The city planner says sign enforcement is not a top priority. Meanwhile, council candidates say more needs to be done to enforce city codes.
By Olivia Damavandi / Assistant Editor
An enormous sign encouraging the election of current Planning Commission Chair Ed Gillespie for Malibu City Council has sparked accusations that he and some other candidates are violating the city’s sign ordinance.
The 40-foot-long, 10-foot-wide sign was erected without a permit on the east-facing side of Super Care Drugs in Malibu Village on Sunday-the day after a public forum during which candidates answered how they would ensure that code enforcement is a top priority within the city.
“There are no size limitations on campaign signs in our city code,” Gillespie said Tuesday in a phone interview. “The only unfairness is the other candidates would like to have their signs there.”
However, California state law says that temporary political signs cannot be larger than 32 square feet in order to be exempt from city ordinances restricting size. Gillespie’s sign is 400 square feet. (The state laws regarding political signs can be viewed at www.dot.ca.gov/oda/political_signs.)
Though Gillespie said the sign, to his knowledge, is not in violation of the city’s sign ordinance, he said the issue is under investigation by Community Development Director Vic Peterson.
Peterson could not be reached for comment. However, Senior Planner Stephanie Danner on Tuesday said, according to the ordinance, a permit is required for any type of sign posted anywhere within city limits.
“Technically, all of the [candidates who posted] election signs are in violation of the sign ordinance because they need [to obtain] temporary permits,” Danner said. “Any sign put up in the city is supposed to have a permit. This ordinance is just not enforced. It’s not a top priority for staff. Illegal development is. We can only go after things that people call in and complain about.”
Despite Danner saying that the election signs are violating city ordinance, state law exempts the placement of temporary political signs from normal outdoor advertising display requirements. In addition, a 1994 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Missouri city law prohibiting signs at private residences.
However, it is against the law to place a sign on another person’s property without permission.
One resident wrote a letter to the editor complaining about a sign being nailed to his sycamore tree without his permission.
While state law supersedes campaign sign restrictions, part of the reason the city’s sign ordinance is not enforced, Danner said, is because it is unclear.
“We’re working on revamping the sign ordinance and making it clearer because it’s very convoluted as it’s written right now,” she added.
Code enforcement needed, candidates say
The issue of code enforcement is a key topic in the upcoming city council election, as the development of new laws, such as a view protection ordinance, will require enforcement strategies.
At a public forum hosted by the Malibu Township Council at the new city hall on Saturday, candidates were asked what they would do to ensure that code enforcement is one of the city’s top priorities.
The candidates varied in their responses, which included how involved the city should be in code enforcement disputes between residents. Some said the city should actively enforce codes by conducting inspections, while others said the city should only pursue enforcement of an issue once a resident complains about it.
“I’m not in favor of making us snitches on our neighbors, except in circumstances where health and safety are affected,” Harold Greene said.
“We don’t need to be inspecting peoples home, asking for entry,” Gillespie said. “If it infringes on other residents, those residents will make it known. This isn’t Nazi Germany. We’re not going to go in there with the storm troopers.”
Candidates Michael Sidley and John Mazza said the city should have probable cause to inspect a home.
“I don’t want the government to run over the city,” Sidley said. “But if the city has probable cause, they have an obligation to inspect and enforce. The real problem is the process makes people want to avoid going to the city.”
Mazza said he agreed with Sidley’s “probable cause theory,” but also said there are enforcement issues the city has been made aware of but has not yet acted on.
“The city went five years without repairing the Paradise Cove sewage problem,” Mazza said. “There are code enforcement cases in the city that have been going on for seven years. They have to be dealt with.”
Candidates Laura Rosenthal and Steve Scheinkman advocated the importance of residents’ ability to report code violations without fearing retaliation from others in their neighborhoods.
“I believe in code enforcement but I don’t think it needs to be punitive,” Rosenthal said, using the example of how one resident should report another whose sprinklers have over-watered his/her lawn.
“The first thing you should do is call your neighbor,” Rosenthal said. “Only when things are not listened to and the neighbor is not responding should you tell the city. Then the city can go educate them. The city needs to educate people on what laws are.”
“The important thing is to put together a system where people can report serious safety problems without retribution,” Scheinkman said.