7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952.2, the City Council Agenda for January 26, 1999 was posted on the door of the City Council Chambers, Third and ‘H’ Streets on January 21, 1999.

Mayor Rocha called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.

Present: Council Members Davis, Sudario and Mayor Rocha.
Absent: Council Members Freitas and Soliz (both arrived late).

Public Comments - none

Mayor Rocha adjourned the meeting to the Closed Sessions.

Closed Sessions

1. Conference with Labor Negotiator. Agency Negotiator, Yanie Chaumette, Director of Personnel/Assistant City Attorney. Employee Organization: Antioch Police Officer Association. This Closed Session is authorized by Government Code Section 54957.6.

2. Public Employee Discipline. This Closed Session is authorized by Government Code Section 54957.

Mayor Rocha called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M., and City Clerk Martin called the roll:

Present:  Council Members Freitas, Soliz, Davis, Sudario, and Mayor Rocha

Rusty Cuave, speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Animal Services, invited the Council and Public to attend the "1999 Adopt a Pet and Open House Day." He noted the event would take place on Saturday, January 30, l999 at the Antioch Animal Shelter from 1:00 to 3:00 P.M.

Reggie Moore discussed the division between union and non-union workers. He noted the same issues are important to union people that are important to non-union people, such as: making a "living wage," the local hire issue and affordable healthcare. He emphasized that everyone needs to work together to come up with solutions to these problems.

Jean Kuberra asked for an announcement concerning tonight’s closed session, noting Council is required by law to inform the community of any decisions they have made. She stated she would like to see the Council make decisions that would turn Antioch into a diverse magnet employment center, that would reverse the commute and boost the economy by generating more tax dollars. She went on to discuss home prices in Antioch, noting she would like to determine what the demographics are in Antioch, using Antioch’s earnings and salaries and not include other parts of the county. She further noted she would like to see road repairs prioritized. City Attorney Galstan stated the Brown Act requires an announcement when final decisions are made. He then noted Council gave direction to negotiators, but no final decisions were made in tonight’s closed session.

Larry Howard stated he and former Council Member Wilhelmina Andrade formed a new show on Channel 25 called "Focus on the Truth." He noted they have been focusing on the issue of scam apartment complexes, where apartment owners choose not to maintain their properties, creating blight. He felt the city is contributing to the creation of these blighted apartments by not enforcing codes, allowing buyers to use the public to renovate the apartments, while the buyers file for tax exemptions.

Sandra Golightly announced that on Sunday, November 8, l998 the Antioch Youth Football Mascots and Cheerleaders participated in the Diablo Valley Youth Football Conference Cheer Competition. She commended all the girls and thanked them for being outstanding representatives of Antioch. She noted 70 teams competed for 12 positions, and Antioch won seven of those positions.

Andrew Epps and Justin Troxell, representing Antioch Regional Theatre of LMC, presented complementary tickets to the Council, and invited the public to attend their musical performance at the Nick Rodriguez Community Center on Saturday, January 30, l999 at 2:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M.

Dale Peterson stated he had gone by the Quail Lodge construction site, and noted a large number of out-of-state and county vehicle licenses. He further noted there was also a campsite village, where it appeared the workers were staying. He expressed concern that out-of-town/state workers were taking jobs away from local workers. He further noted it is against state law to have a motor vehicle that is not registered in the state of California, working on a California job site. City Attorney Galstan stated there is an Ordinance prohibiting anyone from living or residing anywhere other than in appropriately zoned districts. City Manager Ramsey noted they have looked into this matter, and it appears the workers associated with the "encampment" are working on the Church site on the top of the hill behind Quail Lodge, and they would be notified they must "de-camp."

Evelyn Centeno and members of the John Benoza family, representing the John Benoza Trust Fund Committee, thanked Council for providing reward money for the capture and conviction of the person responsible for the death of John Benoza. They noted the effort had paid off. The perpetrator had been caught, and would be arraigned on February 2, l999. The family also thanked the Police Department and the community for their support.

Wilhelmina Andrade stated she was very upset that the Council adopted the resolutions pertaining to the Sycamore Woods apartments. She discussed Private Activity Bonds and her opposition to Joint Powers Agreements. She then urged the Council to rescind the resolutions.

