Monterey council approves first reading to dissolve Architectural Review Committee, shift duties to Planning Commission

The Monterey City Council on Dec. 6 approved the first reading of an ordinance that would dissolve the Architectural Review Committee and move its review authority to the Planning Commission.

Staff from the Community Development Department told the council the ordinance would amend multiple sections of the Monterey City Code — including chapters 2, 31, 33, 37 and 38 — and would transfer ARC responsibilities to the Planning Commission. "Staff recommends the city council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and approve the first reading of the ordinance," the presenter said.

Council members asked whether the transfer would conflict with charter language that references the ARC, particularly for the Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) zone. The city attorney advised that the ARC had been created by ordinance decades ago and not by ballot, and that the charter requirement is to preserve the functions assigned to that committee rather than to preserve the committee's name. The attorney said the proposal would preserve the substantive development standards and the public process, noting that cases would receive two hearings before the Planning Commission instead of one. "It's just changing the name as long as the functions are intact," the attorney said.

During council discussion, members asked whether existing ARC members had been notified. Staff said most ARC members had been reappointed to other commissions and that only two ARC members remained, leaving the ARC without a quorum.

A member of the public objected during the public-comment period, urging the council not to approve the ordinance by council action. Citing charter section 8.1 and appendix A, the commenter said transferring ARC approvals to the Planning Commission by ordinance would "block a ballot measure from the voters" and would "violate the charter" and voters' intent, referencing the attorney for Measure E (1986).

After discussion, a motion to approve the ordinance's first reading was moved and seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote; the record shows four members voting in favor and one member absent. The council then opened the next agenda item, a closed-session discussion on public employment (city manager candidate interviews); no public comment was offered on that item and the meeting was adjourned.

What this means: If the ordinance proceeds through its second reading and final adoption, the Planning Commission would assume ARC review functions now handled by the ARC and some boards and commission term-limit provisions in several code chapters would be formalized. The city attorney characterized the change as preserving existing standards and public hearings rather than altering substantive development rules.

The council did not record a named mover or seconder for the motion in the transcript; the voice-vote outcome was recorded as "motion passes unanimously." The ordinance number and effective dates were not specified in the meeting transcript.