Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2006 ITEM VIII-A-2 ATTACHMENTSGoals and Outcomes Auburn Sign Code Review/Ad Hoc Committee The purpose of this committee is to... • Provide community input on the current sign code's strengths and weaknesses; • Serve as representatives of respective professions and/or community affiliations in addressing the sign code; • Review the size, number, types, and area of signs that are currently allowed; and • Review and suggest improvements to the sign code to meet the following goals. The desired outcome is a sign code which... • Recognizes that the function of signage is to effectively communicate information to targeted audiences; • Recognizes the importance of commercial signage, both for the current and future economic vitality of the city, municipal revenues, and the success of businesses that make important investments in such commercial signage; • Ensures (without unduly compromising the purpose or function of commercial signage) that signs in the city to not unreasonably degrade the aesthetic character of the city; • Provides for reasonable visibility for businesses; • Encourages improved quality of signage design and materials in the city; • Provides consistent, clear guidelines for all sign types; • Is easily explained and interpreted for both staff and applicants; • Incorporates tables and graphics in addition to code text; • Recognizes different signage needs for different districts and special developments; • Balances corporate architecture with local character and context; and • Includes mechanisms for administrative interpretation and flexibility; This committee will recommend changes to the sign code that... • Support the above outcomes; • Are supported by our respective constituent groups; and Meet the needs of both city staff and the community as a whole to the greatest extent possible. From: auburn-heights@comcast.net Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:20 PM To: Carolyn Brown Cc: David Osaki Subject: City File # ZOA04-0005 AUBURN HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 621 I Street NE Suite # A-1 Auburn, WA 98002 Phone: 253-833-2339 Fax: 253-735-0296 January 16, 2006 Dear Ms Brown: I have recently spoken with Mr. David Osaki regarding the proposed changes to the sign code that were reviewed by the Auburn Planning Commission. It is my understanding that the.commission recommended retaining the existing sign code regulations as apposed to adopting any of the proposed changes. This would have a detrimental effect on our business and I would like to submit a statement to the PCD committee to be included in the PCD committee packet for review in advance of the January 23 meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I currently manage the Auburn Heights Apartments located at 621 I Street NE here in Auburn. For more than 12 years we had a small "A -board" real estate style sign at the corner of 8th and I Streets NE to draw attention to the apartment property. Subsequently we have also employed an even smaller stake sign as an alternative. Within the last couple of years the code enforcement department informed me that the sign could no longer be placed at that location. We are located on a dead end street off of the intersection. There is a single family home on each corner of the intersection (8th & I Street NE) and the apartment property begins beyond the property boundary of these two single family homes. As such, during times of vacancy, without that one small sign advertising our presence down the dead end street, we die on the vine and go practically unnoticed by passersby of a busy arterial. During my tenure here we have spent many thousands of dollars in advertising and yet it remains a documented fact that 87.40 of our prospective tenant inquiries and indeed our new move -ins come from that small sign at the corner. The draft of proposed changes to the sign code included a provision that would have allowed the placement of a sign at the intersection in question and allowed us a fair opportunity to conduct business in the city as we had for many years past. I submit that the committee please consider adopting that portion of the proposed changes as they pertained to temporary signs. (18.56.030; B. Temporary signs; type 2) Even an allowance for one or two small signs would make an enormous difference to a business that is attempting to fairly compete within the city of Auburn. If there is anything I can do to assist you in this matter, please don't hesitate to call or e-mail. Thank you for you time and consideration. Joseph Majszak Property Manager c><TY of LwO0000'�` * Memorandum 1 T T T WASHINGTON TO: Auburn Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Community Development Director David Osaki, Community Development Administrator RE: Draft Sign Ordinance/Provisions for Real Estate Signs DATE: January 3, 2006 As you are aware, based upon recent court decisions, the City Attorney's Office has advised that the proposed draft Sign Code needs to be "content neutral". That is, while signs can be regulated as to size, location, design and by zoning district, they may not be regulated by what the sign says (content). As a result, staff redrafted part of the proposed sign code, as recommended by the Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee, to be consistent with this test. Through unfortunate timing, Auburn's proposed sign regulations will be one of, if not the first, to be developed and considered under the content neutrality directive. Staff does not want to put Auburn in the position of adopting a new code that appears to be inconsistent with court decisions. Last summer, staff put work on the proposed sign code on hold, pending the outcome of appeals of the court decision by realtors and other interest groups. Unfortunately, these actions remain pending in court and it is unclear when a final decision will be rendered. Modifications to the draft sign code to provide for content neutrality have raised issues with specific regards to "real estate" signs. In considering these issues, we recognize that the Mayor's Ad Hoc Sign Committee work group devoted considerable effort in developing specific regulations for these types of signs. In addition, we also do not wish to prematurely restrict the ability of home owners and realtors to advertise properties for sale. As a result of this situation, staff is amending our recommended proposal to the Planning Commission. We are recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption the proposed draft sign code ordinance, but retain the currently adopted city code language on real estate signs (Auburn City Code section 18.56.040(C)). Thus, real estate signs would continue to be regulated as they have in the past. (The proposed temporary sign section would need to be modified accordingly to focus on those temporary signs originally addressed in the Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee's recommendation (e.g. window signs, banners, etc.)). Under this approach, the balance/majority of the proposed sign code can move forward. Upon receipt of final actions by the Courts, the City will reassess provisions related to real estate signs and consider amendments as necessary. Goals and Outcomes Auburn Sign Code Review/Ad Hoc Committee The purpose of this committee is to... • Provide community input on the current sign code's strengths and weaknesses; • Serve as representatives of respective professions and/or community affiliations in addressing the sign code; • Review the size, number, types, and area of signs that are currently allowed; and • Review and suggest improvements to the sign code to meet the following goals. The desired outcome is a sign code which... • Recognizes that the function of signage is to effectively communicate information to targeted audiences; • Recognizes the importance of commercial signage, both for the current and fixture economic vitality of the city, municipal revenues, and the success of businesses that make important investments in such commercial signage; • Ensures (without unduly compromising the purpose or function of commercial signage) that signs in the city to not unreasonably degrade the aesthetic character of the city; • Provides for reasonable visibility for businesses; • Encourages improved quality of signage design and materials in the city; • Provides consistent, clear guidelines