Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › PLANNING › Sign Control
Updated 07/08

Sign Control

Contents

Introduction

A city's authority to regulate signs is based upon its "police power." However, since signs are a form of communication, that authority is limited by the free speech provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Since signs are also a form of property, a city's authority to regulate existing signs is also limited by the "takings" provisions of the state and federal constitutions.

Two court cases, one decided by the state supreme court and the other by the U.S. Supreme Court, help to clarify the constitutional limits on a city's authority over certain types of signs. In Collier v. Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d 737 (1993), the state supreme court found unconstitutional a provision of Tacoma's sign code that prohibited the placement of political signs earlier than 60 days before the date of the election for which the signs were intended. Tacoma's requirement that political signs be removed within seven days after the election was not challenged.

In the other case, City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 129 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Ladue, Missouri ordinance that prohibited all residential signs, except those falling within certain specific exemptions such as small "residential identification" signs and signs advertising the sale, lease, or exchange of property. The city had applied its sign ordinance against a 8 by 11 inch sign protesting the Gulf War that was placed in a second story window of a private residence. The Court concluded that the ordinance violated the First Amendment's free speech protection by suppressing too much speech. Although the Court invalidated Ladue's restrictions, it did not provide any meaningful guidance as to what would be a permissible content-neutral regulation of signs on residential property. But, in 1995, the Court refused to hear and thus let stand a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision upholding an ordinance that allowed only one noncommercial opinion sign per residence. Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 512 NW 2d 243 (Minn. App. 1994), cert. denied, 131 L. Ed 2d 289 (1995). The New Brighton ordinance did allow, during election time, more than one campaign or opinion sign, provided that no more than one sign appeared per candidate or issue. However, in light of the Collier case, it is unlikely that our state supreme court would uphold, under the state constitution, an ordinance like that upheld in Brayton.

Because of the constitutional issues involved in sign regulation, we strongly recommend that your city attorney review any proposed sign ordinance.

Comprehensive Sign Code Provisions

County Comprehensive Sign Code Provisions

Advertising on Parked Vehicles (Painted or Mounted On)

  • Parking on Public Streets - WAC 308-330-436  (MTO)- Parking for certain purposes unlawful
  • Auburn Municipal Code Section 18.56.030  - See H.(5 )- Prohibited Signs 
  • Issaquah Municipal Code Section 18.11.480 - Listing of specifically prohibited signs and devices.  See M. (Parked vehicles, trailers, carts; signs affixed to or painted on).
  • Marysville Municipal Code Section 19.20.020  - Signs prohibited -  See (6)
  • Poulsbo Municipal Code Section 18.64.030 - Prohibited signs  - See (H)
  • Tukwila Municipal Code Section 19.28.010 - Prohibited Signs and Devices - See (10)
  • Sumner Municipal Code Section 18.44.110 -   Prohibited signs  See (D)

Animated and Digital Signs & Video Display

Community Service Signs

Information Kiosks & Bulletin Boards

Murals

  • Grandview Municipal Code Section 5.16.060 - Murals
  • Port Townsend Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 - Historic District. - See I. Mural Signs
  • Toppenish Murals
    • Toppenish Municipal Code Section 15.10.010 -  Definition ("Murals which are based upon accurate historical research of a local person or event, and which have been approved by the Toppenish society for application upon any exterior or interior wall, are not subject to the terms of this chapter.")
    • Toppenish Murals - Toppenish Chamber of Commerce  - List with links
  • Out-of-State

Political Campaign Signs

Portable Signs

Portable Signs Worn by Humans

Note that regulating portable signs worn by humans may have constitutional issues. It is recommended that you consult with legal council before issuing citations unless your ordinance has been specifically tailored to address these issues.

  • Recent Court Cases
    • Ballen v. Redmond, 466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir., 2006) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Redmond's portable sign regulation ban on some commercial signs was a impermissible restriction on commercial speech and therefore unconstitutional. At issue were Blazing Bagels' employees standing on the street wearing signs advertising fresh bagels. 
    • Kitsap County v. Mattress Outlet, 153 Wn.2d 506 (2005) - Held that Kitsap County's sign ordinance, which the county claimed prohibited Mattress Outlet's use of raincoat-clad workers as offset advertisements, is an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech.
  • Provisions Exempting Signs Worn by a Person
    • Auburn Municipal Code Section 18.56.020  - Definitions - (V.) (“Portable sign” means any sign made of any material, including paper, cardboard, wood or metal, which is capable of being moved easily and is not permanently affixed to the ground, structure or building. This also includes sidewalk or sandwich board signs, except those worn by a person.)
    • Bellevue Municipal Code Section 22B.10.130 - Exempt signs or displays. (L.) Sandwich-board signs worn by a person while walking the public ways of the city;
    • Maple Vally Municipal Code Section 18.50.010 (E)(7) - Human Signs

Temporary Signs

Wayfinding Signs

References