Um, we're here December sixth, twenty twenty-five for our special council meeting.

Go ahead and call the meeting to order, and we'll pass climate time for roll call and share announcements of the public.

Uh, Councilmember Barber.

Present.

Council Member Garcia.

Here.

Council Member Rash.

Here.

Council Member Smith is absent currently.

And Mayor Williamson.

Here.

And public comment and participation information is provided on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov slash agendas.

We don't have any in-person attendees, so I won't read that part.

Consistent with the first funding and the Brown Act, individuals have the right to speak at public meetings, which includes the right to criticize or support city policies or actions.

And Ruby, before you go, um, just for the record, before any hearing started, we have uh Council Smith here with us.

Uh, there is a citizen that's here, so I think there's a new citizen.

They're wanting to come to assign our meeting.

They want to comment make it open comment.

Or the closed session.

For open session.

Okay, I'll go uh.

Yeah, Brad Springer.

Oh, that's good.

Uh thank you.

Uh, as mentioned in this first item this morning is to uh adopt uh the planning commission recommended and approved the first reading of that ordinance submitting the monitoring city code, which would dissolve the architectural review committee and transfer those powers and duties to the planning commission.

Uh just a little bit of background on how this item came about.

As you probably were back in June, the city council considered consolidating various boards, commissions, and committees uh for the purposes of streamlining processes for applicants and to reduce the administrative support needed for those meetings uh on July 23rd.

The city council directed staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments to make that formal commission.

The proposed amendment um affects uh various chapters of the Monterey City Code, including chapters two, 31, 33, 37, and 38.

And uh, and as I mentioned earlier, most notably the proposed amendments would grant the planning commission the authority to review and oversee the architectural review for projects in the city informally dissolving the architectural review committee.

Uh it's Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 25, which establishes the purpose of uh architectural review, and primarily it's to promote orderly development to ensure high quality design that's harmonious with its surroundings and to implement the general plan as well as any neighborhood plans um as well.

Uh so additionally included in the ordinance today is uh is some other provisions that affect other elements that are outside of chapter 38 uh that establishes term limits for various boards and commissions committees, uh with the exception of the appeals hearing appeals hearing board, the disabled access board, the building and housing appeals board, and the measure P and over PNS oversight committee.

Uh this was considered by the planning commission at the November 25th regularly scheduled meeting and was uh uh they did vote in unanimous support of the proposed changes.

Uh in conclusion, staff recommends the city council adopt the planning commission recommendation and approve the first reading of the ordinance submitting the Monterey City Code, dissolve the architectural review committee and transfer the powers and duties to planning commission.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um before the sun moves too far, and now that Ed's here, you want to take another one?

Okay, I just wanted to throw it out.

I didn't want to leave Ed out.

Well, just I think my question is quick.

No, no, it wasn't a quite we don't vote.

Okay, okay.

Okay, okay.

Staff asked for a whole lot.

Okay.

The question that I asked um before, and that was the city attorney's opinion of the legality.

That's the only question that I've heard from the public.

Just perhaps to repeat that.

Oh, sure.

Um, and this pertains to the reference to the architectural review committee in the city charter.

So the architectural review committee was created by the city council by ordinance decades ago.

It wasn't created by a vote of the people.

So the importance of the reference to that committee in the charter is to have all the duties that that committee is supposed to do performed, and that is remaining intact.

We're not abolishing um the architectural reviews role in connection with the charter provision.

So for example, if we were to change the name of the architectural review committee to XYZ committee, that wouldn't be illegal.

It's just changing the name as long as the functions are intact.

And here the functions have just been entirely transferred to the city council um to protect the procedure that's outlined in the charter.

Um, it will have two hearings before the planning commission instead of just one.

Um, but that protects the public's access to the um process.

So um it's all fine.

It's just changing the um it's like a name change essentially.

Thank you.

Yeah, my question was connected to that, but um, sorry, real quick, Dr.

