Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to rewrite temporary sign enforcement proposal after private-property concerns
Summary
Council halted action on a proposed code amendment to speed removal of temporary noncommercial signs after counsel and members raised legal questions about authority to remove signs on private property; city attorney recommended staff and legal revisions and council gave consensus to send it back.
The City Council opened a public hearing on a proposed development-code amendment intended to shorten enforcement for temporary noncommercial sign violations from roughly eight weeks to two or three weeks. Staff said the streamlined process would allow the city to remove signs believed to be in violation, issue a 10-day notice, then allow an appeal to a city-manager designee.
Council and the city attorney raised concerns about the proposal's wording, particularly language that appeared to authorize entry onto private property to remove signs. One council member asked, "What gives us the right to go on private property?" Counsel warned that walking onto private property to seize a sign could raise trespass and constitutional issues.
A city attorney recommendation followed: with counsel's concurrence, staff and the city attorney should revise the language to address private-property authority, due-process and First Amendment considerations before the council takes further action. Council provided consensus to send the amendment back for revision rather than adopt the measure tonight.
What happens next: Staff and the city attorney will prepare clarified language and return to council for a subsequent public hearing and potential action.
