[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:36] All right, today everyone
[3:03] ready to go, good
[3:09] to go.
[3:12] All right, it is 703 and I will call the regular meeting to order. First order of business is the roll call. Councilmember Diaz. President. Vice Mayor Ania. President. Mayor Juan. Here. Councilmember Trupeano. I'm here. Councilmember Tillman. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next is the pledge of allegiance.
[3:30] It's very
[3:42] fun, like for which it stands, one nation, and the other gender.
[3:54] Thank you.
[3:54] All right, next is item three, public comment on non-agenda items.
[3:58] If anyone is interested in making a comment on something that's not on the agenda now is your time.
[4:04] I do not have any cards, but you're welcome to raise your hand if you would like in the room.
[4:12] If not, then I'm not going to do a special call out.
[4:16] So I'm giving you guys that this is it, if you want.
[4:20] Is that, do we have anyone online?
[4:22] There's no one online raising their hand.
[4:25] Thank you.
[4:27] Last call.
[4:28] All right.
[4:29] I will close public comment on the next is the consent calendar.
[4:32] Does anyone have anything that they would like to pull from the consent calendar?
[4:40] Seeing none, public comment on the consent calendar.
[4:43] Okay.
[4:46] Anyone online?
[4:47] None either.
[4:49] Thank you.
[4:50] All right.
[4:50] I'll close public comment on the consent.
[4:52] Any discussion?
[4:53] Nope.
[4:54] I'll move for approval of the consent calendar.
[4:56] Second.
[4:56] Second.
[4:58] Would you please call the roll.
[5:00] Councilmember Diaz.
[5:02] Yes.
[5:03] Councilmember Truppiano.
[5:04] Yes. Councilmember Tillman.
[5:06] Aye.
[5:06] Vice Mayor Anya.
[5:07] Yes.
[5:08] Mayor Wan.
[5:09] Motion carries 5-0.
[5:10] Thank you.
[5:11] Next is reports, Mr. City Manager.
[5:14] Would you like to kick us off?
[5:20] Thank you, Mayor.
[5:20] A few items, some dates coming up.
[5:24] The last concert from the series this summer.
[5:28] Features pride and joy will be this Saturday.
[5:30] August 22nd, 6 p.m. We're hosting a town hall meeting on August 26th from 6 to 8 p.m.
[5:38] right here in Hoyer Hall. It will be live streamed and that link should have gone up today for that meeting.
[5:46] Also, the very next day in this room is the Emergency Operations Plan Community Meeting,
[5:53] which will also be live streamed. Again, that's Thursday, August 27th. That'll be at 7 p.m.
[5:58] And the chief will be hosting that along with our consultant for the development of the EOP.
[6:07] Now, for that, the next City Council meeting will be the regular date of September 1st.
[6:14] And while we're on the topic of events and meetings and fun,
[6:19] thanks to everybody who came out to National Night Out earlier this month,
[6:23] great event, nice turnout, nice to see everybody out there at the Court
[6:30] Nerd at City Hall, and of course, thank you to the police department and the
[6:34] chief for coordinating the event and our maintenance staff and public works for
[6:38] getting everything prepped ready and hauling all the stuff around. So the
[6:42] committee could enjoy that evening. So looking forward to doing it again next year.
[6:48] The chief may pull double duty as a short order.
[6:50] Yes, yes. My hot dog was a little overdone, but yeah, I'm not going to complain.
[6:59] And then one last fun announcement.
[7:03] So every year the Knights of Columbus paid tribute to police and firefighter personnel
[7:09] with a blue mass and awards ceremony celebrating a distinguished blue night.
[7:15] And the chief informer today that this year's recipient from our clinic
[7:20] The state and police department is the administrative sergeant Richinea,
[7:24] so he'll be recognized as the 2026 Blue Knight Award recipient.
[7:30] Sergeant Ania was selected by the members of the department to receive this recognition
[7:36] and the following details were cited for the reasons for the nomination.
[7:40] His community involvement,
[7:42] constant positive leadership, assistant to officers, assistance to officers, excuse me.
[7:49] Proactivity as a sergeant, being a team player, assisting co-workers and commitment to the department and also the community.
[7:58] We will invite sergeant Ania to attend a future council meeting where we can recognize him much like we did the officer last year, but
[8:06] very excited to announce that he is the Blue Knight recipient for this year.
[8:11] And that concludes my report.
[8:13] Thank you.
[8:14] Yes.
[8:14] Is that gonna be at St.
[8:19] France's?
[8:20] St. Magnes and one will have be.
[8:27] Took me all the figure that out.
[8:28] Yes.
[8:29] It will be same location as last year
[8:32] on September 13th following the 1130 Mass.
[8:36] It's following.
[8:37] The 1130 Mass?
[8:38] Okay, yep.
[8:39] So probably, probably 1230.
[8:41] Right.
[8:47] And you said that concluded your report?
[8:49] Okay, thank you.
[8:50] All right, that is 5A.
[8:51] City Council and community reports are located within the agenda packet so we move on to the amendment item six hold it hold it hold it I
[8:59] Have a correction on my report August 18th today. I only met with the city manager once
[9:07] It says I've did it twice the first meeting was with the chief of police. Okay, I'd like to have that from the record
[9:15] Thank you
[9:18] All right
[9:19] Okay, item 6a, there are a series of ordinances, and I will say I believe these are primarily related to language conflicts and updates to bring them more current.