Robert, then you go.

Um so really quickly, um, I've asked this before, so I just wanted to um ask again um the ARC, the people who are uh originally on there have been contacted about this.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, most of our uh members on the ARC were been reappointed to other uh commissions based on the actions of the last council meeting.

Okay, I just want to be clear on the communication.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, the question I had was related to what Jean was asking, and I know we had had discussions a long time ago.

Um it's explained here.

It's it's clearly not a ballot measure because it was never uh a ballot measure referendum.

It's always been by city action through probably in the 40s.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

And then the other thing is how many remaining ARC members do we have?

Or two that were not reappointed to other commissions or committees.

Right, okay.

We no longer have a quorum that exists.

So the ARC, unless there are new members appointed, um, does not have a quorum.

Okay, good.

My only question is um regarding the language for the term limits.

Um is that match the policy to council in that if there's not other applicants that they can still reapply and fill those vacancies?

Or do we have to include um I think it does say that?

If it doesn't, I can change it to that.

Okay.

Um to fill that, yeah.

I may I may have missed it, but okay.

Okay.

Um that's it for me.

With that, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

And so um, do we have somebody that's tracking time?

I know.

Okay, perfect.

So you can see and then where's the best?

Oh, okay.

Sorry, it's five.

Good morning.

Okay, city council.

Staff is blocking a ballot measure from the voters to decide if the language in charter section 8.1, appendix A should be amended to transfer ARC approvals required for a VAF to the planning commission by recommending the city council adopt an ordinance that amends the visitor accommodation facility district.

Oh, excuse me, in chapter 38 of the city zoning ordinance, transferring ARC approvals required for a VAF to the planning commission.

Charter Section 1.4 states the city council's legislative powers are limited and restricted to the charter and the state constitution.

Charter Section 8.1 states appendix A and titled VAF zone sets forth the development standards, uses and procedures for said zone and the development standards and related related matters may be amended only by an amendment of appendix A of this charter.

The purpose of for the city council's legislative power being limited and restricted to the charter is to protect the voters' power.

It's by precluding the city council from undoing what the voters have done without the voters' approval and the adoption of an ordinance amending the VAF district, transferring ARC approvals to the planning commission, is telling the voters that a staff recommendation can undo what they intended and approved.

The attorney who wrote measure E in 1986, specifically included in charter section 8.1 that the development standards and related matters could only be amended by amending appendix A of this charter in order to prevent exactly what staff is now proposing from occurring, which is transferring ARC approvals to the planning commission by an ordinance that amends the VAF district without the language in the charter being amended with a ballot measure approved by a majority of the voters.

Staff can state the ARC was created in 1960, and the proposed amendment reassigns tasks from the ARC to the planning commission.

But at the end of the day, the ordinance proposes to amend the VAF district in chapter 38 of the city zoning ordinance, transferring ARC approvals to the planning commission that violates the charter and not what the voters intended.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other public comment, we'll go ahead and bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Oh second.

We're moving seconded.

Any other discussion?

So I guess it's uh a question of is there any comment the city attorney might have with the question of the ARC role with the VAF versus now what we propose would be then the planning commission would take over that role.

Right.

Um I agree a hundred percent with Ms.

Foreman that you can't amend the development standards by ordinance that would require a vote of the people and is not amending the development standards.

It's just a name change.

So all of the substance is the same, and to um it would be elevating form of or substance to say that a name change would require a vote of the people.

That's not the the intent of the charter is being honored with this action today.

Um and the development standards are are not changing, they still are intact.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor, aye, any opposed motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll go ahead and take public comment on closed session.

Item number two on the agenda is a public employment uh appointment pursuance to the code section 54957B1.

Unrepresented employee, respective city manager, candidate interviews.

Any public comment on this item?

We have no attendees on Zoom, so no.

Awesome.

Awesome.

Thank you, Clemenside.

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the closed session.

Thank you, everybody.