How do we give us a hug How do we give us a hug Especially because my voice.

All right.

Well, thank you everybody for your patience.

Let's uh start by taking attendance, Spencer.

Commissioner, committee member Hunter.

Committee member Vice Chair Palmer.

Chair Turgeon.

Present.

And committee member Polly present.

And we have committee member Sanders absent.

Staff present today.

Our planning manager Hill, Principal Planner Roveri, Principal Planner Sabdo, and myself recording Secretary Arganbright.

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

Remember commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and the 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.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, let's open the consent agenda.

Does any member of the public or committee have any comments or would like to discuss a consent item?

No.

And there are no attendees online currently.

Super.

I move that uh we approve uh the consent agenda, including the uh minutes from the previous meeting.

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

And it passes.

Approved.

Um, so then we will open public comments for items not on the agenda.

Let me know attendees currently online.

Super.

Okay, then we will open the first um item.

Pardon me.

Uh so we're gonna consider 200 Fred Kane Drive, assigned permit application SI-25-0009.

Yes, thank you.

I will share screen and bring up the presentation.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Turgeon.

Uh, as the chair mentioned, this uh first uh public hearing request is going to be for the signed permit application SI25009 for freestanding signs at 200 Fred Kane Drive.

And the staff recommendation is to adopt a resolution to approve sign permit application with conditions of approval.

So just to catch everyone up, and I'll move this out of the way a little bit.

Uh the site, uh 200 Fred Kane Drive, I think most are familiar with this site is the Monterey Regional Airport, which the uh entire property encompasses about 477 acres.

However, only a small portion of that uh property is actually located in the city's jurisdiction as shown here in the red hatching on this uh aerial photo.

Uh just the southern 4.3 acres uh identified there, which includes as part of their proposed development is uh where their existing temporary long-term parking is and where their proposed permanent uh long-term parking will be located uh after reconstruction.

Uh this portion of the site to be developed is an airport safety zone seven.

So uh as mentioned, the proposal includes four vehicle-oriented freestanding signs.

So, as you may see on some of the plans, there's an uh additional signs that are shown on some of the site plans.

However, I'll note that those lie outside of the city's jurisdiction, so that's why they're not being considered as a part of this request.

Uh what is within the city's jurisdiction is the four vehicle-oriented free standing signs.

Uh, one in which is proposed to be internally illuminated, and all of the signage is associated with the uh new passenger terminal being constructed at the airport in association with the new uh reconstruction and expansion of the long-term parking lot.

Um, so top two signs show uh the proposed signs that are going to be located at near the intersection of uh Almstead Road and Highway 68, and then the freestanding sign that's gonna be within it's a little bit washed out on this site plan due to the resolution of the screen, but that's actually located within a proposed roundabout that will be at the intersection of Garden Road and Almstead Road.

Two additional signs are uh proposed, and these are more uh directional signs.

Uh, one is well within the site uh of the uh proposed parking lot, and one is uh within the right-of-way along Almstead Road, and we'll get into those details of those signs in just a moment.

So the first sign, sign XM01 is the sign proposed to be located within the proposed roundabout.

Uh it is a free standing sign with internal illumination.

Uh Halo axon lighting proposed with three uh individual letter components as shown here, uh, with the elevation, and then also a side elevation of each one of those letter components is also shown on this slide.

The sign totals about uh 312.6 square feet.

Um, and is as I mentioned, this would be proposed within the roundabout uh that's gonna be at the intersection of Garden Road and Olmsted.

The second freestanding sign that's being proposed, also located uh in the right-of-way is sign XM 02.

Uh, it totals 37 square feet and is not illuminated.

This would replace the existing sign that's near the intersection of Almstead Road and Highway 68 that most of us are familiar with today.

Um, so this would be a replacement of that, but also located within the right-of-way.

And then uh for the vehicle directional signs, we have sign XW01.

This is also located in the right-of-way, uh, is non-illuminated and is going to total 24.6 square feet, and is depicted here in its location along Almstead Road, further in further along Almstead Road than the uh sign at the intersection.

And then sign X W0.

This is uh located more internal to the parking lot, provides exit signage for those who are exiting the parking lot, measures 24.6 square feet and is also non-illuminated.

So the findings for approval of these signs uh is our typical sign findings uh as shown here on this slide, and that's that the proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance, uh, that the proposal is consistent with the guidelines, or the ARC may determine that the um uh proposed proposal better achieves the purpose and objective than strict application of the guidelines.

And then the third that the proposal is consistent with the general plan.

There are additional findings that are required for this request, given that three of the four signs being proposed are located within the city's right-of-way.