for all sign types; • Is easily explained and interpreted for both staff and applicants; • Incorporates tables and graphics in addition to code text; • Recognizes different signage needs for different districts and special developments; • Balances corporate architecture with local character and context; and • Includes mechanisms for administrative interpretation and flexibility; This committee will recommend changes to the sign code that... • Support the above outcomes; • Are supported by our respective constituent groups; and Meet the needs of both city staff and the community as a whole to the greatest extent possible. CITY OF 1 Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.ci.aubum.wa.us * 253-931-3000 FINAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP05-0005 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.56 adopting new sign requlations for the City of Auburn. PROPONENT: City of Auburn — Planning and Community Development Department LOCATION: Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: POSITION/TITLE: ADDRESS: DATE ISSUED: April 13, 2005 Paul Krauss, AICP Director of the Department of Planning & Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 001 (253)931-3090 SIGNATURE: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. Any person aggrieved of this final determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 21 days of the date of issuance of this notice. All appeals of the above determination must be filed by 5:00 P.M. on May 4. 2005. AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Laura Pierce From: Janet Lewis DanetieWii @iritindermere.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:21 PM To: Laura Pierce Subject: Thank you! Hi Laura, I just read email from the SKCAR that Mayor Lewis et al have taken the proposal off the table. Please pass along my thanks for doing so. I'm understanding that you had alot of emails from fellow realtors. Marketing of real estate is challenging, especially for resale homes, not having the strength of large builders who have outdoor signage on freeways, banners & flags, etc., and yet using lots of directionals creates a visual mess, becoming targets of pedestrians, etc. (ie political signage during the political seasons). As a resident cf Kent, and conducting business throughout South County, signage is always a challenge. There are some very good realtors who would be excellent partners, who do business and have offices in Auburn, to help craft a policy for the city. I'm sure you know of many, but if you need any referrals, glad to do so. Just give me a call/send an email. Again, thanks for your efforts and decision. Sincerely, Janet Lewis Windermere Real Estate, Maple Valley 206-786-3715 - cell 425-569-6900 - office 22017 SE Wax Road #102 Maple Valley WA 98042 I'M NEVER TOO BUSY FOR ANY OF YOUR REFERRALS! 1 Page 1 of 1 Laura Pierce From: Paul Krauss Sent:. Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:54 PM To: Laura Pierce Subject: FW: Real Estate Sign Proposals From: Steve Heaney [mailto:sheaney@fhre.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:48 PM To: dosaki@auburmwa.gov Cc: Paul Krauss Subject: Real Estate Sign Proposals Dear Sirs, I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commissions Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with the Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. I own a Real Estate company; Federal Homes and Real Estate, and a mortgage company; American Brokerage both located in Auburn and also live in Lakeland here in Auburn. I am very concerned over your proposed sign regulations for Auburn. While it is not as egregious as the attempt in Redmond that was rapidly over turned, it does still place stipulations that would harm home owners, taxpayers and voters in Auburn. While the current real estate market moves homes on an average cycle that would not be impacted, you need to consider the real estate cycle in a more realistic picture. Nationally the indicators are that home sales are slowing with interest rates rising. While I do not believe the "bubble" will burst, all experts agree that the "bubble" is deflating. With this slowing in number and speed of home sales, it is not un -realistic to see a home on the market for over 6 months. In that scenario there would be a definite impact on Auburn home owners and their right to draw upon the equity and recourses of their home. In many cases these are Auburn residents that are selling to "move up" and stay in Auburn. County records and statistics support that every year, hundreds of homes do not sell within 90 days. Additionally as a business owner, the statistics for commercial properties are even worse. The average time on market for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months with most of them being on the market for more than 6 months. Delays in selling their home due to some "silly" sign regulation could put a bad taste in their mouth about staying in Auburn. 1, in fact, have sold a home in Auburn and indeed moved up to the largest home and lot in Lakeland. I currently own 2 homes in Auburn as well as two businesses. I urge you to please reconsider this change in regulations. I propose that the real problem with signage is not necessarily real estate signs in general. Perhaps there is a better way to regulate the real problems associated with signs with out impacting the tax paying, voting home owners in Auburn. Steve Meaney President TffRE 800-706-1052 1/4/2006 David Osaki From: Laura Pierce Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:22 PM To: David Osaki; Paul Krauss Subject: FW: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Coldwell Banker Bain REO Division [mailto:washingtonstatereo@peoplepc.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:22 AM To: Laura Pierce Subject: RE: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Thank you for the response. As a Realtor and also as a Citizen of this state, I would just like to give you my own thoughts on signs. I too do like to see signs on every telephone pole and street corner advertising every "Get rich quick" scheme under the sun. I believe that Real Estate signs are not in that category. True, some individuals will always depart from established guidelines and make the rest of us look bad. These individuals should be dealt with through fines on an individual basis. The entire Real Estate industry and your homeowners need to be able to get buyers to the home that is for sale. These sales put money into your coffers. I believe and sincerely hope that homeowners will not tolerate any municipality dictating rules for signs on private property. I certainly would go to court, to the News Channels, and to any organization necessary to defend my civil rights concerning my personal property. We realtors and homeowners throughout the region would, in my opinion, benefit from a more uniform standard for signage. As it stands right now, each small or large community, Home Owner Associations, Condos and Mobile Home Parks, has a different rule when it comes to signs. There is no reason for this. So when a homeowner wants a sign positioned in a certain place I'll have no option but to direct that homepwner to the municipality imposing the restriction. Of course, enforcement will have to apply to all signs, including For Sale By Owner if I understand the proposal correctly. I'm available for questions should you wish to ask me any. I hope you will consider my point and not lump Realtors in with everybody else. Thanks, Mike Packwood -----Original Message ----- >From: Laura Pierce <lpierce@auburnwa.gov> >Sent: Jan 4, 2006 10:47 AM >To: "'mikepackwood@cbbain.com l" <mikepackwood@cbbain.com> >Subject: RE: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code >Good morning! >Thank you for your input. We will be sure the Planning Commission >receives your comments. >Laura Pierce >City of Auburn >Planning Department >-----Original Message ----- >From: mikepackwood@cbbain.com[mailto:mikepackwood@cbbain.