Robert Kilbourne discussed the out-of-state vehicles at the Quail Lodge construction site, and suggested Council go back and review the public hearing on the Quail Lodge project. He noted that at that hearing the developer was asked about local hire, and assured the Council they would use local workers on the project. He felt the City should initiate a report to determine if the developer has used local workers, and whether or not local businesses have been allowed to participate in the project.

1. COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

On motion from Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council, acting on a request from staff, unanimously removed Item D from the Consent Calendar.

On motion by Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously approved the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item A, which was removed for further discussion.

ITEM A -- Jean Kuberra asked this item be continued, to allow her time to review her comments in the minutes of January 12, 1999. Council Member Sudario referred to Page 3, Paragraph 1, stating she was talking about FUA #2 and not Bear Ridge Property, and requested City Clerk Martin make the change. Council Member Freitas suggested Ms. Kuberra review the minutes during the meeting and Council would approve the item at the end of the night.

Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 8:02 P.M. The Council reconvened at 8:18 P.M., with all members present.

9. A.  ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH
   MC BAIL COMPANY (McBail/Sand Creek Ranch)

B.  ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 3 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING MAP) FOR THE VICINITY OF THE NORTH SIDE OF LONE TREE WAY, JUST WEST OF EMPIRE AVENUE (Sand Creek Ranch)

Deputy Director of Community Development gave a brief overview of the project.

City Attorney Galstan presented the staff report dated January 21, l999, recommending that the City Council: 1) Adopt the Ordinance relating to the Development Agreement; and 2) Adopt the rezoning Ordinance.

Arne Simonsen, President of Simonsen Mechanical Services, stated he was speaking in opposition to any changes to the Agreement made on November 24, l998. He stated that the City of Antioch is attempting to institute prevailing wages by making a requirement of sub-contractors in the McBail project to participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program. He felt the unions are attempting to require all contractors to participate in this indentured apprenticeship program. He presented Council with two similar court cases, and suggested Council meet with the City Attorney to review the cases before they make any changes.

Mark Brady, member of Antioch’s Labor to Labor Committee, felt the building trades have tried their hardest to come to some kind of agreement the Council could support, yet they kept meeting stone walls. He stated they want local hire and some kind of agreement that has teeth to it, and didn’t feel the developer cared about these issues.

Aram Hodess, representing the Contra Costa Building Trades, stated that all they have asked is for Council to ensure this Development Agreement would guarantee real training to Antioch residents with one apprentice for each employer. He noted they have compromised on much of the language, but feel there should be liquidated damages of up to $100 per day for violations. He urged Council to reject the project, unless the building trades local preference program language is incorporated into the Development Agreement.

Paul Crossen noted he is in favor of the McBail/Sand Creek Project, and felt the developer should be allowed to move on to the next phase. He felt commercial development is crucial to Antioch, and expressed concern that if McBail was held up again it would send a negative message to other developers that may want to develop commercial property in Antioch.

Steve Umbenhower, President of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 342, referred to the local preference agreement, stating that if McBail would not make any concessions, Antioch would not have any local hires, and the project should be turned down. He emphasized that our economy needs local jobs that pay more than minimum wage if Antioch is going to offer residents careers and not "just jobs."

Patrick Dennis, carpenter, felt the developer would not put forth an effort to use local hires if the project were approved as presented.

Wilhelmina Andrade stated she is opposed to this project. She expressed concern the project would add to the problems on Highway 4 and other quality of life issues facing Antioch residents. She did not feel any residential development should be approved until the situation on Highway 4 improves.

Dale Peterson stated he has attended all the meetings on this project regarding the local hire agreement, and felt job training was the key issue and should be the primary goal of this community. He felt City staff has not been very supportive stating the last revision excluded the training program entirely. He felt the Agreement was not ready, and until something is worked out that will benefit the community, the project should not go forward.

Larry Howard stated he has a lot of sympathy for the labor unions that have come to speak and pointed out the deficiencies in the Agreement regarding apprenticeship programs, but felt there were larger issues here. He felt jobs aren’t defined in this Agreement, and noted the construction jobs are only temporary. He noted the type of jobs this project is suppose to create should be defined before approval. He further stated that most people who know the details of this proposal would like to see a referendum.