Uh, and those findings that are required for right-of-way encroachment include that the special circumstances applicable to the property in terms of location and surroundings are met, uh, that the uh sign shall be subject to such conditions as will assure the permit will not constitute a grant of special privilege, and that the accroachment permit shall not be granted if the applicant's inability to post a sign on private property uh is because of any of the following, which includes uh design that could have been avoided by an alternative development plan is the result of an action taken by the current property owner prior or prior owner of the property, or if the property can serve as a site for a sign with access to public view that is in the same or better than access enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or under identical zoning class.

And then additional findings for continued additional findings for right-of-way encroachment include that the following conditions be imposed on any encroachment permits for signage.

That's that design review pursuant to 31-5 is completed, which is what we're doing today at this meeting, uh, and that the city traffic engineer review for traffic and safety hazards.

And then also that the sign must otherwise be in compliance with this chapter in the sign guidelines.

And then there's a last uh finding that in the event that one or more of the conditions imposed on the sign is violated that the permit may be revoked at any time.

So we'll walk through those findings briefly.

So the first finding whether or not the proposal achieves the purpose and objectives of the sign ordinance.

This finding staff believes this finding can be made.

The proposal does not appear to constitute a proliferation of signs that would detract or obscure the scenic qualities of the city.

The signage serves to identify a transportation facility that's integral to the region, and the design would not be considered extraneous.

And it's in the proposal is designed to be integral visual part of the site and building design, and the quality of the design equals or surpasses that of the building and site.

Second finding is whether or not the proposal is consistent with the side guidelines or the ARC has determined that it better achieves the purpose and objectives of the signed ordinance than the strict application of the guidelines.

Staff believes that this finding can be made, but the ARC would have to make this determination.

I've highlighted here the inconsistencies that are included.

So starting with the freestanding sign XM01, obviously the two uh 162 square foot proposed sign there would exceed the maximum uh recommended 50 square feet uh for freestanding signs.

Uh the sign is also totals 13 feet six inches in height, where eight feet is recommended.

Staff believes that the proposed sign is appropriate for the site, and that the sign size would be proportionally reflective of the scale of development and the airport facility.

Uh and additionally, the uh additional inconsistency is that the request includes two freestanding signs along the same street front inch where only one is recommended.

Uh staff believes that this is appropriate and that the additional signage would provide the necessary assistance with wayfinding at a regional transportation facility that is quite large and includes multiple buildings and ancillary uses and is often traveled by visitors from out of town.

Continuing with the inconsistencies with associated with finding number two, that one of the freestanding signs, XM01, would be internally illuminated with cool white coloring, where lighting is recommended to be shielded and utilize warm tones.

Staff believes that this inconsistency is appropriate for this proposed sign and that it will be halo lit, which will minimize the glare and uplighting around the airport, and that the signage would actually match the existing branding and be cohesive in aesthetics and design with the remainder of the complex and other signage that will be employed on site.

Additionally, the request includes two freestanding signs.

Oh, I actually already covered that one.

Sorry.

Finding number three, that the proposal is consistent with any adopted land use document, including but not limited to the Monterey General Plan and any applicable neighborhood plans or design guidelines.

Staff believes this finding can be made as well.

The proposed signage is consistent with the general plan and that it supports the public transportation facility.

Urban design element policy F9 discourages the use of high levels of ambient light and to maintain the night skies where the stars can be seen.

The proposed project does not include up lighting and the proposed lighting would be consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan.

And now we get into the findings that are required for signs specifically that involve the encroachment into the city right-of-way that we went over a little bit earlier.

So, as a summary, the sign encroachment permit can only be granted when there's a special circumstance that's applicable to the property in terms of location or surroundings.

Staff believes that this finding can be made.

The proposed locations of the signs within the right-of-way are selected to be the most visible and effective for visitors and users of the facility, and that the proposed locations will serve as an attractive identifier for the facility while also providing the most effective of visibility for prime from primary corridors in which visitors would be entering the facility.

Finding five is an encroachment permit granted under this section shall be subject to conditions that will assure that the permit will not constitute a grant of special privilege.

Specifically, wouldn't be grant a special privilege for other properties in the same vicinity or zone.

The property is actually unzoned uh as it lies today and has no general plan designation, so there's not really a concern with any other property within a similar zone having a grant of special privilege since this is the only unzoned property in the vicinity.

Additionally, it's the only regional transportation facility of its scale in the city or in the vicinity of the city.

The proposed sign is serves as identification and directional signage for a public regional transportation facility.

And then additionally that the proposed locations of the signs within the city's right of way are selected to be the most visible and most effective for visitors and users of the facility.

Finding six is that a sign encroachment permit shall uh not be granted if the applicant's inability to post a sign on private property.

Uh so that the messages viewable by the public is due to any of the following, or could be avoided with an alternative development plan as noted in the staff report.

Uh staff believes that this finding can be made, and that while there are other areas of the airport facility that could house the proposed signage, those locations would be inadequate and inferior in regard to the visibility and effectiveness of the signage.

Uh, the proposed locations of the signs within the city's right-of-way were selected to be the most visible and effective for visitors of the facility.