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:41 PM >To: Paul Krauss >Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code 1 >Planning, Building and Community Director Paul Krauss >Dear Planning, Building and Community Director Krauss, >I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the >City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. >I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the >Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that >they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council >Member and Mayor Lewis. >The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: >1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn >DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the >strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be >buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of >REET revenues for the City. >2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for >commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance >of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." >3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the >alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far >from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the >staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the >likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. >4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that >necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, >retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to >sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. >5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal >district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th >Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its >decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal >authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the >9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th >Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: >Seattle-King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, >and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both >premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR >Associations throughout the Western United States. >6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent >restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial >court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is >proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. >7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the >Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant >departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. >Sincerely, >mike packwood >17210 90Th ave E >Puyallup, Washington 98371 2 Mike Packwood, Listing REO, Pre -Foreclosures, Fax: 253-841-9103 Office: 253-841-9139 Agent and "AS -IS" Properties Coldwell Banker Bain PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com David Osaki From: jbanneveritt@kw.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:30 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportsnities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal :issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictionS on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, JoAnn Everitt David Osaki From: a.orwiler@comcastnet Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:28 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower market; also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Al Orwiler 26713 112th Ave SE Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: annajackson@pnwrea ty.com, Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 200610:30 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal :issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the _Following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Anna Jackson 33550 36th Ave SW Federal Way, Washington 98023-2904 David Osaki From: poploch@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:26 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower market; also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Dennis Loch 23723 135th P1 SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: iotite@johntscott.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:18 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower market, also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431.US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lori Tetre;-�i l t 16218 131st Ave Ct E Puyallup, Washington 98374-9248 David Osaki From: dale@daleseiishomes.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:16 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincere 1 y, Dale :maker 850 35, i, �ve. S.W. PUYALLUL „ Washington 98373-5915 David Osaki From: krucker@windermere.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:14 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the PlanrLing Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal :issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Kristi Rucker 1128 141st S Tacoma, Washington 98444-2054 David Osaki From: cwahlin@windermere.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:43 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Cathy Wahlin 25418 162nd P1 SE Covington, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: cmarie@windermere.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:16 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, My name is Christina Marie Pablo, and I work out of Windermere Real Estate/Lake Tapps, Inc. I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Christina Marie Realtor, CSP Windermere Real Estate/Lake Tapps, Inc. 18008 State Route 410 E. Bonney Lake, WA 98391 Sincerely, Christina Marie Pablo 9812 Canyon Rd. E Puyallup, Washington 98373 David Osaki From: peterfrisell@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:13 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Peter Frisell 521 S. 48th St. Tacoma, Washington 98408 David Osaki From: sharpmt33@msn.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:00 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Michael Sharp Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: dottietraudt@prudentialcontact.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:34 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Dottie Tiaudt 10623 Woodland Ave East Puyallup, Washington 98373-4181 David Osaki From: margohassklein@cbbain.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:47 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Do not handcuff our business Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, As a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my complete objections to the City staff's crazy proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. By reacting to the Bagel case, you'd remove city REET revenues and handcuff salepersons ability to sell. I request that a copy of my e-mail be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. Our Multiple Listing data shows each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. If you want REET revenues for the City, let us keep signs up. 2. The average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and most of commercial properties take at least 6 months to sell. 3. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 4. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Margo Hass Klein 1 David Osaki From: rbenton@gatewaygmac.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:10 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Rebecca Benton 1663 S. 74th St. Tacoma, Washington 98408 David Osaki From: josh@jahomes. net Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:52 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Josh Arndt David Osaki From: anniek@anniek.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:43 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Ann Kritsonis 24404 133rd Ave SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: deborah-taylor@msn.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:20 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Deborah Taylor 11108 SE 298th St Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: john@johnonelson.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:16 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, John Nelson 610 Riverview Dr NE Auburn, Washington 98002 David Osaki From: barneyloucks@hotmail.com. Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:31 AM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Barney Loucks 27433 48 ave so Kent, Washington 98032-7224 David Osaki From: loripatch@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:17 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lori Patch 22847 SE 265th P1 Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: sloanhunter@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 200611:15 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Sloan Hunter David Osaki From: jdmendenhall@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:00 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona,.California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jason Mendenhall 147 S 329th P1 #B Federal Way, Washington 98003 David Osaki From: rossp@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:30 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Ross Papa PO Box 25083 Federal Way, Washington 98093 David Osaki From: Istricklandpmv@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:38 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in.Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal districttrial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Laurie Strickland 1226 Semanski St Enumclaw, Washington 98022 David Osaki From: donvanderhule@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:24 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Don Vanderhule 14505 SE 282nd P1 Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: debratruelove@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:04 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decisicn, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Debra Truelove 1204 34th St. Ct. NW Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 David Osaki From: judihodge@pnwrealty.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:57 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Judith Hodge Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: kimberlybrooke@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:50 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Kimberly Hoffpauir Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: ronhe@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:48 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Ronald Heupel 18249 252nd Ave SE Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: rayma@att.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:32 PM To David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Rayma Brooks 1106 204 St. E. Spanaway, Washington 98387 David Osaki From: davidb@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:28 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff code committee and represents a significant what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign departure (in both content and approach) from Dave Bennett John L Scott RE 1 Sincerely, Dave Bennett 509 33rd Ave NW Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 David Osaki From: wkmorrison@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:19 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, W. Kent Morrison 5314 S 283rd Ct Auburn, Washington 98001 David Osaki From: skibbs@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:13 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Steve skibbs 12406 50Th Ave Ct. Nw. Gig Harbor, Washington 98332 David Osaki From: alise.roberts@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Alise Roberts 9503 S 237th P1 Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: cghighsmith@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:50 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new. restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Cindy Highsmith 812 Wynwood Dr Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: kristihart@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:46 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of- Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, kristi hart David Osaki From: ginnyblack@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:43 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Ginny Black David Osaki From: theresaevans@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:42 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Theresa Evans 18204 120th Ave E Puyallup, Washington 98374 David Osaki From: martireeder@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:40 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised -for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Martinique Reeder 15690 SE 227th St Kent, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: shell@newberryrealty.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:37 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Sheila Cantrall 13240 272nd St Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: conniejharris@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:33 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Connie Harris David Osaki From: almcwilliams@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:09 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Al McWilliams David Osaki From: winstoncbonnie@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:04 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is .ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. I Sincerely, Winston Johnson 4248 A St SE Sp 509 Auburn, Washington 98002 David Osaki From: bobbiecassidy@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:55 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Bobbie Petrone -Cassidy 1309 133RD ST. SO. Tacoma, Washington 98444 David Osaki From: jamesJohnston@johnLScott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:49 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, James Johnston 11034 SE 297th St Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: jane@janetobin.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:41 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jane Tobin 16117 SE 260th St Covington, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: davemarks@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:39 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Dave Marks 37502 W. Lake Walker Dr. SE Enumclaw, Washington 98022 David Osaki From: sreider@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:36 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Scott Reider 28306 180th Ave SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: hilton@serv.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:36 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 931 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Elaine Hilton 2123 North Steele Tacoma, Washington 98406-8212 David Osaki From: lartuell@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:31 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Larry Tuell 1530 S. Ventura Dr. Tacoma, Washington 98465 David Osaki From: tylershomes@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:28 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time .for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jerry Tyler David Osaki From: shorebirds@w-link.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:27 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lin Tyler 4801 64th ave w. Tacoma, Washington 98467 David Osaki From: margeulmer@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:26 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Margaret Ulmer 30603 24th Ave SW Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: michaelnolet@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:25 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Michael Nolet 4215 27th Ave. Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 David Osaki From: Aabachusis@aabachusis.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:22 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a Home Inspector and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Michele Buswell 21119 SE 278th P1. Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: harryt@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:20 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Harry Timko 25010 170th Way SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: realdeals2@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:17 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs .that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Deidre Daly PO Box 3674 Federal Way, Washington 98003 David Osaki From: MaryHeberlein@CBBain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:16 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Mary Heberlein David Osaki From: norman@homecentive.