Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Highway Sign topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weed planning commission denies permit for proposed digital highway sign at Solano27s property
Summary
The Weed Planning Commission voted to deny a sign-use permit for a two-faced LED highway sign proposed at the Solano27s property, citing the city27s highway-advertising zone rules and ambiguity in the sign code. Residents raised safety and community-image concerns; staff said Caltrans and CEQA considerations apply.
The Weed Planning Commission denied a request to install a two-faced digital highway sign on the Solano27s Home Improvement property after commissioners concluded the proposal conflicted with the city27s highway advertising zone and the existing sign ordinance.
Planning staff described the sign as an LED advertising screen proposed for 710 (transcript variously spelled Chestina/Chastina/Shastina) Drive, oriented entirely to I-5, up to the applicant27s proposed height of 80 feet. Staff said the city27s code is silent on digital highway signs and noted the project is listed as CEQA-exempt as an accessory structure; Caltrans placement and brightness restrictions would also apply if the commission approved the permit.
Scott Smith of Legacy Sign Company, the applicant, told commissioners the privately owned sign would sell commercial advertising on a 64-second loop (ads change every eight seconds), reserve some space for city messages and emergency alerts, and be dimmable to meet Caltrans brightness rules. "When there's an emergency situation, the fire department would contact Legacy Sign Company and say, 'we need evacuation notifications,' and it would take about two minutes to get that posted," Smith said.
Residents who spoke at the public hearing urged denial. Dean Davis, who said he lives almost directly behind the freeway site, called driver distraction a safety risk: "Any distraction, I think, to a driver in that area is probably not a wise move." Victor Stupanski, a former Caltrans employee, and others raised concerns about brightness, changing imagery, and visibility at nearby ramps and slopes.
A member of the public also questioned who would control sign content. Planning staff and an attendee noted limits on municipal regulation of speech: "The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America prevents government from abridging free speech," staff said during the hearing, explaining that content control is largely contractual between the sign owner and property owner rather than a government licensing power.
After public comment, commissioners discussed the highway advertising zone and the city27s ordinance language. The commission concluded the code allows only one highway-view sign in the defined Shastina Drive advertising zone and that the application would result in a second sign in that zone. Chair Nicholas moved to deny the permit and a second was heard; the motion carried by voice vote. Planning staff said they would document the code ambiguity and return with clarifying ordinance language in the future.
The denial ends the application for the proposed digital sign at the Solano27s property; staff noted the applicant may pursue Caltrans permitting or alternative locations that fit the city27s zoning if they choose to continue pursuing a sign.