And then finding seven is that the following conditions shall be imposed on all sign encroachment permits.

Uh design review pursuant to 31 5.

That references the design review of the ARC and our sign ordinance.

So that's what we're actually doing today.

With this action, we would be achieving that uh first bullet A there.

Uh bullet B is that the city traffic engineer review for traffic and safety hazards, which is uh a special condition that we'll get into later, but they have preliminarily reviewed this sign and have not found any traffic or safety issues with any of the proposed signs, and that the sign must otherwise be in compliance with this chapter and the signed guidelines.

Uh staff does believe that this finding can be made.

Um, the ARC has considered or is considering the proposed design today, and the request has been reviewed by the traffic engineering division for safety hazards, and all other provisions of the signed ordinance and city side guide side guide signed guidelines are accounted for within these findings.

In general, finding eight is for revocation, and that just states that in the event that any of these conditions uh are violated, that the community development director, after notice to the permittee with an opportunity to respond, may thereafter revoke the permit for the encroachment permit, which is pretty standard.

The applicant will be required to abide by all conditions of approval imposed on the permit.

As I mentioned, we do have a special condition as the roundabout is a proposed roundabout in the city's right of way that's still under review right now for final design with the city's public works department.

So we did add one special condition that just allows staff to approve minor modifications to the final design and placement based on any uh changes that come out of the design and review of the actual roundabout.

Uh so that way that if uh small changes, uh numerical changes are made or small tweaks to the placement, they wouldn't have to come back to ARC for that approval.

Staff would have the ability to approve that.

And with that, the staff recommendation is to adopt a resolution to approve signed permit application SI 25009 for the installation of four vehicle-oriented freestanding signs as shown in exhibit A to the resolution with the conditions of approval included in the draft resolution and the special condition as noted today.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

And the applicant's also present.

Does the committee have any questions?

No.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

No.

No.

Okay.

Wow, that's a first.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any public comment?

Um, can you remind the public how to participate online?

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.

There are still no attendees online.

Okay.

Um, okay.

Please state your name.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm O'Neill Caldy, resident of Monterey and frequent user of the airport.

Um, my one concern would be the vision line from the vehicles so that the sign's not in the way of a roundabout.

Depending on what type of vehicle you're in.

If you're in a coop or you're in a big track, how is that going to affect any traffic flow and safety?

So I would be interested in just seeing an illustration or any type of animation, maybe on that.

Just because we're looking at I understand the difference between the eight foot and the 13 foot, and perhaps that's the clearance that's being allowed, but I think it would be interesting to see a sight line on that.

Okay.

Not to drop your project, but just the concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any comments?

Yeah, so uh our traffic engineering division has reviewed this.

I don't know that you know an animation was submitted or has been prepared for this, but they have reviewed it for sight line issues.

Like I said earlier, the actual engineering for the roundabout design has is under review right now and is being worked out.

So uh there is the possibility that some of that might change, but the uh with the conditions of approval of this requiring encroachment permits, this will have a secondary wave of review uh by our public works department whenever the encroachment permit comes through after the roundabout's been fully designed, and they check for all those things like sideline issues and any other traffic safety hazards, and with the addition of the special condition that has been introduced uh today that would allow staff to make any final revisions that need to be made to the design of the sign.

Okay, so the safety will be again reviewed once the circle is approved or denied.

Super, thank you.

Um committee discussion.

So the the closest public comment then.

I'm so sorry.

Okay, yes, we'll close public public comments now.

Yeah, um, as we all know, airports have need a lot of wayfinding.

The large facility, it's a signature business in that district.

So I think it's deserving of a large and creative um attractive gateway.

This one's really modern and creative.

Um they're already investing in a remodel and broad it, it matches the aesthetics and the branding.

Um, and I'm um reassured about the traffic engineering department will make sure that it's safe.

Um so I think it's a fantastic proposal.

Okay, anything else?

No.

No comments.

Yes, okay.

So that I would uh have a motion to approve uh sign permit application si 25-0009 um with uh conditions of approval.

All in favor?

Aye, the motion passes.

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

All right.

Any other uh committee comments?

No.

Yeah, so just quick the planning office update is included in the agenda report.

We do have uh an update from our most recent city council meeting.

Uh, as noted in the report was an update from the August 5th uh city council meeting in which they adopted the first reading of our uh SB9 ordinance, which is uh revisions or amendments to chapter 33 and chapter 38 of the zoning code, uh actually went for second reading um uh last night at City Council and was uh passed there as well.

So that will become effective 30 days from last night.

Um also noted in the uh planning office update are tentative items that are scheduled for our September 3rd ARC meeting, uh which includes uh project at 66 Marvis to drive and a project at 1599 Jocelyn Canyon.

And then we also uh as always we noted our administrative architectural review permits and sign permits that were issued uh in between our from our last meeting to today.

What we have.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, we're good.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Right?

I know.