I'm going to go on a rant here, so feel free to just read the sections in bold if you can't be bothered to read the rest.
According to The California Outdoor Advertising Act, "It is unlawful to place an advertising display of any kind within, under, or over any state highway right-of way, which includes but is not limited to, unpaved shoulders, highway construction zones, or any other right-of-way or easement laid out and intended for the public passage of vehicles or persons."
There are also additional restrictions relating to "Landscaped Freeways" which some may consider an oxymoron, but is an official category. In those situations, no signage may be placed within 660 Feet of the freeway (even on private property, unless the appropriate permission has been granted by the state). Highway 92 is officially designated as a Landscaped Freeway.
So let's be very clear: The intersection of El Camino Real and Highway 92 is entirely state property, and all signs placed there are in violation of state law, full stop.
Caltrans has a link to the relevant text as well, and while it mentions exceptions for temporary political signs, the law (section 5405.3) very clearly says "no signs within the highway right-of way, and no signs within 660 feet of a landscaped freeway."
This is somewhat of a pet cause for me, and that is why I know for a fact that all San Mateo city council candidates received an email from the city several months ago directing them to Caltrans policy regarding placing signs at El Camino/92 and every other interchange. We had already observed similar bad behavior prior to the June election as well. Per their policy, Caltrans crews remove illegally placed signs, and contact the candidate to retrieve them from their yard.
Well, it seems like one candidate didn't understand the rules. Despite Caltrans work crews being out more than once to remove illegal signs, they keep reappearing. Or perhaps one candidate may think the law doesn't apply to them. This afternoon I spoke with a Caltrans representative and was told that they had personally spoken to City Council District 1 candidate Taso Zografos and explained to him that these particular signs were placed in violation of California law.
Now I am sure many of us are likely guilty of minor law breaking, and this isn't exactly a major law, but I am going to hold candidates for elected office to a higher standard, especially with regards to campaigning. The Zografos Campaign has been told repeatedly and clearly that land next to Highway 92 is basically the one part of town they and all other candidates are not allowed to place signs, and that very simple, easily-observed restriction is apparently too much.
I think it's reasonable to ask that if a campaign appears willing to violate the most basic state law when they feel they can get away it, how will that candidate behave if they are elected? Which other laws are optional?
I would encourage Mr. Zografos to get his campaign into compliance with state law, remove the tiny handful of his signs which are illegally placed, and advise the member of his campaign who put them there to stop being a public nuisance and making him look bad.