Commission recommends council adopt changes to sign code to streamline enforcement of temporary noncommercial signs

The Planning Commission voted 4–0 to forward recommended code amendments to the City Council that clarify how the city regulates temporary noncommercial signs — including political campaign signs — and to modify enforcement and appeal procedures.

What staff proposed: Deputy City Attorney Michael Irvin explained the changes are surgical edits focused on temporary noncommercial signs. Major elements: a clear definition of “temporary noncommercial sign” (noncommercial, not intended to be permanent, lightweight signs such as yard signs and posters); allowance for year‑round placement provided signs are maintained and do not become a blight; standardization of enforcement through the city’s administrative citation process with a 7‑day courtesy notice and the right to appeal to a neutral hearing officer; and clarification that sign removal from private property will occur only with the homeowner’s consent, a warrant, or if the sign is an imminent threat to public safety. Irvin said removed signs would be stored at City Hall for 30 days.

Key clarifications and limits: Staff emphasized the code changes are content‑neutral time, place and manner regulations consistent with First Amendment case law. The code continues to limit property owners or tenants to three temporary signs totaling up to 96 cumulative square feet and individual signs to no more than 32 square feet. For signs on state or county right‑of‑way (for example Caltrans‑owned portions of Big Bear Boulevard/State Route 18), staff said the city will defer to the responsible agency.

Public response and commissioner concerns: Commissioners asked whether signs that create imminent public safety hazards could be removed immediately (staff: yes), whether the city can quickly address signs on city property (staff: yes), and how state Fair Political Practices Commission rules for campaign signs are enforced (staff: candidates remain responsible under state law). Commissioner Lisa raised concerns that allowing year‑round placement could create high sign density during campaign periods and suggested the commission consider that tradeoff when the item goes to council. Public speakers expressed strong opposition to faster enforcement, characterizing enforcement as harassment; those statements were recorded as public comment but did not change the recommended forward to council.

Action and next step: The commission moved to recommend City Council adopt development code amendment 2025-00005 to Chapter 17.12 to revise definitions, development standards and enforcement processes; the motion passed 4–0 and the item will be forwarded to City Council for a noticed public hearing.