San Dimas council introduces film-permit ordinance after debate on still photography and enforcement

San Dimas — The City Council on April 22 introduced Ordinance 13-23, which would add chapter 5.12 to the San Dimas Municipal Code to regulate commercial filming on city-owned property and authorize permit fees, insurance requirements and cost recovery for city services.

Staff told the council the ordinance is designed to promote San Dimas as a filming destination while protecting neighborhoods and city infrastructure. The proposal would require permits for commercial filming on public property, exempt personal, student and news-media activity that does not interrupt city operations, and allow the city manager or a designee to review applications for impacts on traffic, emergency access and safety.

The council’s questions focused on two matters: whether still photography and home-based photography businesses would be covered, and whether the city’s standard municipal fines are adequate for large studio productions. A council member asked whether the ordinance would require wedding or portrait photographers who operate small businesses to obtain permits in public parks; staff replied that commercial photography would generally be covered and that the city intended to coordinate permits through a preferred vendor, Inland Empire Film, while leaving Film L.A. jurisdiction over certain county parks.

Council members proposed carving out or simplifying requirements for small-scale, home-based photographers; staff said the ordinance includes a deposit and permit-evaluation process that allows the city manager to set deposit amounts according to the scale and risk of the production. Staff also noted the ordinance authorizes cost recovery and does not set a fixed upper limit on deposits, allowing the city to require larger deposits for productions that could cause significant damage or disruption.

Several council members expressed concern that the municipal code’s baseline penalty (an example of $100 for a first violation was referenced) would not deter large studio productions. Staff acknowledged that higher fines could be adopted and emphasized the city’s ability to require deposits and seek reimbursement for cleanup and other costs.

After debate, a motion to introduce the ordinance and schedule a second reading at a future meeting carried on a 4–1 vote. The council did not adopt the ordinance tonight; staff will return with any Film Commission comments and to present the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption.

What’s next: Staff will incorporate feedback from the California Film Commission (staff said the commission has 30 days to respond) and return with a second-reading item where councilmembers may consider adjustments such as specific carve-outs for small photographers, a scaled fine schedule or explicit deposit limits.

Attribution: Staff presentation and technical answers are attributed to the staff member who introduced the ordinance; questions and motions are attributed to council members by role as recorded on the council floor.