[9:32] We don't always update our ordinances every year, and so this is a good opportunity to do so.
[9:37] There are several that span multiple different topics.
[9:40] My understanding is that there is some language even now, some language corrections within the packet.
[9:49] So what we'll do tonight is discuss these ordinances and then continue them to a date in the future.
[9:56] Ordinances require two readings.
[10:00] This doesn't count as the first.
[10:03] Okay, so would you like to kick us off with item 6a?
[10:07] Thank you, Mayor and Council, so I'll be presenting six ordinance updates and one new ordinance.
[10:16] These are, I'll speak in general since we're covering so many just to kind of set the table.
[10:23] All of these are a direct result of staff feedback, primarily related to operations that occur within these ordinances.
[10:32] And they were out of a, you know, a team effort of staff that came together to identify a handful of ordinances that were kind of pinch points for staff and for our community.
[10:46] So that's the nexus for why these things are being brought forward.
[10:51] And we will, I'll be presenting each ordinance individually, opportunity for discussion and we will be tabling it so
[10:58] so that it can be properly formatted for future consideration and adoption under those guidelines.
[11:05] So we'll get into number one.
[11:07] Number one addresses municipal code section 5.04370, which is rental dwellings.
[11:16] It's to amend the Clayton Municipal Code eliminating the business license tax and single family residential dwelling units.
[11:28] One of the things to consider in this is that the council can also consider, although it's not written here but it can be amended to modify the ordinance so that if should the council choose to remove residential dwelling units as a fee for the business license that it can be added by a future council by the movement of the council rather than going through an elective voting process.
[11:56] by the public. So that's something to consider as you review this.
[12:01] So the primary motivation for this is in context of the city's desire for affordable housing.
[12:11] And to eliminate really which is a minimal fee that the city has been collecting which amounts
[12:18] It sounds to roughly $1,200 a year speaking with staff and doing some research.
[12:26] It does not appear that the intent of this was to essentially tax individual homeowners that may have a rental or an ADU that would be providing these living accommodations to our residents, but it's kind of evolved into that.
[12:40] And so, staff believes that it's in the best interest of the city to eliminate that aspect of the code.
[12:49] By eliminating last year, as an example, 1285 was the revenue that was collected through individual residents' taxation through the business license process.
[13:02] Is there any questions?
[13:04] Or-
[13:09] questions for staff.
[13:14] So we had ten of these about seven. Seven. The juice is not worth
[13:18] the squeeze. Mayor, did you want to open the public hearing? They were listed each individually
[13:25] so I didn't know how you wanted to handle public comment and opening the public.
[13:30] I would do public comment individually for each item so open each public hearing.
[13:34] Public hearing and then take public comment and then continue to September 1st.
[13:38] Okay, great. All right, so let's open the public hearing there were no questions for staff public comment on this item this ordinance
[13:48] proposal, I guess
[13:50] Do you have any?
[13:53] Okay, no public comment online. So I guess I'll close
[13:57] public comment and bring it back. Does anyone have any discussion on this item?
[14:00] Okay, then we can go ahead and continue the public hearing until September 1st, which
[14:11] will be our next meeting.
[14:12] And to just get clarification, did you want us to, as the chief mentioned, if you
[14:18] delete the $127 for single family, if a future council wants to somehow bring that back,
[14:25] it would have to go to the ballot because of Prop 218.
[14:29] So, if you want to retain that flexibility, we could add language for future council members
[14:36] to bring back the 127 fee. If you don't care because it is a nominal amount that has
[14:42] been collected, then we can just continue as written.
[14:46] It's precisely 127 that the option to bring back no more no less.
[14:50] In theory, you could bring back less, but you couldn't bring back more than 127.
[14:55] Okay, is there a preference on the council for this?
[15:00] I would just as soon. Let it go, but all right, no, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, so that we have continued item 6A to September 1st. We would open the public hearing for item 6B, and I will turn it back over to the chief. Thank you, Mayor. So this report deals with. Code section 718-06.
[15:30] six, zero which is alarm systems, it's amending the municipal code to clarify the fee schedule applicable to excessive false alarms.
[15:40] This recommendation is to clarify language that was confusing to staff, essentially directing staff that any late fee would be set at $50.
[15:53] However, that's in conflict with existing language within the municipal code that shows that there's an escalation of fees based on
[16:00] number of violations. So this clarification of language in 9.18.060 enforcement, subsection
[16:08] B, simply eliminates that reference to the $50 and references the above paragraph which
[16:15] actually shares the appropriate level of fees that would be ascribed to a late fee. It does
[16:23] It does not remove any grace so that that language still exists as you can see in Section B3 during any 30-day period or no more than 4 any year.
[16:36] Once that threshold is passed, then the late fee would take effect.
[16:41] This amendment to the ordinance does not change any of that, just simply to reference the appropriate escalation of fees.
[16:52] Questions for staff?
[16:55] Yes, I have, I used to be the state regulator over this industry.
[16:59] And this was the number one issue throughout the state of California.
[17:05] What, how many freebies do they get in the way?
[17:08] How many initial false alarm before the fees kick in for responding?
[17:14] Yes, no good question.
[17:15] So it's three in a 30 day period or three in a 30 day period or four in a 12 month period.
