EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On April 4th, 2023, Council was asked to provide early policy direction regarding the potential re-establishment of a Design Review Board (DRB).  After initial discussions, and some high level policy direction, which included affirmation of a desire to move forward with re-establishment, Council requested that staff return the following month with an overview of how the process functioned in the City from 2000 to 2009.  Council also requested staff to return with information about how the City of Monterey’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) currently functions.  Council requested this additional information to be able to provide more specific policy direction about the makeup and structure of the DRB.  This report is intended to give a background on creation and dissolution of the DRB in Carmel, as well as an overview of functions for both the prior Carmel DRB and existing Monterey ARC. 

BACKGROUND

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Review Board

In the year 2000, a formal Design Review Board (DRB) was established in the City’s Municipal Code to review residential and commercial projects involving new construction or major alterations, which did not involve other land use entitlements.  In July of 2009, the DRB was dissolved by Ordinance 2009-07 (Attachment 1) and their duties were combined with those of the City’s Planning Commission.  One of the recitals from the ordinance states that the merger would “create more consistency for applicants in design review decisions made by the City and will result in a reduced workload for City staff”.  The July 2009 staff report (Attachment 2) went into more detail about the reasons for merging the DRB and Planning Commission back together, which included: 1) A high vacancy rate in the village creating a diminished pool of qualified board members; 2) Reducing the workload of staff by having one less board to manage noticing, reports, agenda, and meetings for; 3) Increasing consistency of decision making by having a single review authority due to a concern that the DRB and Planning Commission interpreted the Design Guidelines differently, and; 4) Decrease in revenue from building permits.             

Relevant sections from the previous Municipal Code have been attached to this report which: A) Created the DRB (Attachment 3 - Chapter 2.30); B) Established the duties and powers of the DRB (Attachment 4 - Section 17.52.050), and: C) Laid out the procedures for Design Review by the DRB (Attachment 5 – Chapter 17.58). 

The following bullets provide a high level overview of how the DRB functioned from the year 2000 to 2009:

• Consisted of five (5) members, with a preference (not required) for varied backgrounds in things such as architecture, landscaping, construction, art, and construction.
• Members were required to be residents and electors of the City.
• DRB had full decision making authority over all Track 2 commercial and residential projects consisting of new structures, substantial alterations and projects that did not qualify for administrative review (Track 1/Staff Approval) and did not involve land use permits or variances (Planning Commission).
• DRB meetings were publicly noticed, just like Planning Commission and all other public hearings.
• The DRB’s regulatory focus was on ensuring adherence to the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as laid out in section 17.50.010 of Attachment 3 to this report.
• Projects which included land use matters along with design review (e.g.: Use Permit, Variance, etc.) did not go to the DRB, but rather went only to the Planning Commission for the full decision, which included design review and approval.
• For any projects that required a decision or recommendation by either the Forest and Beach Commission, or the Historic Resources Board, those hearings were required to happen prior to the DRB meeting.
• The DRB conducted two hearings as part of the process: 1) Preliminary Design Concept Review Hearing to consider site design and basic massing of the project, and; 2) Final Design Details Hearing to consider the final development plans, including colors and materials.  (The current Planning Commission follows this same procedure still).
• Decisions of the DRB were appealable directly to the City Council. 

City of Monterey Architectural Review Committee

Established well over 20 years ago, the City of Monterey Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is composed of citizens with expertise and interest in design and architecture. ARC reviews all aspects of a proposed project that deal with the outside appearance.  Some of these include access, on-site circulation, grading, tree impacts and building placement. The Committee also analyzes landscape areas and planting, architectural style, bulk, mass and color to make sure they conform with the City’s adopted guidelines.  Relevant sections from Monterey’s Municipal Code have been attached to this report (Attachment 6) which: A) Establish the ARC’s powers and duties (Article 5), and; B) Lay out the procedures for Design Review by the ARC (Article 25).

The following bullets provide a high level overview of how the ARC functions in the City of Monterey:

• Consists of seven (7) members, with a requirement for at least one (1) of the members to be an architect or person professionally competent in a field related to architecture, unless no such person is available for appointment when the vacancy arises.  The remaining positions are preferred (not required) to have varied backgrounds in things such as architecture, landscaping, construction, art, and construction.
• Regular ARC hearings are held twice (2x) per month.
• The ARC conducts two hearings for each project as part of the process: 1) “Preliminary Review” to evaluate a project’s general siting, form, mass and architectural style, and; 2) “Final Review” to evaluate a project’s exterior finishes, colors, materials, landscaping, lighting, fencing and any other exterior feature.
• ARC has full decision making authority over all design related approvals unless they are “minor” in nature and qualify for administrative/staff review, or involve a historic resource.
• The ARC’s authority also includes review and approval of design for those projects that include land use entitlements (Use Permit, Variance, etc.).
• When a project does include a land use entitlement such as a Use Permit of Variance, the Planning Commission must render a decision on that portion of the project prior to the whole project being considered by the ARC.  When this happens, the Planning Commission does not comment or deliberate on any design elements of a project.
• For projects that involve historic resources, the City’s Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) reviews all elements of the proposed project, including design.  In other words, the ARC does not have authority over design review for projects that involve an historic resource.
• The City of Monterey does not have a Forest and Beach Commission, so the ARC is also the approval authority for tree removal when reviewing development projects.
• Decisions of the ARC are directly appealable to the City Council.  

COUNCIL DIRECTION

Following consideration of the information above, staff is seeking policy guidance from Council on the re-establishment of the DRB and shifting design review authority away from the Planning Commission.  Examples of policy issues to be considered could include but are certainly not limited to things like:

• Whether the DRB is an approving body or just a recommending body to the Planning Commission?
• How to divide duties between the DRB and Planning Commission?
• How would the establishment of a DRB impact the number of steps in the development application process, which sometimes also includes the Forest and Beach Commission, Historic Resources Board?
• What should the DRB appointment criteria look like?
• If most design review shifts away from Planning Commission, what do future commission meetings look like?
• Should the responsibilities of a DRB be combined with those of the Historic Resources Board?