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