[17:23] And what sort of experience do we have here in Clayton?
[17:27] I know we were at downtown here a couple of weeks ago, when the wind was really blowing,
[17:33] and there was a false alarm at the Clayton Club, and officers responded.
[17:39] And so I just wanted with the historical number we have on a monthly basis,
[17:45] if that's a reasonable.
[17:46] It really impacts just a couple of year, primarily businesses.
[17:53] I'm not familiar with any individual residential impacts, but it's primarily businesses that this would impact.
[18:01] And we only, I think, assess only the penalty fee on a couple of businesses a year.
[18:06] It's not a large number.
[18:08] Thank you.
[18:12] Thank you, the only other question that I had is, is this calendar year, fiscal year, 12-month period?
[18:18] And the reason why I'm asking is it reads second or third violation within one year from what period from the first violation.
[18:28] And then 12 months from there, I'm just trying to figure out when the clock starts.
[18:33] Yeah, so the way we've applied it from what I understand is on the calendar year.
[18:38] Okay, wait, really?
[18:39] That's not what the ordinance says.
[18:41] So item V, so item A is I would say.
[18:48] It can be read multiple ways, but in context of item B, item B is, it says verbatim in a 30-day period and then no more than four in a 12-month period.
[19:02] And that to me is pretty explicit for a rolling period.
[19:06] So I would take item B and A in conjunction and say that the year, because it does not rule out a rolling period in item A.
[19:14] I would contribute them both to be a rolling period,
[19:17] to be consistent within the reading.
[19:19] That's how I would read it.
[19:21] Yeah, no, I understand that.
[19:23] I was referencing what the way I believe it had been
[19:26] historically applied.
[19:28] Yeah, and I have no issue with that level of accounting.
[19:34] And we should change the language to reference
[19:37] a 12-month period everywhere it says year in both A and B,
[19:40] if we want to have consistency.
[19:42] Yeah, I mean, I don't think they're right now in conflict and the rule of statute of construction would say that you would read it so they don't conflict, but
[19:49] Do we could be more explicit to make it more clear in item A? I think item B is fine
[19:57] And I think it just needs to be clear to if it's primarily businesses when their clock starts
[20:02] Yeah, and who's I mean so that they can keep track of it themselves, right? So that that was why I was asking the question
[20:09] All right.
[20:09] I have a question.
[20:10] Sure.
[20:12] I haven't read this in a long time, but it used to be 20 years ago or more.
[20:17] Oh, it's saying.
[20:19] If they had an alarm, they were fined after three alarms or whatever, but if they had the
[20:28] alarm company come out to correct it and fix it, it goes back to zero.
[20:31] We're not doing that anymore, right?
[20:33] I'm not aware of that.
[20:34] Okay.
[20:35] That's fine.
[20:35] Yep.
[20:35] And the other one is, is there any penalty for especially businesses that refuse to come out at night to check their business?
[20:46] Are you speaking if we had a false alarm?
[20:49] No, there weren't a business, so the guy won't come out.
[20:51] Not that I'm aware of.
[20:52] Okay, and also, is it in the section about it goes off after 20 minutes, or can it ring all night?
[21:01] It could ring all night, but typically, again, from my experience in this, and again, thankfully this is a fairly rare occurrence.
[21:11] Is we communicate directly with the alarm company, and then we don't continue to respond.
[21:17] If we're getting an indication that the alarm is just continuing to ring, we'll secure, or do our best to secure, check the premise, and then we let dispatch know that we will not be responding.
[21:28] Thank you.
[21:29] That was good.
[21:29] Thank you.
[21:31] Okay.
[21:34] Other questions for staff?
[21:36] If not, a public comment.
[21:38] Any public comment on this item?
[21:43] Okay.
[21:43] No public comment in the room or online.
[21:46] I'll bring it back.
[21:47] Any further discussion on 6B, other than the cleaning up of some of the language?
[21:56] All right.
[21:57] that we will continue this item 6B until our meeting September 1st.
[22:04] All right, moving on to item 6C.
[22:05] I'm sorry mayor, could we just get a motion on that?
[22:08] On the continuous September 1st.
[22:10] We just have motion for the continuing?
[22:11] Correct.
[22:12] Well, we didn't do it for item A.
[22:14] I thought we did.
[22:15] No, we did not.
[22:16] Oh, then if I, if we would like to get motions on all of the items,
[22:21] we can continue them.
[22:22] Okay, so let's, can I just ask a question?
[22:30] I think we're opening a public hearing for each item but we're not closing it, we are continuing it.
[22:36] We're continuing it.
[22:39] Are we going to vote for all of them at one time or are we going to do it individually now?
[22:43] I think we are treating them individually so we will vote to continue each item individually.
[22:51] Okay. So being that we neglected item 6A, let's go back to item 6A for a moment. And if there's a motion to continue item 6A, how many commotion we continue item 6A?
[23:05] Seconded.
[23:06] All right. Can we call the roll?
[23:08] Councilmember Diaz.
[23:09] Yes.
[23:10] Councilmember Truppiano.
[23:11] Yes. Councilmember Tillman.
[23:13] Aye.
[23:13] Vice Mayor Anya.
[23:14] Yes.
[23:15] Mayor Wan.
[23:15] All right. Motion carries 5-0.
