Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council seeks ordinance change so city, not planning commission, can enforce sign placement
Summary
Councilors asked staff to draft amendments allowing city staff to determine whether campaign signs are located in the public right of way and to clarify enforcement procedures and candidate orientation materials.
The Big Bear Lake City Council asked staff Feb. 12 to draft ordinance changes that would let city staff determine whether campaign signs sit in the public right of way, instead of sending that objective determination to the Planning Commission.
Why it matters: During the last two election cycles council and staff received many complaints about political signs placed in public right-of-way or otherwise inconsistent with city rules. Staff said the current code requires Planning Commission action to make a right-of-way determination, a process that often runs on a slower timetable than election cycles and therefore limits timely enforcement.
What staff said: Kelly (staff member) told the council the city received complaints where staff believed signs were in the public right of way but could not act because the ordinance required Planning Commission determination and associated noticing and meeting timelines. She said that in many instances the city could talk with candidates but had no enforcement “teeth” in the short time before an election.
Council direction: Council members asked staff to draft language removing the Planning Commission as the required determiner for public-right-of-way sign placement and to provide clear rules and candidate-orientation materials. Eric, the city manager, confirmed staff will prepare a draft that clarifies where signs are allowed and the procedural enforcement approach.
Enforcement options discussed: Options discussed included (a) proactively removing illegal signs and storing them at City Hall for retrieval by the candidate; (b) leaving removal reactive to complaints; and (c) better orientation for candidates to reduce inadvertent violations. Council members emphasized the need to avoid punitive measures for first-time or small errors while ensuring public-right-of-way protections.
Practical issues: Councilors and staff noted determining exact right-of-way boundaries can require parcel mapping and GIS data, and that some locations have few physical markers. Staff said city planners typically make right-of-way determinations; the proposed change would centralize and accelerate that step within staff operations.
Next steps: Staff will draft ordinance and administrative changes to (1) remove the Planning Commission requirement for right-of-way determinations related to political signage, (2) propose enforcement procedures (including removal and retrieval), and (3) update candidate orientation materials. No ordinance was adopted at the Feb. 12 meeting.
