Blog — Sky Ranch

The variance that had been conditionally approved by Melanie Kush, Director of Development Services, was appealed by Vice Mayor / Council Member Stephen Houlihan. The variance exempted the sign from the height limitation.

Director Kush explained that the sign depicted (62 sq ft) is larger than the sign (48 sq ft) that she conditionally approved. At the meeting she presented another image showing a smaller version of the sign.

Complaints about the sign:

Light pollution

Distracting to motorists

Aesthetically unappealing

Courtney Chase, spoke against the variance including some of the complaints mentioned above

Michael Grant represented the applicant. He said the sign is behind the wall and not in the public right of way. He said it would not be visible from any residence or business, only traffic. He said the sign would assist Lantern Crest with outreach, letting people know what’s going on.

Mayor Minto said, “I couldn’t tell you how many email I got.”

Council Member Laura Koval asked about the purpose of the sign. She asked if the digital sign could be placed below the existing sign.

Council Member Stephen Houlihan, who was the appellant, said he received a lot of email about the sign. He asked if any resident can install an electronic sign. Director Kush replied they can do so adjacent to a frontage or collector street. Houlihan called for Courtney Chase to speak again. She said that there is already a sign present, and City code only allows one sign. Stephen Houlihan asked Melanie Kush about that point. Director Kush said that she viewed it as different.

There was a discussion about why Lantern Crest is residential since it is run by a profit based company. Director Kush likened it to an apartment complex, which is residential. Earlier the sign was compared to the lower portion of the Santana High School sign, and the sign at Cajon Park Elementary.

Council Member Ronn Hall asked if the sign could be placed on the building. The applicant said it could but it would have to placed higher. The applicant clarified that the sign is supposed to invite people, not simply provide directions for those inside.

Council Member Rob McNelis said he had no questions as he simply opposed digital signs as bad policy. He said they are distracting. He said a permanently static sign might be OK. He commended the applicant for the work done in the community. He said he will oppose digital signs, but signs on school property are different. He cautioned that homes on major streets may install digital signs.

Director Kush commented that code says static is 8 seconds per image though it could be increased.

The City Attorney cautioned that code may prohibit the sign from being installed on the building.

Council Member Hall said that he doesn’t like it, but it fits code except for the height.

Mayor Minto said that he likes digital signs. Minto, like Koval previously, suggested that with a modification it might be acceptable. Minto, addressing the topic of traffic and distractions at the intersection, asked staff if more work was planned for the intersection. He also asked if any studies have shown that digital signs at intersections cause more collisions. Staff said more work is planned, but not extensive work. Staff said they don’t know of any studies showing that digital signs cause more collisions at intersections.

Mayor Minto said that many unattractive signs are possible under code.

Council Member Koval said that the project looks like a TV on top of sign. She showed a photo of a sign embedded in a wall versus a TV on top of a wall.

Council Member Houlihan said the decision needs to be reversed and the applicant needs to bring a new proposal, not a TV on top of a wall. Houlihan made such a motion, Koval 2nd, and the council voted unanimously to decline the variance.

We are running a hose to this HOA tree next to our yard in an attempt to save it, for now. The irrigation has run one time since May and the Santa Ana winds and heat appear to be pushing it over the edge. This will be the biggest tree to die yet, if it fails. The HOA has turned off the water except for just a few feet near the road. The ground cover in the fuel modification zone is dead, except for cactus and desert broom. It is pure negligence. It’s profitable for the landscape company because we are paying for a contract to take care of all of the property, but in places like this, they only take care of what’s next to the road. In other places they cut it to the ground and eliminate work. The HOA and landscape company may argue that the irrigation times are irregular, but we confirm that they aren’t running by putting tissues on the sprinklers.