[23:17] All right.
[23:17] All right, now that 6A has been dispensed, we will go to 6B again, and we've already had our discussion in public comment, so I think we are looking for a motion of continuance.
[23:28] I'll move to continue item 6B.
[23:30] I'll second it.
[23:33] Council Member Diaz.
[23:35] Council Member Trupiano.
[23:36] Yes. Council Member Tillman.
[23:38] Aye. Vice Mayor Ania.
[23:40] Yes. Mayor One.
[23:41] Motion carries 5-0.
[23:42] All right.
[23:43] Point of clarification again, and we're continuing all of these to September 1st.
[23:48] That is our intent, yes.
[23:49] Thank you.
[23:50] We're going to vote on it, but I'm hoping that we all deal with it right.
[23:53] I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but that is the intent.
[23:58] Okay.
[23:58] All right.
[23:59] Moving on to public hearing for item 6C.
[24:02] I will open the public hearing and turn it over to the Chief.
[24:06] Thank you, Mayor.
[24:07] This is to amend Clayton Municipal Code Section 104020 Recreational Vehicle Definition to clarify that non-motorized trailers drawn by a motor vehicle are included within the definition of a recreational vehicle.
[24:22] Staff has identified on multiple occasions that there are vehicles that are being parked on our residential roadways that are not obtaining recreational vehicle permits.
[24:36] So basically vehicles are being stored, these trailers are being stored with the only alternative to market with the 72 hours of vehicles part for a length of time.
[24:49] This really, again, is a clarification of language and to include the most appropriate definition for what those vehicles entail.
[24:59] And as you can see in the proposed ordinance amendment is that this would be defined or
[25:08] to include and trailers without mode of power designed to be drawn by a motor vehicle for
[25:13] carrying property passengers or for human habitation, including both enclosed and
[25:18] un-enclosed trailers.
[25:20] So that way, if completely encapsulates that definition and provides some clarity,
[25:24] both to the public and to staff that would be enforcing this.
[25:33] Questions for staff?
[25:38] Inforcement is complaint driven?
[25:41] Correct.
[25:43] Thank you.
[25:45] So I have one question, maybe more than one.
[25:48] So garden trailers, that seems to fall under this as well.
[25:53] Is that the intent?
[25:54] So there is an exception.
[25:56] So, in subsection, sorry, excuse me, just for a second, let me find that.
[26:05] I think it's probably embedded within A, but it seems like it's talking about commercial
[26:10] trailers, but some people have them for non-commercial uses.
[26:14] Yes, so those, I'm sorry, I'm not finding the exact section.
[26:19] But there is an exemption there for commercial vehicles that are working.
[26:24] So somebody who has a garden trailer, and going and doing maintenance on a home, that would not fall under under this regulation.
[26:33] Would a garden share it for personal use, fall under?
[26:36] Yes, it would.
[26:38] And that is the intent.
[26:39] Yes, I just want to make sure that we're not capturing more than we want to.
[26:43] Yes, I agree.
[26:44] It's in the staff report, right before fiscal impact, the paragraph right above that one.
[26:51] The amendment does not alter the chapters existing exclusions and subsection A. Is that what you mean?
[26:56] Okay.
[27:03] Okay. Any other questions for staff?
[27:08] All right. I will open public comment. Anyone have any public comment on this item?
[27:15] Okay. None in the room and none online.
[27:18] Bring it back. Is any other discussion that we'd like to have on this?
[27:22] If not, then a motion for continuance would be great.
[27:31] Move forward, we continue the public hearing on item 6c.
[27:36] I'll second.
[27:39] Council member Diaz?
[27:40] Yes.
[27:41] Council member Trippiano?
[27:43] Yes.
[27:43] Council member Tillman?
[27:44] Aye.
[27:45] Vice Mayor Anya?
[27:46] Yes.
[27:46] Mayor One.
[27:47] Aye.
[27:47] Motion carries 5-0.
[27:49] Excellent.
[27:50] All right.
[27:51] Next is item 6d.
[27:53] D, D is in Delta, I will open the public hearing and turn it over to the chief.
[28:00] Thank you.
[28:02] So item 60 is amending Clayton Municipal Code Section 11-04060 city parks, amplified sound to include blue-to-the-speakers
[28:11] among exempt personal devices and to permit terminology to align with permits currently issued by the city.
[28:19] So, this original ordinance was adopted in 1991.
[28:25] Bluetooth speakers were not a thing at that time, so we've corrected language there to add what most people have at these types of events, which are personal Bluetooth speakers.
[28:40] And then we removed activity permit, the city does not issue activity permits, so is language that doesn't really apply to currently issued permits.
[28:49] and to clarify that, that would be through a noise permit or a special event permit.
[28:56] So a very simple amendment.
[28:58] Thank you. Questions for staff?
[29:03] All right. I did have one question. This language does seem fairly prescriptive.
[29:11] Like we're describing certain specific things.
[29:15] Would it be more efficient to be more general so that we're not technology tied in the ordinance?
[29:19] And the whole point of this, I believe, is personal sound stuff, personal speakers,
[29:27] for personal use that don't travel more than 10 feet is what we're trying to exempt.
[29:32] Whether it's Bluetooth or any other new emerging technology, I think if we're broad, I think
[29:40] we capture the intent.
[29:42] It does say similar devices.
