Who Gets to Put Up a Sign?: Council Weighs in on Temporary Sign Rules

By Alexander T. Holt
Contributor Writer

The Pleasant Hill City Council narrowly passed an ordinance amending regulations and ending a moratorium on signs in the Unified Development Code (UDC) that was passed in 2025 relating to temporary sign standards. The final vote resulted in a tie—with Councilwoman Pat Niner and Councilwoman Jessica Elliott voting “no,” and Councilman-At-Large Dr. Zach Patterson and Councilwoman Dummer voting “yes”—which Mayor Don Donovan broke by casting the deciding vote in favor.  

This new ordinance would establish clearer regulations, require permits, and charge a $25 application fee for each sign location. It would also limit a sign to a maximum of 90 days. It also prohibits non-rigid banners near the highway and bans illumination or reflective paint on signs. It also set distinct guidelines for election-season signage. It would be in effect come November 12, 2026

How This Came About

The UDC passed in October 2025 did not include a process for handling temporary signs. In early 2026, Don Donovan and the Pleasant Hill Theater Guild put out signs to promote their upcoming show, Arsenic and Old Lace, but the signs kept disappearing. Donovan raised his concerns with the City Council, asking how civic organizations could advertise their events under the new regulations. In response, the Council placed a moratorium on the sign code and sent it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. The issue was finally returned for consideration last week, when the Planning and Zoning Commission heard public comments and passed the proposed ordinance. 

Refining the Rules: Civics and Fees

At the beginning of the discussion, Mayor Donovan centered on how the city handles exceptions for local organizations.  An initial section of the proposed ordinance stated that permit fees “may” be waived for local civic groups that submit an application.  

Mayor Donovan raised concerns that the word “may” left too much room for uncertainty and inconsistent treatment.

“To me, ‘may’ signifies that it may not, and I don’t want us to be in a situation where we’re doing it for one civic group but not for another,” Donovan explained.  

To ensure predictable and fair application, the council agreed to replace “may” with “shall,” making fee waivers mandatory for qualifying civic groups that apply.  

However, the proposed $25 permit fee structure is a disagreement over everyday practicality.  The draft ordinance called for permits to be issued per lot or location—regardless of the number of signs—with a $25 application fee attached to each lot or location. Councilwoman Dummer raised a concern by pointing to a scenario in which a resident puts out several signs around town for a weekend, remarking, “We’re making them pay $25 a sign.”  

The fee structure drew pushback from council members concerned about the financial burden on residents, such as those putting out garage sale signs or weekend directional signs. Councilwoman Niner raised concerns, noting that the rule hits people who put out multiple signs around town and that the fees place too much restriction on people.   

Election Signs and Enforcement Questions

Election signs became another point of contention when Councilwoman Elliott expressed confusion over how the proposal treated political advertising, stating she felt election signs should be treated differently from general temporary signs. City staff clarified that the draft left election sign regulations unchanged. Those rules define an election season that begins 60 days before an election and ends 15 days afterward.

Despite the discussion over enforcement, fees, and the practical impact on everything from garage sales to political campaigns, the measure ultimately passed with the Mayor’s tie-breaking vote. For Pleasant Hill, the debate reminded everyone that even ordinary yard signs can spark a profound discussion about local government, fairness, and community standards.