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:09 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerel%7, Norman Petersen 2312? i�)Otn Ave SE Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: marypat@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:08 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 2 Sincerely, Mary Minaglia 20533 97th Ave So Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: debrahoutz@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:05 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4: If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Debbie Houtz 8513 44th St. W Tacoma, Washington 98466 David Osaki From: yorkejl@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:05 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, John Yorke 34815 Pacific Highway S. #100 Federal Way, Washington 98003-8324 David Osaki From: LouRall@CBBain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:58 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lou Rall David Osaki From: massethteam@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:55 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Chris Masseth 25025 144th P1 SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: pp@paulettep.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:50 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Paulette Pedersen 535 SW 2.98th St Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: wcollins@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:41 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. - The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, William Collins 34445 16th Ave SW Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: wtiord@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:41 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Laurel Lord David Osaki From: mikepackwood@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:41 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, mike packwood 17210 90Th ave E Puyallup, Washington 98371 David Osaki From: chap34@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:40 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a -copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, David Chapman 27319 32nd P1 S Auburn, Washington 98001 David Osaki From: jeanmunday@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:37 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstituti.onal, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Jean Munday 12808 43rd Ave. Ct. NW Bremerton, Washington 98337 David Osaki From: staci@familyfirstres.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:35 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Staci Howard 7221 S. Alaska St. Tacoma, Washington 98408 David Osaki From: srinc12@gwest.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:34 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days_ Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Terry Sullivan 1518 E 54th Lane POB 30487 Spokane, Washington 99223-3007 David Osaki From: fred@familyfirstres.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:33 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Fred Howard 7221 S. Alaska St. Tacoma, Washington 98408 David Osaki From: mikehurter@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:32 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linma•rk, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Michael Hurter 12923 170th St. Ct. E Puyallup, Washington 98374 David Osaki From: vickywarnock@cbba.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:32 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal .issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the :following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Vicky Warnock 26306 135th Ave SE Kent, Washington 98042-3518 David Osaki From: jeanettemiller@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:31 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal _issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restriction:, on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jeanette Miller 2301 T St NW Auburn, Washington 98001 David Osaki From: Jamiepenrod@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:29 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and. approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jamie Penrod David Osaki From: nancy@yourhometeam-realtors.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:28 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. What'the heck is the rationale behind this proposal? 1) Must only the sign be taken down? 2) How long must the signs remain down before they can be re -erected? 3)What about the sign posts from which the signs hang -- must those too be removed? 4) If signposts are to be taken down as well, where does the city stop with regards to what private citizens may put on their own property? 5) What about property owners who are trying to sell their homes themselves -- will they too be regulated by this proposal? 6) If this modification is passed, then will it pertain to signs in windows? i.e. Rent, For Sale; Support our Troops etc.? 7) I believe you are interfering with the constitutional rights of property owners. Therefore, I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for many reasons, but especially the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 1 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff code committee and represents a significant what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Nancy Tibeau 902 17th st NE Auburn, Washington 98002 was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign departure (in both content and approach) from 2 David Osaki From: brian.thayer@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:26 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower market: also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those: matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Brian Thayer 6902 44th St. W Tacoma, Washington 98466 David Osaki From: ronroundtree@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:23 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those: matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. I Sincerely, Ron Roundtree 24617 168th P1 SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: rgalloway@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:23 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for - commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 8. I have lived in Auburn 30 years, and I have been a REALTOR for 26 of these years. Auburn has always been a great place to live, and the majority of buyers I work with are also sellers. 1 They want to sell a home in Auburn and want to by another home in Auburn. Please do not make the sale of their home difficult by not allowing real estate signs (or limiting them in any way). 'Sincerely, Rose Galloway 401 Pike St NE Auburn, Washington 98002 2 David Osaki From: billvetters@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:23 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Bill Vetters 3301 White Cloud Ave. NW Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 David Osaki From: druvo@kw.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:22 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Debbie Ruvo 6911 48th Ave. East Tacoma, Washington 98443 David Osaki From: homesanddreams@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:21 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in.response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayors Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Laura Anderson Gotschall David Osaki From: thebreongroup@cbba.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:18 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Bill Breon 18415 SE 304th St Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: fred@wolfenet.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:16 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff code committee and represents a significant what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign departure (in both content and approach) from Fred Goehler 1 Sincerely, Fred Goehler 16410 136th Ave E Puyallup, Washington 98374-9100 David Osaki From: freddonaldson@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:15 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Plann=_ng Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO 140T SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commer=cial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Fred Donaldson 41455 212th Ave SE Enumclaw, Washington 98022 David Osaki From: danagrant@earthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:15 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Dana Grant 12927 170th Ct East Puyallup, Washington 98374 David Osaki From: victoriahankwitz@harbornet.