[29:44] I know, but it also says all like portable radios and tape players
[29:49] So it's fine. It's not wrong. You might want to go old school. You never know
[29:53] But if you if we say something like
[29:56] Personal equipment that does not travel more than 10 feet
[30:00] You've pretty much covered all new technology and you never have to do this again. So just a thought. Is that, are we open to that?
[30:12] Just trying to save the next 20 years. There will be a new technology theoretically so.
[30:21] Okay, no problem. I can, I can simplify the. No problem. All right. No other questions. I will open public comment. Any public comment on this item? There's no public comment.
[30:35] in the room or online, I just say that so that we have it on the record.
[30:39] All right, I will close public comment and bring it back to council.
[30:43] Looking for a motion.
[30:45] Before motion, I just have one small edit since you are changing the ordinance.
[30:49] Since you removed activity permit and made it noise permit, it should be a noise permit instead of an.
[30:55] It's all, it's just grammar,
[30:59] do you see it?
[31:01] Okay, that's all.
[31:07] Sounds good.
[31:09] All right.
[31:09] All right, is there a motion for continuance?
[31:13] I've got it open, I'll do it.
[31:14] I'll make the motion to continue item 6D
[31:18] to our September 1st meeting.
[31:21] I'll second that motion, all right?
[31:23] Would we please call the roll?
[31:25] Council member Diaz.
[31:26] Council member Trupeano?
[31:28] Yes, Council member Tellman?
[31:30] Aye.
[31:30] Vice Mayor Anya?
[31:31] Yes.
[31:32] Mayor Wan?
[31:32] Aye.
[31:33] Motion carries 5-0.
[31:35] All right, moving right along.
[31:36] We are now on item 6E.
[31:38] I will open the public comments, or sorry, public hearing.
[31:43] I'm glad, and turn it over to the Chief.
[31:45] Thank you, Mayor.
[31:47] This item 6E is proposing a mending Clayton Municipal Code Chapter Section 1208, site obstructions at intersections,
[31:55] specifically sections 1208-010 through 1208-040, to extend site line protections to pedestrians,
[32:04] Americans established a maintenance based standard for vegetation within the site triangle and updated outdated city engineer reference to city manager or design.
[32:15] So this addresses a couple things or what we propose staff proposes the two components, the main components of this ordinance were adopted in 1969 and in 1975 respectively.
[32:30] That was the last time that this was looked at.
[32:34] Those are vintage.
[32:35] They are vintage, yes.
[32:38] Anyways, so the address a couple things.
[32:44] So one is that there is no consideration for how would a
[32:47] sightline impact pedestrian traffic.
[32:50] And as we all know, that's a significant safety issue,
[32:54] especially in our city where we have a lot of kids and parents
[32:58] walking to and from school and people enjoying downtown in our
[33:01] trails.
[33:02] So pedestrians has to be part of that
[33:04] consideration whenever we're evaluating sight lines. The other is the broad characterization
[33:14] of vegetation, specifically trees. As we all know, a tree can be this big around or
[33:20] it can be this big around. And so this language addresses whether it materially obstructs
[33:29] those sight lines. In other words, is it properly maintained? Is there a sight line that can
[33:35] be seen through another way of looking at this is a bus stop pole is about the size, you
[33:43] know, two inches or two and a half inches.
[33:46] Are we talking about a tree that's the exact
[33:49] same size and considering that being an obstruction when a bus stop pole is no more obstruction than
[33:56] in that. So it allows for reasonableness to assess the sight lines and it changes the designation for
[34:07] evaluating these from city engineer to the city manager and or their designate. So really the people that are on the ground that are
[34:16] doing the work as far as evaluating things, working with the public, whether it's public work staff, public works director,
[34:22] or myself or our other staff member can make an accurate assessment without having to engage the services of a city engineer of which we do not have, so it's a contract service, so also to provide some cost savings there.
[34:38] Specifically, it's in section 1208010, the removal of trees, and I'll get later in the section where we add that back in.
[34:47] and the adding in of pedestrian as far as the evaluation criteria, and the adding of language that says trees may be maintained within the required visibility triangle provided that tree trunks, branches and foliage are maintained so not to obstruct visibility for vehicles and pedestrians approaching the intersection.
[35:07] Section 12-08020 adds the ability to be determined by the city manager or designee as not materially
[35:19] obstructing visibility.
[35:22] And then under 120-030 under notice to remove right to appeal, again, it designates the
[35:30] city manager or designee.
[35:32] And then under 1208-040, it again references city manager designee, puts in the appropriate
[35:40] reference section, and removes city engineer.
[35:48] Thank you.
[35:48] All right.
[35:49] Questions for staff?
[35:51] Yes, I do.
[35:52] Thank you.
[35:54] Today, when I met with the city manager, we discussed the specific intersections of center
[35:59] March Creek, and Main Street and going across from the Grove Park to the Corral.
[36:09] How does this affect that? Because those are wide open.
[36:12] However, there are really hazardous places to cross.
[36:16] Does this have a direct impact on this?
[36:19] As I understand, it wouldn't necessarily have a direct impact on that at all.
[36:23] Thank you.
[36:24] And then I just have one question.
[36:26] So this may mean that a tree may just need some maintenance where you're removing some limbs from the bottom of the tree without removing the entire tree, is that correct?