Norma Hernandez stated FUA #2 does not have a Developer Agreement or entitlements and should be stopped while we have the opportunity to stop the growth in Antioch. She discussed problems she felt were caused by over development including overcrowding in the schools and on Highway 4. She further noted the commercial property of this development would be built on a 100-year flood plain, and stated she has contacted FEMA and was told there has not been any application for building permits.

Jean Kuberra stated her opposition to this project, and felt Council should ask how this Agreement will interact or impede the competitive contract and sub-contract bidding process, what is a fair profit margin for a developer, and how would the Building Inspectors of Antioch guarantee quality housing. She felt government has no legitimate role in determining who should be employed in private construction.

Reggie Moore noted land in Antioch is becoming more and more valuable. The land is disappearing due to development, and felt we need to slow down until we determine what we are going to do with the limited amount of land that we have left.

Mike Malody discussed the encampment at the Quail Lodge Project, noting most of the people are there to build a church and school. He noted most of the people were working for free, to provide a service to the church who, in return, is trying to feed the poor in Antioch, provide counseling for disturbed people, help the youth, and a multitude of other services the City cannot afford to offer. He agreed they shouldn’t break the law by staying there, but felt there are times when situations need to be looked at on a case by case basis. He further stated the government should not be dictating who should hire whom, nor is it the developers' job to train employees.

Robert Kilbourne felt the idea was to provide jobs for our local residents and participation for our local businesses. He emphasized the importance of our youth having something to look forward to in the way of meaningful jobs, and providing them with training to become viable, tax-paying citizens. He emphasized the Agreement needed "teeth" to ensure local, qualified workers receive jobs.

Carl Grandin, Member of Steamfitters Local 342, noted his opposition to the project. He discussed an incident that occurred on Highway 4 involving an ambulance, stating the ambulance was stuck on the Highway in commute traffic. He felt it is time to slow down and build the infrastructure before building anymore developments.

Mike Gallagher, representing McBail Company, noted McBail has been building in Antioch since 1976. He stated the staff report was very accurate on the events that had occurred since January 12, l999. There were no negotiations between McBail and the unions. He further stated their signature on the Development Agreement of November 24, l998, is what they would like to have approved. He went on to discuss issues in the Local Preference Program, concerning apprenticeship programs, liquidated damages and how they will be administered, need to be worked out by the unions to make it acceptable to McBail. He emphasized this project is not just about construction jobs, but permanent jobs that would be created by the commercial development attached to this project. He urged Council to complete the application of this project.

Mayor Rocha closed the public hearing.

Council Member Sudario stated that this project would create 600 homes and add 1,200 additional cars to Highway 4, with no funding mechanism to widen the Highway, or funding to take care of the health and safety issues associated with the Highway. She further stated FUA #2 is sprawled, radical growth, and would do nothing but reduce property values. She felt that FUA #2 should be completely commercial development, and should not be built until our current annexed areas are built out. She discussed her concerns for the commercial development being built on a flood plain, noting that without proper care it could result in serious flooding. She further commented that police and arterial roads were not mitigated under this Agreement, and the required Municipal Service Fee was not adequate to cover the costs of additional police services. She stated this is an economic development scam, and felt Council needs to stop and rezone the land for commercial use only.

Council Member Soliz emphasized the importance of having provisions in the Development Agreement to address the issue of local workers. He stated the issue is "what is best for the entire community" and that is a need to engage in meaningful economic development that would provide the City with tax revenue. He noted the long-term benefit is the economic development that will accompany this project. He clarified the initial approval of this project includes 333 homes, with the requirement there would be two permanent jobs per home created, before the second phase of the project could be approved. He noted the marketplace would decide the type of businesses to locate there, and it is important to create an environment conducive to business development.