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:14 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal _issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, victoria hankwitz David Osaki From: theresakeating@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:12 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO :NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The luck of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal :issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Theresa Keating 8507 Northway SW Lakewood, WA 98498 1 Sincerely, Theresa Keating 8507 Northway SW LAKEWOOD, Washington 98498 David Osaki From: tonydeejay@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:11 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Anthony Jellum 33020 16th P1 SW Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: rebeccamorgenroth@pnwrealty.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:10 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City :staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal :issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Rebecca Morgenroth 2703 SW 347th St Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: kellier@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:10 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The hack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal _ssues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restriction; on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Kellie Rust 22913 112th P1 SE Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: melissak@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:10 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, melissa kinzler 15018 80th Ave Ct. E Puyallup, Washington 98375 David Osaki From: zach@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:10 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Zach Entwistle 7519 E F. St. Tacoma, Washington 98404 David Osaki From: rrathwick@landam.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:08 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties a -re on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opport•znities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal .issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Ray Rathwick 7715 99th Ave S.W. Tacoma, Washington 98998 David Osaki From: mykolamartyn@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:08 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal,.this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. I Sincerely, Mykola Martyn 2963 S. 296th PL Federal Way, Washington 98003-8036 David Osaki From: jasonk@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:06 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City ofd Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Jason Kjellesvik David Osaki From: cmalicoat@harbomet.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:06 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Cheryl Malicoat, Broker Cottage Home Realty, LLC 1 Sincerely, Cheryl Malicoat 1408 N. Washington St. Tacoma, Washington 98406 David Osaki From: dstull@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:03 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Dean Stull David Osaki From: stucollins@prudentialcontact.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:01 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the Cil -.y of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Stu Collins 6001 Olive Ave SE Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: magerbob@crescentrealty.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:00 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal :issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Robert Mager 7203 199th Ct E. Spanaway, Washington 98387 David Osaki From: patbrewer10@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:59 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the -City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower market; also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Pat Brewer 4912 81st. St. SW Lakewood, Washington 98499 David Osaki From: almamcfariand@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:57 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Alma McFarland Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: cathiec@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:57 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Catherine Christie 2619 N. Warner Tacoma, Washington 98407 David Osaki From: mcgilliard@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:57 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, Real estate "For Sale" signs are an essential service to your consituants, both sellers and buyers. These signs are also a significant part of a REALTOR's obligation to Fair Housing statutes. Please consider those thoughts along with the following. I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, George McGilliard 3805 N. 8th St. Tacoma, Washington 98406-4915 David Osaki From: jeffj'ensen@_windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:56 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal 'issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of: Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, jeff jesnen 1539 South Sunset Tacoma, Washington 98465 David Osaki From: btibbits@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:53 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Mcntana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Bob Tibbits David Osaki From: bcharmon@kw.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:52 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 931 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The hack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, William Harmon David Osaki From: homebuylyn@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:47 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions; on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lyn Gill 5809 So. 232nd Place Kent, Washington 98032 David Osaki From: mariak@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:45 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and s'gnificantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make �it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Maria Kirchner 26615 221st P1 SE Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: jimmorrison@tx3.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:44 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The hack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. S. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, James Morrison 317 Jewell St Enumclaw, Washington 98022 David Osaki From: cfranklin@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:34 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO ;VOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restriction; on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of` Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Cari Franklin 700 M Street NE AUBURN, Washington 98002 David Osaki From: dlhokenson@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:32 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, David Hokenson 18723 SE 384th St Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: billcox@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:29 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, William Cox 25112 -743rd ave S Kent, Washington 98032 David Osaki From: janiteal@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:25 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions.. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Janet Teal 4320 SW 32nd Street Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: fredbaisch@pnwrealty.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:21 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Fred Baisch Auburn, Washington 98001 David Osaki From: ruthannkitchens@cbbain.