[36:38] That's correct.
[36:38] Okay.
[36:39] Thank you.
[36:42] Other questions for staff.
[36:45] All right.
[36:46] I will open public comment on this item.
[36:48] I do have one quick point.
[36:50] Sorry.
[36:51] I thought about it right when you were starting to say.
[36:53] So I'm
[36:57] trying to figure out how I want to ask this.
[36:59] the ordinance is clearly for residents and things in the city.
[37:08] What about city-owned things or things of the city maintenance staff are responsible for?
[37:13] Clearly, you're not going to find yourselves.
[37:15] But a lot of the sight lines are at intersections where it's in the L&D.
[37:21] I guess we could use the tool and encourage residents to use that to let you guys know that that needs to be trimmed down.
[37:27] because that's where I see a lot is in the intersections that we have in the city and different streets.
[37:32] Okay, thank you.
[37:34] Yeah, I've actually reached out to, I think yourself and others and for those areas.
[37:39] I think we have, and the residents have more eyes to present those things.
[37:45] So to the extent that we see it, I think it's just helpful.
[37:47] Yeah, I've done the same.
[37:48] Okay, thank you.
[37:50] Okay, public comments on item 6E.
[37:57] Seeing none in the room and none online close public comment
[38:04] Any further discussion
[38:07] All right looking for a motion of continuance
[38:12] I'll move to continue. I don't succeed
[38:15] second
[38:17] Would we please call the roll
[38:19] Councilmember Diaz. Yes, Councilmember Truppiano. Yes, Councilmember Tillman. Hi vice mayor and yet. Yes mayor one
[38:26] Okay.
[38:27] Motion carries 5-0.
[38:29] All right.
[38:29] We are moving on to item 6-F.
[38:32] I will open the public hearing and turn it over to our chief.
[38:38] Thank you, Mayor.
[38:39] Six-F is creating a new municipal, Clayton Municipal Code, Chapter 17.70, special event permits
[38:48] to establish a permit process for events requiring closure of a public right away or diversion of
[38:54] traffic distinct from administrative temporary use permits under chapter 16 points, 17.69, excuse me.
[39:05] So this creates an entirely new chapter in our municipal code.
[39:09] It is modeled off temporary use permits, but it is to allow staff to separately and independently address these types of events.
[39:21] Special events, as proposed by this ordinance, would be any event that requires the closure of the street or change of right away.
[39:30] For example, October Fest, a parade, those kind of things where additional planning is required specifically by part of the police department and public works to arrange to make those logistical arrangements and requires a different approach to safety and security for those types of events.
[39:50] This allows staff that have to process these applications.
[39:55] One is to have separate applications, so we have a much more streamlined process.
[40:02] Currently, the existing application process like covers everything.
[40:06] And so that's difficult for the public.
[40:08] They don't know what part do I need to fill out, what part I need to create a lot of confusion.
[40:13] that confusion then rolls downhill to staff who then need to help the community navigate that and then it creates just additional paperwork that we're all having to navigate and making sure that we have the appropriate things checked off and fulfilled.
[40:29] This simplifies that by adding this ordinance.
[40:37] Specifically, and it also adds a violation section, which is incredibly important.
[40:43] It's consistent with the rest of our municipal code where we require permits to undertake certain type of events or buildings or projects.
[40:55] Currently, this section does not have a penalty section, this adds in that section, and specifically with special events when we're talking about closure of roadways and diversion of right of way.
[41:10] If there's a violation on the part of the event organizer, that could lead to significant safety risks to the public.
[41:21] And this allows the city to have some remediation to that and enforceability of that with some teeth to it.
[41:30] The sections, I won't read the entire ordinance.
[41:33] However, it does cover the purpose, which I've delineated there for the anything that
[41:41] affects the traffic or right away.
[41:43] It does specify the type of events that would fall under the special event permit,
[41:50] and it makes provisions for violations.
[41:55] And I'm open for questions.
[41:59] Questions for staff?
[42:00] I just had one question, Chief.
[42:02] So there is no fiscal impact by changing this.
[42:07] Correct, we're not changing a fee structure.
[42:09] We're not-
[42:09] Okay.
[42:10] Yep, it aligns with what currently is in place.
[42:13] It just allows us to bifurcate the two types of events.
[42:16] Got it, thank you.
[42:19] Other questions?
[42:20] The only other question that I had is the timeline for it.
[42:25] So do these permits also have to be done 45 days ahead of the event?
[42:31] Yes, okay the same same timelines would would be involved okay. I didn't see it in this one
[42:36] I saw it in the temporary use one, but it's not in this one unless I'm missing it.
[42:42] I can go back and and confirm
[42:45] because I believe that there's
[42:47] previous chapters that specify timelines, but I can confirm that okay. Thank you.
[42:52] Is that timeline no later than, is it also in no earlier than?
[42:58] I would have to pull up the exact language if you can give me a minute, I can take a look at it, but it basically provides a guideline for staff.
[43:04] So we can provide exceptions to that.
[43:07] If it's an event that we're familiar with or doesn't require a heavy lift, we can work with the public and I think that's the spirit of what we engage with the community in, but we ask for 45 days so that everybody has an opportunity to review this properly.
[43:21] And then the only other question I had are examples of violations.
[43:25] I'm sorry.
[43:26] Violation examples?