Council Member Freitas stated this project is unique, and believed the concept of building infrastructure in the area of Lone Tree Way, building infrastructure to take care of potential flooding problems and creating new jobs had been provided for in this Agreement. He further stated he could not support a referendum if this project is approved, as it would further divide the community. He felt it was the responsibility of Council to develop a comprehensive method to develop a process to determine how our City is going to grow in the foreseeable future. He stated he wanted to move forward, and was prepared to debate the issues with the developer and the trade unions in order to reach a compromise.

Council Member Davis stated he supports this project because it has housing tied to both jobs and economic development. He asked for a 10-15 minute recess to allow the developer and the Labor Council representatives to meet and try to come to an agreement before Council voted on the item.

Mayor Rocha noted she has looked at the language developed by the building trades, felt items B and C were very similar to the language created by the McBail Company, and noted the debatable item is Item A, which deals with the issue of apprenticeship programs. She stated she would not support any project does not include a job ratio, meaning either construction jobs or commercially developed jobs. She felt this project offers both construction jobs and commercial jobs, and asked that some sort of agreement be worked out tonight. She stated she would recess to give the parties one more chance to reach an agreement, and if an agreement were not met, the Council would take action on the project.

Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 10:03 P.M. The Council reconvened at 10:40 P.M., with all members present.

City Manager Ramsey summarized the areas of the Agreement that were agreeable to both parties, and Item A, where there was no agreement on how to define an acceptable apprenticeship program. He noted it would be the requirement of the City to determine what is an acceptable apprenticeship program. However, he was concerned that should the City presume what is and is not an acceptable apprenticeship program, when the state has already indicated what it considers acceptable, the City would then be the position of potential litigation, which would be counterproductive to what the City is trying to accomplish. He stated it is the City’s position that we need to eliminate any reference to any number of apprentices graduating from the program, and instead rely on the State's certification of the program alone. He further noted the language is not acceptable because of the liability the City would incur if we define a program that narrowly. He suggested one solution would be to have the labor groups hold the City harmless, in the event there was litigation noting, however, that during discussion there was no interest in doing so.

City Attorney Galstan discussed the legalities and process of adopting the Ordinance. City Manager Ramsey discussed the concern for administering compliance with the Developer Agreement, noting there is no funding mechanism to support it, nor does the Public Works staff have the additional employees to carry it out. He emphasized that this issue is something that will need to be worked out.

By Council consensus, acting on the advice of City Attorney Galstan, the Public Hearing was reopened.

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Freitas, the Council instructed staff to bring back changes to the Council meeting of February 9, l999 for reintroduction of the Ordinances. The following changes to the Local Preference Program, 5A would be: the exclusion of the portion of sentence #4 that reads "regardless of whether a program is in compliance with the graduation qualifier," and; the exclusion of sentence #3 that reads, "These programs must have graduated at least 10 apprentices annually, in the year prior to the award of contract, on a state-wide basis." Items B and C be included as had been discussed and agreed upon by both parties. The motion was carried by the following vote:

AYES: Freitas, Soliz, Davis, Rocha
NOES: Sudario

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council unanimously moved Item 6 before Item 2.

6. DECISION WHETHER TO RECONSIDER CONDITIONS OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF HILLCREST VIEW APARTMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF KODIAK STREET (UP-98-11A)

Community Development Deputy Director Carniglia presented the staff report dated January 21, l999, noting staff recommends the City Council Deny the request for reconsideration of a 64-unit apartment complex located at the north end of Kodiak Street.

PROPONENT:

Eric Hasseltine, representing Town Park Investments, discussed the history of the project and the process of the meetings between himself and the neighborhood representatives. He stated he is requesting the reconsideration, based on the fact that they feel the process was violated when Council was informed the two parties had reached a compromise, when in fact they had not. He discussed the meeting that took place with both parties to work out the design for the parking cul-de-sacs, noting that he submitted a design at that time which was revised by the City Engineer. He noted the parties were in two separate rooms during this meeting, and at this time they made compromises, which he felt were based on the design made by the City Engineer. He stated he was unaware the residents had also submitted a design, and that it was not presented to him during the meetings when they were working out a compromised design. He emphasized that he believed they had reached a compromised agreement, only to find out the parties were talking about two different designs.

