preferable to present enforcement of the current code.

The city can legally regulate the size and structure of a sign, the quantity of signs and how long it can be posted, but it cannot regulate the message, according to Ritchie.

Ritchie said he brought the ordinance to the Sequim Association of Realtors and Sequim Speaks and heard a lot of opinions on the issue.

“Comments ranged from ‘Get rid of all signs’ to getting rid of the city attorney for proposing a sign ordinance,” Ritchie quipped.

________

Sequim-Dungeness Valley Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-681-2391 or at jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.