[43:27] Can you give us some violation examples?
[43:30] Yes.
[43:30] For example, if under a special event permit, the event organizers required to have security and they don't.
[43:38] Or the security does not fulfill their responsibilities.
[43:41] Or if they're to provide volunteers at a particular location that deals with the event and
[43:47] And they're not there and that causes some issue, either additional work by staff,
[43:52] law enforcement, or causes some type of incident we now have the ability to enforce that.
[43:58] Thank you.
[43:59] And this, what Councilmember Chabiano is asking, is it consistent with the language in all of our other fee schedules so that they don't conflict?
[44:11] Yes, so this would be consistent with our temporary use permit and other, other similar type permitting processes that have a penalty clause.
[44:23] So the language was taken out of our existing ordinance to put in here, or existing municipal code, excuse me.
[44:31] Okay, sounds good.
[44:34] Any other questions or staff?
[44:36] All right. Public comment on this item 6F.
[44:45] Look at this. It's the first question.
[44:53] You have three minutes. Thank you. So reading over this.
[45:00] I have some concerns regarding residents' first amendment right to assembly. This ordinance would include, let's see here, it's kind of small on my phone. Any other organized assembly of persons that assembles or travels in unison for any purpose upon any city sidewalk. So, would that mean that a small gathering of individuals
[45:29] individuals who are protesting, let's say on the sidewalk in front of the Grove Park
[45:35] would be in violation of this if they did not receive a permit.
[45:40] Does that mean that how many individuals would that include?
[45:44] Is there a minimum number, would that mean that three individuals who decided to get together
[45:49] and go for a walk and happen to be discussing something political or something religious could
[45:55] would be in violation of this, if they didn't obtain a permit, if they were, let's say,
[46:00] walking slowly, three abreast across the sidewalk and impeding individuals from being able
[46:06] to walk in the sidewalk.
[46:10] It's just the specificity combined with the vagueness of this makes me concerned that, although
[46:18] the spirit of the ordinance might be interpreted one way, that later individuals or other police
[46:24] These chiefs or council members might be able to interpret this in a different way that
[46:30] inhibits people's right to free speech or free assembly.
[46:37] I'm hoping that on September 1st, I have a more organized thing to say, but that's just
[46:43] my initial thoughts.
[46:45] Thank you.
[46:46] I would have one comment, but I will turn it over if, well, actually, no, that's not what
[46:53] I'm supposed to do.
[46:53] Is there any other public comment on this item?
[46:59] Any public comment online?
[47:04] I jumped again.
[47:06] None.
[47:08] Okay, no additional public comment.
[47:11] Then I will close public comment on 6F.
[47:15] Would we like to discuss anything additional
[47:18] relating to this proposed ordinance?
[47:23] I would like to highlight one of the line items here.
[47:28] And it is the detail of what events require a special event permit that would cause this.
[47:39] Under item 17.7.0.0 to I as in Iceland, I guess.
[47:50] What it talks about, the thing that gives me comfort here because I'm a big first amendment
[47:56] person.
[47:57] So I would be really aghast if we were impeding that.
[48:00] But what it does do is it talks about the conditions by which these may be required and
[48:08] it lists them and they involve the closure or impeding of the public right of way.
[48:16] And so if an activity does not require a closure of the public right of way, if it does not
[48:23] not require a diversion of traffic, if it is consistent with the normal or usual traffic controls and it is not likely to impede or obstruct or impair interfere with the free use of a public right of way, then this would not apply.
[48:42] So I think what we're really talking about is if you're blocking people from using the right of way,
[48:50] then it is appropriate to involve staff to say, hey, let's allow you to do that in a way that is consistent with public safety.
[49:01] I think that's the intent, and that's how, that is my rating,
[49:06] and we can talk about this again after we continue the ordinance.
[49:11] So, if there's no other discussion, if the chief would like to make any comment, you're welcome, but you're not required.
[49:18] My comment would be very consistent with that, and I appreciate the concern being raised.
[49:23] We want to be very sensitive to that.
[49:25] It's something that is paramount to protecting the liberties and rights of our community regardless of someone's perspective or what they want to say, and the police department fully supports that.
[49:39] And what was mentioned here is exactly that, that if it's essentially not using technical term,
[49:47] but if it spills into the right of way where it causes issues for traffic or travel,
[49:52] or what would otherwise be an area of conveyance, then that's where that we would need,
[49:58] we would want to be involved and we would want the ordinance to support that,
[50:01] so that the appropriate safety measures could be put in place.
[50:05] But somebody using the sidewalk to demonstrate or express their opinion would not fall
[50:10] under that, under this, unless it had exceeded that capacity.
[50:14] It exceeded what capacity?
[50:19] In other words, it obstructed the roadway, obstructed the right of way.
[50:25] As the ordinance lays out.
[50:27] So, then, to, if Mr. Flores, okay, thank you.
[50:32] I don't want to claim a gate.
[50:33] So, to his example, if there are people who are protesting and they're walking
[50:37] in the street, this would apply to them.
[50:39] Correct.
[50:40] Okay.
[50:42] Not allowed to block the street.
[50:44] but they could plan in advance and get a special permit and then block the street.
[50:50] Okay. Correct. Yes.
