How do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug Committee member Hunter Present Chair Turgeon.

Committee member Polly present.

Committee member Sanders.

And we have committee member Palmer absent.

Staff present today.

Information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment, including it remotely by Zoom or telephone is on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

Remote commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen.

If you are connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay.

In the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting.

Thank you for participating in your city government.

So we'll go ahead and open the consent agenda.

Does any member of the public or committee have any comments on the agenda?

No.

And there are no attendees online with their hands raised.

Okay, so then we'll move on to approve the minutes from July second.

I move that we uh approve the minutes and consent agenda.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

Hi.

Oh, sorry, we just had a general public comment.

Apologies.

I did that for the so any comments for items not on the agenda.

There are no attendees online.

Okay.

Now we'll move on.

Um so we're gonna consider ten ninety nine Delmonte Avenue, sign permit application si-25-0016 for the replacement of two sign faces on an existing pole mounted sign.

My name is Matthew Bugert, and I'm a senior associate planner with the City of Monterey's planning division.

Today we're here to talk about ten ninety-nine Del Mani Avenue for a sign permit application SI twenty four zero one forty.

Um, at today's architectural review review committee meeting.

The recommendation from city staff is for the ARC to adopt a resolution to deny the sign permit application with findings.

The site is in the central north portion of the city.

The zoning is C two for commercial, and the general plan land use designation is commercial.

A proposal is to replace the sign face of an existing pole mounted sign on both sides here from router router to sanctuary.

The height of the sign is 11.8 feet.

The face dimensions are 34.4 square feet, and it is non-illuminated.

Some context.

And specifically number two, the sign is intentionally or unintentionally removed or altered for any reason.

Alterations or any increase in sign area, change in elimination or modification or replacement of sign face.

In this case, it's replacement of the sign face.

This project was previously presented to ARC in April of this year.

From that meeting, a survey was requested of the applicant to show that the uh to show the distance of the sign to the property boundary and to ensure that the sign is indeed located on property.

The applicant submitted a stamped survey from a licensed surveyor, confirming that the sign is indeed located on property.

Findings required for approval are that the proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance.

We'll talk about this a little bit more on the next slide, along with the second one that these uh project is consistent with the guidelines or ARC determines that the proposal better achieves the purposes of the sign ordinance than strict application of the guidelines.

And three, that the proposal is found consistent with the general plan.

Staff in assessing the proposal, did not find that the proposal achieved the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance.

The purpose is to provide equality and equity among sign owners, and the proposal deviates from the sign guidelines significantly in height and not having a full width base.

And then two, the project must be found consistent with the guidelines, or if it does not comply with the guidelines, ARC can determine that the proposal better achieves the purpose and intent.

In this case, they are visible.

A freestanding sign should have a full width base.

This is not proposed as part of the project.

And a freestanding sign should not exceed eight feet.

In this case it's 11.8 feet.

Additionally, there was City Engineer Division Review on the original proposal, and then it was reviewed again after receiving the survey.

The survey was provided, confirmed with our engineering division.

And additionally, the engineering division reviewed the poll sign, and the poll sign is proposed is uh acceptable for pedestrian and vehicle visibility, though also found that the uh if there was a free standing sign with a full width base that that would not be an issue for site lines uh based on the current traffic pattern, and that was confirmed with both city engineering and our police department.

All that being said, staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution to deny the sign permit application with findings.

That concludes staff's presentation and yeah, if you have any questions.

And I'll just make one uh clarifying.

I believe the first slide uh noted a application number that was uh an error.

The sign application in review is SI 250016.

Okay, good.

I noticed that.

Thank you.

That is my questions from the committee.

No.

Uh, would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Julie Gorman, I'm respectfully requesting the ARC approve changing the sign face and require a building permit to lawfully do so.

John Mata from Monterey Signs and myself have both stated that a sign with a maximum height of eight feet and a four-foot wide solid base will block the line of sight of the high traffic sidewalk and create a huge blind spot regardless of the location and require a vehicle exiting the parking lot to pull out at least six feet onto the sidewalk, which is the distance from the front of the vehicle to the driver's line of sight to see around that type of sign.

And if there was a bicyclist traveling at a high rate of speed or a small child running on the sidewalk, there will be an accident.

I provided multiple examples where businesses installed or intentionally altered their nonconforming signs, specifically the Gunter Madsen property.

Staff did not recommend on three separate occasions the non-conforming sign be removed and install a new sign with the height of eight feet and a full width base, even though the city did not approve the installation of the original sign and was inconsistent with five of the nine criteria.

Our sign was approved and has two inconsistencies.

And those inconsistencies assure a driver exiting the parking lot from either driveway has a clear line of sight of the 145 feet of sidewalk through the opening of the existing sign.

And the reason there has been no accidents in 45 years.

The cost to change the sign phase is 6,000 and can be completed within 30 days.

The cost of a new sign is 15 to 20,000, which includes removing the existing sign within 30 days, require Coastal Commission approval, and take a year to complete.

That the installation of a new sign would require additional communication with staff, which would be difficult for me to do, as I will never understand how anyone could intentionally rezone a property after the coastal commission denied the rezoning, knowing that doing so would assure the property remain vacant indefinitely, denying the property owner income.

The rental income from the property is not my livelihood, but my aid you and your mother's.

And she should have never had to worry about running out of money before we found a tenant for the use of a public restroom, bait and tackle shop, or a dry boat storage.

When staff knew the entire three years of property remained vacant, it was actually zone C2.

