Sign rule sent to council

New Medford sign policy is in the works.

Following pushback on proposed city sign rules that would limit the number of temporary information signs, the Plan Commission voted to send a revised sign rule proposal to the city council for approval.

The revised proposal eliminates language from the previous proposal that limited information signs to 20 locations within the city limits and a maximum of 10 square feet per sign.

Should the proposal be passed by the city council, temporary signs or banners for service organizations, for-profit organizations, and nonprofit organizations will not be restricted to a specific number allowed. The information signs referred to in the

See CITY on page 3 proposal “are of interest to the general community regarding scheduled public events, public activities, public resources, and public services.”

When sign rules were discussed at the last Plan Commission meeting, residents who wanted to put up signs for Abiding Care vocalized discontent with the previously proposed 20-sign limitation.

“They were a little unsettled with the way it was put together,” said City Planner Robert Christianson of some individuals’ reaction to the former proposal.

No action was taken to enact the 20sign limitation at the meeting in February, as Christianson took the proposal to City Attorney RuthAnn Koch for legal review. She advised the former proposal that limited the number of information signs and size of information signs would likely not hold up in court as it restricted free speech.

Here is part of Koch’s writing about the former proposal: “…Looking first at the potential constitutional issues posed by such an ordinance, signs by their very nature are a form of speech and thus any attempt to regulate signs must not run afoul of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While a municipality does have the authority to regulate signage, it must do so very mindfully.”

She later wrote, ‘The City of Medford’s proposed revision arguably treats “information signs that are of interest to the general community” more restrictively than the other categories of temporary signs in that subsection. Specifically, under the proposed revision, if a sign is an ‘information sign”, the ordinance seeks to limit it to private property and only 20 signs within the city limits are allowed. Thus, because the proposed version is distinguishing amongst the content or message of the various categories of signs and treating the signs differently based on the content, it is my opinion that the proposed version would be classified as a content-based regulation and, if challenged, would have to pass Strict Scrutiny. In order to pass Strict Scrutiny, the City would have to show that the regulation is narrowly tailored to further the compelling interest of preserving property values, aesthetics, and minimizing distractions to drivers. On its face, the number of signs (20 signs) allowed under the proposed version seems arbitrary. Additionally, once the number of allowable signs under the proposed version is met, the vast majority of residents within the City of Medford would not be allowed to display the same sign, which results in an overly broad restriction on their free speech. For those reasons, it is my opinion that this proposed version would likely fail the Strict Scrutiny test because it is not narrowly tailored.’

In other business, the Plan Commission approved a conditional use permit for Natalia Schmitt and Brandon Krueger, allowing them to operate a dog grooming business at their home on 122 S Park Ave. in Medford.