Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Big Bear Lake planning commission backs faster enforcement for temporary signs, including political signage
Summary
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend a code amendment that relocates temporary noncommercial sign rules to a new municipal chapter and shortens enforcement timelines by shifting some hearings to the city manager or designee, while preserving notice and appeal rights.
The Big Bear Lake Planning Commission on a 5–0 vote recommended that the City Council approve a development code amendment to streamline enforcement of temporary noncommercial signs, including political signs.
Garrett Brodsky, planning associate, told the commission the proposal relocates subparagraph r of Section 17.12.050 into a new chapter (12.92) in Division 2 of Title 12 of the municipal code and is intended to "streamline the enforcement process" by making the city manager or a designee the decision-maker in many cases. Brodsky said staff estimates the revised process would cut the timeline from an estimated "4 to 8 weeks" to approximately "2 to 3 weeks." Staff also said the amendment was reviewed for consistency with the general plan and was recommended as categorically exempt from CEQA under the exemption cited in the staff report.
Assistant City Attorney Albert Maldonado explained the legal constraints that shape the proposal: people cited by code enforcement "have due process rights" and must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. Maldonado said the typical administrative process requires 10 days' notice of a hearing and that "the city would have the burden of proof to prove the violation occurred based on the code." He added that a designee or a third-party hearing officer could be used in practice.
Commission discussion focused on two competing priorities: the need to avoid arbitrary or capricious takedowns and the practical problem of political or other signs remaining in place during tight election timelines. Commissioner (speaker 8) said many cities simply remove signs on public property and bill owners later, preferring immediate removal to avoid election‑day clutter; she said, "I would prefer that we say they just all come down." Other commissioners expressed concern that empowering a single designee could be perceived as politically biased and urged careful language to preserve impartiality and an appeals process.
Staff and the city attorney proposed compromise language: allow code enforcement to remove signs that are plainly in violation (for example, on public property or blocking sight lines), require written notification to the sign owner within a specified timeframe after removal, and direct staff to propose clear timing for scheduling an administrative hearing so the owner can appeal. The commission asked staff to fine‑tune wording around the timing of notices and hearings and to confirm whether existing agreements with Caltrans cover removal of signs in state right‑of‑way.
Commissioner (speaker 8) moved and Commissioner (speaker 3) seconded a motion to adopt Resolution PC 2025‑13 recommending City Council approve Development Code Amendment 2025‑0005 "as amended" to permit removal in clearly unlawful instances and to set notice/hearing timing consistent with the city attorney's input. The motion passed by roll call vote (five ayes, zero no). The resolution will be forwarded to City Council for a noticed public hearing.
The public comment period included several speakers. Daniel de Branson criticized the city's process and alleged improper procedure and collusion; those accusations were recorded in the public record but were not substantiated during the meeting.
What happens next: staff will refine the specific code language on timing and notification in coordination with the city manager's office and the city attorney, and the item will be taken to City Council for a noticed hearing.