City Attorney Galstan gave a brief overview of what he felt took place at the meeting. He concurred both parties were in separate rooms, but noted that at the end of the session everyone came together in one room. He felt it was concluded the design of the residents and the City Engineer, both had merit and both designs would go to the Council with a recommendation the two designs be blended, and the ultimate decision for the design would be made by the City Engineer. He stated that between the language that was faxed to Mr. Hasseltine and the comments made by himself and the residents at the Council Meeting on November 24, l998, should have led to the understanding two different designs were being considered.

OPPONENTS:

Chris Crow, Michael Trapani, Dan Portnoff, Mike Miller, Wesley Poynter, William Quinn, Larry Howard, Shelley King and Norma Hernandez, all noted their opposition to the request for reconsideration. They urged Council to stand by the original compromise, and support the residents. They felt Mr. Hasseltine had been made aware the residents made the design.

Council Member Freitas asked Council Member Soliz and Mayor Rocha what their recollection was of the Council meeting. Mayor Rocha stated she does not recall the residents’ drawing, but did remember the City Engineer’s plan. However, she noted she voted in favor of the residents because they had taken the time to work on this issue to reach a compromise. Council Member Soliz stated he was sympathetic to the residents concerns regarding traffic and felt the City Engineer’s plan was more workable. He further stated he had voted for the City Engineer’s plan.

On motion by Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council denied the request for reconsideration. The motion was carried by the following vote:

AYES: Soliz, Davis, Sudario, Rocha
NOES: Freitas

2. INTRODUCTION OF PRIDE IN ANTIOCH AWARD PROGRAM AND BUSINESS RECOGNITION PROGRAM

4. RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF THE CITY’S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO AT&T CORP.

6. DISCUSSION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FEE

On motion by Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council unanimously continued items 2, 4, and 7 to the next City Council meeting of February 9, l999.

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE "U"

1. DETERMINE FORMAT OF STUDYING IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE "U"

2. RESOLUTION INSTRUCTING STAFF REGARDING A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS PENDING COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS WITH MEASURE "U"

City Attorney Galstan presented the staff report on Item 3A, dated January 20, l999, recommending Council direct staff as to Council’s choice of format.

City Attorney Galstan presented the staff report on Item 3B, dated January 19, l999, recommending Council adopt the resolution.

Mark Brady, Antioch Labor to Labor Committee, noted he had attended the first meeting on Measure "U", and was happy with the turnout. He hoped the Council would continue to hold Measure "U" meetings throughout the community, emphasizing the importance of educating the public on the issues.

Larry Howard stated the new Council majority is showing itself incapable of saying no to residential development. He felt the proposed suspension is not what it appeared to be, and was just an illusion.

Terry Ramus, Measure "U" Committee, complemented the Council and staff on the recent Measure "U" meeting, stating it was a good start. He emphasized the importance of working out a process for future residential developments, and felt that in the meantime a suspension is a wonderful idea. He noted Measure "U" was now in the hands of the Council, and urged the Council to conduct the study sessions themselves, instead of using a blue ribbon commission.

Wayne Batavia, representing the interests of Wells Fargo Bank, felt the City should not stop projects that have existing entitlements, especially those in assessment districts. He noted that doing so would put a strain on property owners to pay their assessment district debt. He felt it was unfair to stop the rights of property owners to implement their entitlements, particularly if the City has been reaping the benefits of their on-going financial commitments by virtue of their assessment districts.

Norma Hernandez, stated Measure "U" was a farce, and was just being used to fool the community. She noted the City should be following the Antioch General Plan, which outlines all the rules and regulations that govern development.

Merle Gilliland, representing Richland Development Corporation, noted the City is trying to attract business to Antioch, and felt it was not the time to restrain growth. He felt a suspension would discourage businesses from locating here. He expressed concern for the lots owned by Richland Development, noting they have hefty liens on them, and if the City were to stop Richland from building on them their only alternative would be to walk away from the liens and the City would have to pick up the tab. He further discussed his concern for FUA #1, noting they have spent a lot of time and money on the project, and was ready to release a new EIR report on the property. They hoped the City would allow them to continue with the environmental process.

Dale Peterson stated he is happy the City is going forward and getting public involvement in development projects. However, he felt the City should discourage exemptions from the suspension, as he felt exemptions would cause a loss of credibility for the whole process.

Jean Kuberra stated she attended the Measure"U" meeting, noted there was a sign-in sheet at the meeting, and felt the City should produce that list for the public to see. She further noted she would like to see any affiliations listed on the sign-in sheet. She felt neighborhood meetings shuts out people who would otherwise watch the meeting on Channel 25.

Council Member Freitas stated he finds it incredulous that people, who identify themselves as Citizens for Democracy, would simply ignore a public advisory vote. He finds it incumbent for the Council to embrace Measure "U" and make new development pay for itself.

Council Member Sudario stated she has no problem with the neighborhood meetings, as long as the General Plan is abided by. She felt the meetings should be videotaped and played at a later date, so citizens have a chance to educate themselves on the issues.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously, with the regards to the implementation to Measure "U"; approved that: Council meet as an entire body on the first and third Tuesdays of the month succeeding the public hearing; that at the first meeting, the Council invite public comments with regard to the various subjects that need to be addressed; that the meetings be conducted throughout the City of Antioch; that every Board and Commission be asked to select one Member and an alternate to attend these meetings; that at the end of this process the City Council and the Planning Commission conduct a joint meeting to discuss some of the proposals that have been developed; that following the joint meeting, public meetings be held in the Council Chambers to discuss the various items deemed necessary for Council consideration, and; that the neighborhood meetings be videotaped for broadcast at a later date.

Council Member Soliz stated that regarding the suspension, he is concerned about the financial impacts of the assessment districts, and how the business community would interpret this action. He inquired as to how effective this suspension would be, given the number of exemptions.

Council Member Sudario stated she was initially excited to hear about Council Member Freitas’ idea for a suspension, but after looking over all the exemptions, she is extremely disappointed. She felt the exemptions were very ambiguous, and exempts everything the Council votes on. She further stated she supports the suspension, but only if the exemption is only for the 6,000 homes that have already been approved.

Council Member Freitas stated he feels staff has attempted to give Council something to look at, and it doesn’t mean Council has to accept any of it. He noted the exemptions are to avoid costly litigation for the city.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council approved the resolution as submitted, regarding a temporary suspension for consideration of new residential projects pending compliance statements with Measure "U." The motion was carried by the following vote:

AYES: Freitas, Davis, Rocha
NOES: Soliz, Sudario

5. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR DIABLO EAST SUBDIVISION, UNIT 9, (WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING, PORTER DIVISION), TRACT NO. 8191 (PW 571-9)

Public Works Director Brandt presented the staff report dated January 21, l999, recommending Council adopt the resolution.

Council Member Sudario stated this is more development, and she is opposed to it.

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council adopted the resolution approving Final Map and Improvement Plans for Diablo East Subdivision, Unit 9, (Western Pacific Housing, Porter Division), Tract No. 8191 by the following vote.

AYES: Freitas, Soliz, Davis, Rocha
NOES: Sudario

8. LEGISLATION AND ADVOCACY

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously received and filed the report.

Mayor Rocha adjourned to the Antioch Development Agency, with all Agency members present.

10. AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF AGENCY MINUTES -- January 12, l999

2. APPROVAL OF AGENCY WARRANTS

On motion by Agency Member Soliz, seconded by Agency Member Davis, the Agency unanimously approved the Consent Calendar.

1. COUNCIL REGULAR CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)

ITEM A -- City Attorney Galstan suggested Ms. Kuberra submit her requested changes in writing, and they would be addressed at the next meeting.

None

Council Member Sudario stated she takes umbrage to being censored by Mayor Rocha, noting when the last vote taken, Mayor Rocha did not give her the opportunity to give her rebuttal.

City Manager Ramsey stated another incident of arson in the downstairs men’s restroom had taken place approximately a week ago. He noted this is the third such incident in the restroom. He further noted that the police department had identified the person responsible, and the suspect would be charged with arson.

With no further business, Mayor Rocha adjourned the meeting at 1:12 A.M. to the next scheduled City Council meeting on February 9, l999.

Respectfully Submitted:

L. JOLENE MARTIN, City Clerk

Home Page || 1999 Council Meeting Directory