MAD Committee Split on Welcome Sign Approval

A Rancho Bernardo subcommittee will recommend a new, professionally designed welcome sign for approval this week, but it doesn't appear the move will bring the community any closer to a final decision.

The chosen design—a beige stone sign with the RB logo set off in an arch—barely received the support of the subcommittee with five of nine votes amid questions about its features and this entire process.

Though four of the five approval votes came from members of the RB Community Council, which is scheduled to take up the recommendation at its meeting Thursday, it's not clear whether the entire council will back the choice. Even with the council's support the design must also get the approval of the RB Planning Board, whose chair said the group has made its choice and is done looking at designs.

"I wish we could do things differently. ...I can't change it," Planning Board Chair Teri Denlinger said after the Monday night meeting of the Maintenance and Assessment District (MAD) subcommittee.

For more than a year, the community has been searching for a new concept for a welcome sign to replace one that was destroyed by a motorist in late 2009. Plans call for both the RB Community Council and RB Planning Board to agree on a design, which will be forwarded to the city for final approval and construction.

But despite a litany of recommendations from an advisory committee, public votes and now professional input, the two groups stand opposed on the preferred design and selection process.

In June, the Planning Board chose a red-tile roof design which had received initial, informal support from some Community Council members. But a few weeks later, MAD, the council subcommittee responsible for filtering recommendations to the full council, opted to seek professional input on designs and did not move the red tile roof design to the council for approval.

That input birthed the two designs brought before MAD on Monday: the selected beige stone and arch, and another gray stone sign described by one committee member as somewhat pretentious and funerary—evocative of the solemn marquees outside cemeteries.

Though perhaps not appropriate for RB, a deathly sign might work for this process.

MAD member Kelly Batten, who voted against the beige design, said she didn't particularly like either of the designs which are "nothing like" the designs that were discussed or voted on prior. []

Some Community Council members have been vocal about the importance of retaining the red tile roof in the welcome sign, as it is an RB staple and a consistently popular feature among the various designs put forth. The recommended choice does not have a red roof.

But perhaps more significant than roof color, or any design feature, is the continued standoff between the board and council about how to end this process. Neither the council nor the board has indicated any inclination to reverse course, be it the council reconsidering the red-tile roof design approved by the board in June, or the board taking a look at the new concepts.

In fact, the board in July voted to send the council a letter saying it would not entertain any further designs, a position Denlinger reiterated after Monday's meeting though she praised MAD chair Ed Muna for trying to work with the board on a solution.

"It was a final vote," Denlinger said of the June decision, adding that she wished the new designs had come about earlier in the process.

The chair also said that City Council policy—which the board is subject to—does not allow for the board to reconsider its June vote. Whether this is the case is not immediately clear, as the state open meeting laws that govern the board and shape City Council policy typically allow for votes to be rescinded through a vote of the board.

Find us on Facebook and Twitter @RBPatch.

Editor's Note: The story has been updated to clarify that Community Council members, not the Council as a body, indicated support for a red tile roof and the Planning Board approved design.