Yucaipa planning commission approves variance allowing larger La Quinta freeway-facing sign

The Yucaipa Planning Commission voted 5-1 to approve a major variance permitting an additional wall-mounted sign on the La Quinta hotel at the Yucaipa Gateway, increasing total wall signage to 325 square feet and allowing an additional 105-square-foot sign facing eastbound I-10.

The variance, recorded in the staff report as case number PHE2503 (referred to in the hearing as PLNPHE20Five-three), was presented by planning staff and supported by the hotel applicant as necessary to improve visibility and occupancy for the three-story, 41-foot-tall building along the I‑10 freeway. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, adoption of major variance findings and a finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 11 and Class 5 exemptions.

Planning staff told commissioners the site is within the CS (Community Service) land use district, which caps permitted wall-mounted signage at 200 square feet and applies a 3:1 ratio of linear building frontage to sign square footage. Staff said the La Quinta building is substantially larger than most commercial buildings referenced in the code (about 275 feet long with four frontages including the I‑10 freeway, Oakland Road and 14th Street), and argued the requested additional sign would improve wayfinding for freeway travelers and better match the building’s scale.

Applicant Alex Musino, representing ACA LP, said the hotel opened after construction during COVID and that walk-in and same‑day bookings have lagged compared with other La Quinta properties. “Without having signage on the highway, fronting the highway, our occupancy will not increase,” Musino said, arguing that the additional freeway-facing sign would help customers identify the building from I‑10.

Hotel management representatives provided cost and performance details: Alan Ames said a typical signage package for these hotels runs from about $150,000 to $200,000 for all signs and estimated the single additional wall sign would cost about $25,000. Planning staff noted the applicant had previously installed and then removed an unpermitted sign; staff processed a minor variance for one south-facing wall sign and the applicant removed the other sign rather than appeal a prior Planning Commission procedural denial in 2023.

Members of the public and several commissioners raised concerns about precedent and the city’s sign code. Public commenter Christine Moller told commissioners she was opposed to changing city standards to accommodate a single property and warned that granting the variance could prompt similar requests from other businesses. Dr. Hansen Wong urged the commission to update sign rules so large buildings are not repeatedly handled through exemptions.

In discussion commissioners cited readability and visibility challenges on the freeway corridor, and several members agreed the city should review its sign code to consider scale-based standards for larger, multi‑frontage buildings. Commissioner Miller and other commissioners said they drove the corridor and could not readily identify the hotel from freeway travel without the additional sign; Commissioner Mullins voted no, citing concerns about code consistency and precedent.

On a motion to follow staff’s recommendation as listed in the agenda report, the Planning Commission voted as follows: Vice Chair Miller — yes; Commissioner McKeown — yes; Commissioner Milled — yes; Commissioner Mullins — no; Commissioner O’Brien — yes; Chair Jared Chester — yes. Chair Chester announced, “Motion passes,” and staff was directed to file a notice of exemption per CEQA.

The commission’s approval is subject to the conditions in the agenda report. Staff also told the commission it will include sign-code changes as part of a comprehensive development code update in the future; the update could consider a corridor- or scale-based approach for freeway-fronting properties.