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:12 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Ruth -Ann Kitchens 13407 SE 339th Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: teresaa@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:12 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. 1 vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, Teresa Ast 9526 S 221st P1 Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: yvonne@draegernet.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:07 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Yvonne Ray 16906 SE Lake Holm Rd. Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: lenbrandt@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:04 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Leonard Brandt 23825 SE 249th St Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: bjohnstonremax@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:58 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Brian Johnston 11040 SE 270th Kent, Washington 98030-7189 David Osaki From: johnmesser@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:55 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 931 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the•9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not code committee and represents a significant departure what the Committee recommended. I vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign (in both content and approach) from Sincerely, John Messer 11029 SE 219th Pl Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: ledenham@drhorton.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:53 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf 'of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lori Denham 32200 Military Rd S #E204 Auburn, Washington 98001 David Osaki From: tindaseibert@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:48 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: - Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Linda Seibert 28167 23rd Ave S Federal Way, Washington 98003 David Osaki From: jsdovey@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:47 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jennifer Dovey 28904 8th Ave S Federal Way, Washington 98003 David Osaki From: lynnhendersonofremax@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:41 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of'Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lynn Henderson 22028 SE Bain Rd Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: larry@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:40 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT.SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Larry Lamb PO Box 6592 Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: myagent@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:38 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Shane Davies 21333 SE 277th P1 Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: staceylitz@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:39 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Stacey Litzenberger 24020 167th Ave SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: jfiits@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:37 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. In closing, all of us at one time or another will need to sell a property and or purchase one, this includes Auburn employees and staff. If there were restrictive rules on the signage of properties this could cause undue hardship to many. Please do not let this 1 happen and do not make modifications to the existing signage rules. It is fair now. I appreciate your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Jerry Fitts 34848 54th Ave S Auburn, Washington 98002 David Osaki From: chrispauling@pnwrealty.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:29 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I am the President and Designated Broker of Prudential Northwest Realty, a locally owned real estate firm, and a resident of the greater Auburn area. I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. In addition to the comments below, I would like to remind all involved in this decision how important a vibrant real estate market is to the local economy. Not only has the housing market sustained our local economy through the last rescesion and recovery, but a healthy housing market creates substantial tax revenues for local and state government. Adopting policies that would restrict or reduce a traditional and expected method of communication what houses are for sale in a community would reduce the volume of sales, thus impacting not only Auburn residents ability to maximize the value of homeownership, but also reducing tax revenue to the city. I urge you to reconsider the proposed restrictions. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on 1 constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss further. 206-938-6811 Sincerely, Chris Pauling 18855 Auburn Black Daimond Rd. Auburn, Washington 98092-9109 2 David Osaki From: mhering@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:29 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Marjorie Hering 31351 39th Ct SW Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: halfinley@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:28 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Hal Finley 1031 SW 334th St Federal Way, Washington 98023 David Osaki From: tonij@johniscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:26 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Toni Johnson 31526 39th Ave. S.W. Federal Way, Washington 98023-2110 David Osaki From: wsnoey@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:26 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Wayne Snoey 25907 175th Way SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: janetiewis@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:26 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, As a REALTOR(r) in South King County,I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. While well intentioned, the new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. Further, this action will hurt business and residential development because of the minimization of marketing efforts. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. And while I respect the efforts and expertise of city staff, any decision should be based on a collaborative recommendation of city, business, Realtors(r) and residents. 1 Sincerely, Janet Lewis 13507 SE 250th St Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: torii@johnlscott.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:21 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Torilee Johnson 23924 SE 186th St Maple Valley, Washington 98038 David Osaki From: Iwindhorn@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:20 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Lorelei Windhorn 28712 211th Ct SE Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: lonnieklee@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:17 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Lonnie K. Lee 30028 45th Ave S Auburn, Washington 98001 David Osaki From: jim-carroll@remax.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:16 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Jim Carroll 21609 112th Ct SE Kent, Washington 98031 David Osaki From: deannabrossard@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:15 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. Sincerely, Deanna Brossard 750 Watson St N #C3 Enumclaw, Washington 98022 David Osaki From: larry@larrydavis.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:12 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT.SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Larry Davis 17458 SE 244th P1 Kent, Washington 98042 David Osaki From: asnoey@windermere.