Our property would still be vacant today four and a half years had I not discovered that the Coastal Commission had not approved the rezoning.

And Mr.

Hill, the 203 Harbor Land Use Plan is a non-binding guidance policy and not the zoning ordinance.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um any other comments from the public?

We have anyone online.

Uh there are no attendees online.

Maybe uh if we can just remind the public how to participate just in case.

Information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

If you are joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.

And there are still no attendees online.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um any comments, questions?

Um just uh one.

Just for say I remember several months ago at the Fisherman's Cove uh motel on Moonros.

We approved a sign that was uh two standing polls not of a sign without a solid base.

Uh is there, you know, for consistency's sake, is this something that we can consider the style of sign for this location, given the fact that we've approved a similar type of structure for a sign as we did for that motel on Moon Ross.

Absolutely.

So, yeah, as uh Matthew stated, the the sign ordinance allows the ARC to approve signage that exceeds any of the design or numerical criteria within the sign guidelines.

But I'm assuming that would entail some redesign versus approval as is.

No, not necessarily.

I wouldn't think so.

Okay, yeah, the sign the sign as proposed is not consistent with the sign guidelines.

However, the ordinance does uh give the ARC the authority to approve signs that are not in strict conformance with the guidelines.

I guess my opinion on this, and I know this has been a tough one for staff.

Um if they were making any modifications on replacing, you know.

It's the face, yeah.

Uh oh, sorry about that.

We'll start it start again here.

I know this has been a difficult one for staff, but I I guess my opinion on it is if they were making any modifications to the sign beyond replacing the existing face, I might have more of a problem with it, but given the situation that really we're tearing down a sign that's been there for I don't know how long, um, just because someone wants to replace the face of it, and it probably would be uh rather expensive.

Um, I like the visibility on that sidewalk to be able to see underneath it.

So I'd be tempted to just let it let it go on this one.

Yeah, I do remember the public safety aspect of this from the last time we discussed it.

I know the traffic patterns have changed, and so it may not present the same hazard, but I think for the same reasons you cited um and for the precedent that uh Ed cited, can't see why we shouldn't let this one uh be one of the exceptions.

Yeah, I think that's such a busy street, and safety is is certainly a concern as mentioned.

So I don't disagree.

Uh the only thing that it that as a comment, if we do uh decide to approve the permit, that any changes to it going forward that changes either the poll structure or the base of the sign that it has to then come back and uh meet full compliance with current sign guidelines as far as this uh solid base and the height and size requirements.

Yeah, I fully agree with that.

Yeah, but just specifically not the graphic of the sign itself.

Right.

Got it.

Okay, I'll make uh the motion.

I move that we approve uh the sign permit application si-25-0016 for 1099 Del Monte Avenue for the placement of two sign faces at the on an existing pole-mounted sign, uh, with the additional comment that uh if further structural change uh to the sign is made that it uh be brought forward in compliance with current city guidelines.

Before we get a second on that, so in order to approve this, uh you do have to do so with findings.

So I'll just kind of read some general findings and then if y'all accept that uh that can be read into the record as a part of this motion.

Great.

So uh the ARC is uh moving to approve this application, uh, citing that the findings can be made, uh finding one that the proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance.

Uh finding two that the proposal is consistent with all applicable sign guidelines or has been determined by the ARC to better achieve the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance than the strict application of said guidelines, and then finding three that the proposal will be consistent with any other adopted or uh land use documents, including but not limited to the general plan, area or neighborhood plan, design guidelines, or specific plans.

Okay.

Second motion, all in favor?

I motion approved.

That motion passes unanimously and is appealable to the planning commission with forms available online and in the planning office within 10 days.

Super.

Thank you.

Um any other committee comments?

No.

Anything from staff?

Uh, just as noted in the uh agenda packet, uh tentative item scheduled for the August 20th ARC meeting includes uh attendative project of 66 more of Vista Drive, and then also uh a sign permit package for 200 Fred Cain Drive, which is the airport.

Uh and then also noted in there is the five administrative architectural review permits that were approved, uh one permit amendment, and two administrative sign permits issued in July.

That's it.

Okay.

All right.

Um, just uh question.

Do they have an idea of when or a proposed timeline for the transition to the merger of committees that we've talked about previously?

Yes.

Uh so it's been uh so the council has uh, you know, obviously directed staff that they do want to make a merger uh between the ARC and the planning commission.

Uh essentially what's being prepared now is an ordinance that would uh essentially just absorb the duties of the ARC to the planning commission, which wouldn't require necessarily a full uh reworking of our zoning code to remove every reference to the ARC.

We do want to do that ultimately, but in order to expedite this process, we're doing a little bit more of a uh uh quicker version that would uh speed up the process.

So I think the timeline, uh city attorney's office is working with the planning office on that.

So we expect that to come in the next month or so.

My anticipation is probably in September.

Okay.

So sorry, that would go to the city council in September.

It would.

And would that be a motion?

Like would that be like for immediate, or would it be sort of like this is something we're gonna do six months down the road?

I think it'd be as as soon as possible.

So I think typically with uh ordinances for second reading, and then there's a 30-day effective date from the second reading.

So but I think it's their intention to do this sooner rather than later.

Is this our current ARC or is someone missing today?

Eric's missing.

Um but other than that, uh, this is this is it.

Okay, so we have uh one person misses, two people miss, and we're out of forum.

Correct.

Okay, yeah.

So we're kind of razor thin right now for August 20th.

Our planning commission in the same shape.

So yeah.

Super.

All right, great.

Well, I guess we're adjourned, right?