Laserfiche WebLink
207 <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Mohr and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmembers Scribner.and Tarver <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the May 5, 1992 City Council <br />meeting due to a tie vote. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked staff to notify the above applicants that <br />these items would be continued to the May 5, 1992 City Council <br />meeting. <br /> <br />11. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE REPORTS <br /> There were none. <br /> <br />12. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER <br /> <br />Item 12a <br />Council Policy for Development Projects Which Have Significant <br />Modifications Proposed After Planning Commission Review (SR92:175) <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the May 5, 1992 City Council <br />meeting so that Councilmember Butler would be able to participate <br />in the discussion. <br /> <br />13. REPORTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br /> <br />Item 13a <br />Proposed Amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act (SB 1538) <br />(SR92:176) <br /> <br /> Mr. Beougher explained that as proposed by this legislation, <br />all of the closed sessions would have to be recorded and <br />immediately turned over to the District Attorney. He also <br />explained the mandatory requirement of attorney's fees. He stated <br />that these amendments were not consistent with the intent of the <br />Brown Act. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if Mr. Beougher had reviewed AB 3476. <br /> <br /> Mr. Beougher answered yes. He said that the California League <br />of Cities was supporting AB 3476 and he recommended that Council do <br />the same. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that the amendments to the Brown Act were <br />discussed at the Mayor's Conference. He believed that Council <br />should oppose this legislation because all entities should be <br />treated fairly and comply with the same requirements. <br /> <br />4/21/92 17 <br /> <br /> <br />