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:11 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REST revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Andrea Snoey 30116 113 Ct SE Auburn, Washington 98092 David Osaki From: astein@fhre.net Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:06 PM To: David Osaki Subject: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Community Development Administrator David Osaki Dear Community Development Administrator Osaki, I'm a REALTOR and I'm writing to express my strong objections to the City staff's proposed modifications to the City's Sign Code. I respectfully request that a copy of my comments be included in the Planning Commission's Public Hearing Record on the matter, and that they also be shared with each Planning Commissioner, each City Council Member and Mayor Lewis. The new staff proposal is ill advised for the following reasons: 1. According to NWMLS data, each year hundreds of properties in Auburn DO NOT SELL within 90 days. Real estate markets are cyclical. When the strong market cools, the problems for both Auburn sellers and would-be buyers will be even worse. Slower markets also mean slower receipt of REET revenues for the City. 2. According to data provided by CBA, the average marketing time for commercial properties in Auburn is 8.5 months, and "the preponderance of properties are on the market for at least 6 months." 3. The United States Supreme Court (Linmark, 431 US 85) has said the alternatives to real estate signage for marketing a property are "far from satisfactory." The lack of satisfactory alternatives makes the staff proposal unconstitutional, and significantly increases the likelihood of new civil rights litigation against the City. 4. If adopted, it will hurt families with personal circumstances that necessitate a sale, make it harder for buyers to look for a home, retard "fair housing" opportunities in Auburn, and make it harder to sell commercial properties to expand the economic base of the City. 5. This new staff proposal appears to be in response to a federal district. trial court decision (now on appeal to the 9th Circuit) in the Blazing Bagels case. When the trial court made its decision, it did not have before it (and did not consider) the legal authorities, or the legal issues, regarding real estate signs that the 9th Circuit is now considering. Those matters were briefed for the 9th Circuit by the Perkins Coie law firm on behalf of the following REALTOR Associations: Seattle -King County, Washington, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. Because the matter is on appeal, this proposal is both premature, and makes the City of Auburn a legal focal point for REALTOR Associations throughout the Western United States. 6. The Blazing Bagels case did not require new, more stringent restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Rather, the trial court held the City of Redmond was too restrictive. Now, Auburn is proposing significant new restrictions. That approach is neither justified, nor required. 7. This new proposal developed by City staff was not vetted with the Mayor's Ad Hoc sign code committee and represents a significant departure (in both content and approach) from what the Committee recommended. 1 Sincerely, Adam Stein 26730 130th P1 SE Kent, Washington 98042 Laura Pierce From: Coldwell Banker Bain REO Division [washingtonstatereo@peoplepc.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:22 AM To: Laura Pierce Subject: RE: Objections to Proposed Modifications of Sign Code Thank you for the response. As a Realtor and also as a Citizen of this state, I would just like to give you my own thoughts on signs. I too do like to see signs on every telephone pole and street corner advertising every "Get rich quick" scheme under the sun. I believe that Real Estate signs are not in that category. True, some individuals will always depart from established guidelines and make the rest of us look bad. These individuals should be dealt with through fines on an individual basis. The entire Real Estate industry and your homeowners need to be able to get buyers to the home that is for sale. These sales put money into your coffers. I believe and sincerely hope that homeowners will not tolerate any municipality dictating rules for signs on private property. I certainly would go to court, to the News Channels, and to any organization necessary to defend my civil rights concerning my personal property. We realtors and homeowners throughout the region would, in my opinion, benefit from a more uniform standard for signage. As it stands right now, each small or large community, Home Owner Associations, Condos and Mobile Home Parks, has a different rule when it comes to signs. There is no reason for this. So when a homeowner wants a sign positioned in a certain place I'll have no option but to direct that homepwner to the municipality imposing the restriction. Of course, enforcement will have to apply to all signs, including For Sale By Owner if I understand the proposal correctly. I'm available for questions should you wish to ask me any. I hope you will consider my point and not lump Realtors in with everybody else. Thanks, Mike Packwood s �k CITY T * * Memorandum k T T T WASHINGTON TO: Auburn Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Community Development Director David Osaki, Community Development Administrator RE: Draft Sign Ordinance/Provisions for Real Estate Signs DATE: January 3, 2006 As you are aware, based upon recent court decisions, the City Attorney's Office has advised that the proposed draft Sign Code needs to be "content neutral". That is, while signs can be regulated as to size, location, design and by zoning district, they may not be regulated by what the sign says (content). As a result, staff redrafted part of the proposed sign code, as recommended by the Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee, to be consistent with this test. Through unfortunate timing, Auburn's proposed sign regulations will be one of, if not the first, to be developed and considered under the content neutrality directive. Staff does not want to put Auburn in the position of adopting a new code that appears to be inconsistent with court decisions. Last summer, staff put work on the proposed sign code on hold, pending the outcome of appeals of the court decision by realtors and other interest groups. Unfortunately, these actions remain pending in court and it is unclear when a final decision will be rendered. Modifications to the draft sign code to provide for content neutrality have raised issues with specific regards to "real estate" signs. In considering these issues, we recognize that the Mayor's Ad Hoc Sign Committee work group devoted considerable effort in developing specific regulations for these types of signs. In addition, we also do not wish to prematurely restrict the ability of home owners and realtors to advertise properties for sale. As a result of this situation, staff is amending our recommended proposal to the Planning Commission. We are recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption the proposed draft sign code ordinance, but retain the currently adopted city code language on real estate signs (Auburn City Code section 18.56.040(C)). Thus, real estate signs would continue to be regulated as they have in the past. (The proposed temporary sign section would need to be modified accordingly to focus on those temporary signs originally addressed in the Ad Hoc Sign Code Committee's recommendation (e.g. window signs, banners, etc.)). Under this approach, the balance/majority of the proposed sign code can move forward. Upon receipt of final actions by the Courts, the City will reassess provisions related to real estate signs and consider amendments as necessary. CITY OF RN V Peter B. Lewis * , Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 98W1-4998 * www.ci.aubum-wa.us * 253-931-3000 FINAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE SEP05-0005 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.56 adopting new sign requlations for the City of Auburn. PROPONENT: City of Auburn — Planning and Community Development Department LOCATION: Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: POSITION/TITLE: ADDRESS: DATE ISSUED: April 13, 2005 Paul Krauss, AICP Director of the Department of Planning & Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 001 (253) 931-3090 SIGNATURE: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. Any person aggrieved of this final determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 21 days of the date of issuance of this notice. All appeals of the above determination must be filed by 5:00 P.M. on Mat 4. 2005. AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED