City Council - Regular Meeting

For the special meeting for September 15 2026 city clerk roll call please council members Brighton Booker Here Alfred here Morowitz your vice mayor Lockie.

Yeah, there's here But agenda review and supplemental reports there we have no supplemental reports or changes to the agenda.

Okay disclosure of ex parte communications Seeing none. We'll go ahead and move on to public comments. I

Public comment is listed to only those items listed on this agenda per government code section 54954.3 subsection A. All public comment speakers shall have only three minutes per person to speak on all items regardless of the number of items on the closed session agenda. Mayor, you may now call for public comment via Zoom webinar or in person.

All right, let's start with Zoom first.

I have no attendees.

Okay, let's go to comment card.

I have one comment card, and that is Leigh Ann.

Today I submitted a formal request to the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office asking for an independent public integrity inquiry into the out front media matter and related city actions. I want the public to understand why. Look at the chain of events. The city initiated litigation involving out front's existing billboards. During that dispute, a potential resolution developed involving new digital billboard locations. Then the city changed its sign regulations including provisions allowing privately owned signs on city property and changing allowable sign height. The city then moved forward with acquiring property at Atherton Drive connected to a future digital billboard location. Then there is Chamberlain. City records repeatedly describe Chamberlain as a city-initiated annexation of approximately 2.1 acres. It later expanded to approximately 17.4 acres and seven parcels. including private property proposed for general commercial zoning. And that expanded annexation is connected to the proposed Highway 99 billboard location. So follow the sequence. Litigation, new billboard locations, changes to the city law, public property acquisition, a dramatically expanded annexation involving private commercial property, and now the out front agreement. My question is simple. When were these decisions actually made? And my concern goes beyond out front. I believe there's a broader pattern that deserves independent examination where litigation or anticipated litigation may be creating a pathway for consequential public policy decisions. to be developed outside public view. We have seen other major matters involving city property and litigation, including 555 Industrial Park Drive, where significant government and infrastructure decisions followed. I'm not alleging tonight that those actions were unlawful. I'm asking whether litigation is being used intentionally or otherwise in a way that allows decisions affecting taxpayers, land use, infrastructure, or private interests to develop without meaningful scrutiny. That's why I requested an independent review. Litigation may belong behind closed doors. Public policy does not. Automatically belong there with it. And a public hearing should be where the public can influence a decision, not simply witness the approval of one already made. Thank you.

Thank you. No other comment cards?

I have no other submitted comment cards.

Okay, anybody in the public would like to speak on an item that's on the agenda? Okay, being none, we'll go ahead and go to closed session. All right, we are back from closed session. City Attorney?

There's no reportable action.

All right, thank you for that. With that, we will go ahead and adjourn the special meeting.