[50:55] Sorry. All right. We've already done public comment. So looking for a motion
[51:01] of continuance for item 6F. For
[51:07] continuance of item 6F. All right. I'll second. Would you please
[51:12] call the roll. Councilmember Diaz. Councilmember Trupiano. Yes. Councilmember Tellman.
[51:17] Aye.
[51:18] Vice Mayor Nia.
[51:19] Yes.
[51:19] Mayor 1.
[51:20] Motion carries 5-0.
[51:22] All right.
[51:24] Moving on to item 6G, 6G.
[51:29] I would open the public hearing and turn it over to our chief.
[51:34] Thank you, Mayor.
[51:35] Item 6G.
[51:37] This is to re-numerate or re-number.
[51:41] Clayton Municipal Code 1770 Temporities permits to 17.69 amending sections, 17.69010 and 17.69020 to distinguish
[51:57] temporary use permits from special event permits and remove parades and block parties as conditionally
[52:03] terminated temporary uses in adding section 1769070, violation penalty to establish infraction penalty for violations of temporary use permits.
[52:14] So temporary use permits was previously 17.70 due to the gap within the municipal code, we felt it appropriate to re-number that so that it all made sense so that it would now become 1769.
[52:30] And then we amended, we recommend amending the language in the ordinance to remove reference to the closure of streets and the type of events that would require the closure of streets of the right away, adds clarifying language, temporary use permits are to be used for events that do not require the full or partial closure of any public right away diversion of traffic or changes to the normal or usual traffic regulations or controls.
[52:59] And as I spoke about earlier, this is to simplify this process.
[53:03] Make a much more streamlined and straightforward, both for the public and for staff.
[53:08] The removal of parades, block parties, as the listed permitted uses under this ordinance.
[53:17] And then add the violation penalty section 1769070, which would be consistent with special use permits or special events.
[53:28] Excuse me, permits.
[53:31] We'll take your questions.
[53:33] Questions for staff?
[53:35] This seems very consistent with the prior.
[53:37] It'd be kind of odd to not do this one when we did the other.
[53:40] However, renumeration is the right word.
[53:43] So,
[53:46] all right, no questions for staff.
[53:49] I will open public comment.
[53:50] Anyone have any public comment on renumeration?
[53:55] There's no public comment in the room nor online.
[53:58] So I will close public comment, bring it back.
[54:00] If there's no discussion, that emotion for continuance would be great.
[54:04] I just have one thing, so what be, why was parades removed?
[54:14] Under that section, under temporary sprints.
[54:17] It's additionally permitted uses.
[54:19] Yeah, so that would now fall under special events.
[54:22] Okay, because it would require the adjustments to the roadway or right of way.
[54:28] Thank you.
[54:31] All right.
[54:34] A motion for continuance.
[54:36] I'll move from vote to continue item 6G.
[54:40] I'll second.
[54:42] All right, would you please call the roll.
[54:43] Council member Diaz.
[54:45] Yes.
[54:45] Council member Trupeano.
[54:46] Yes. Council member Tillman.
[54:48] Aye.
[54:48] Vice Mayor Anya.
[54:49] Yes.
[54:50] Mayor Wan.
[54:51] Aye.
[54:51] Motion carries 5-0.
[54:53] Okay.
[54:54] That concludes the parade of ordinance continuances.
[54:59] Do you see anything?
[55:03] All right.
[55:04] Oh, yes, no, no, we continued it.
[55:07] We were continuing, okay.
[55:08] All right, so item 7a is resolution for a revised city standard street name signs.
[55:20] Would you like to kick us off?
[55:21] I will kick it off.
[55:23] So, if you remember a few months ago, our police department helped us identify a number of maintenance issues that needed to be taken care of.
[55:32] crosswalks, missing signs, the bot stots in front of fire plugs, a litany of different
[55:41] things.
[55:41] One of the items was missing street signs.
[55:44] And so we discussed that evening briefly about landing on a permanent design and style
[55:50] of street sign before we started ordering them.
[55:53] So Craig, our public works director, has been working with a company and he's brought
[56:00] We've got some examples to share with you and hopefully this evening we can land on a design.
[56:05] If we can, then we will move forward with all the faded, broken stolen street signs and get those ordered and re-installed.
[56:14] So I'll turn it over to Mr. Blythe.
[56:21] Good evening, Mayor and Council.
[56:23] I'm Craig Blythe, Director of Public Works.
[56:26] The item before you tonight is a proposed update to the city's standard plan S-TAC 1-8 for street name signs.
[56:31] And before getting into the specific changes, I wanted to provide a little context about
[56:37] this standard and why we have it.
[56:41] Street name signs are considered official traffic control devices because drivers rely
[56:45] on traffic signs to communicate information quickly and consistently.
[56:50] There is a regulatory framework governing how these signs are designed and installed.
[56:59] At the federal level, the federal highway administration publishes the manual on uniform
[57:04] traffic control devices commonly referred to as the MUTCD.
[57:10] The purpose of this document or standard is uniformity, whether someone is driving
[57:15] in Clayton or another community, traffic control devices are recognizable, legible, and can
[57:21] communicate information in a consistent way.
[57:23] In California, CalTrans implements the MUTCD and calls it California and UTCD.
[57:33] And this document that CalTrans implemented became effective in January of this year, so January 2026.
[57:40] The city's current street name sign standard dates back to 2008, and like the city manager said earlier this year, city staff completed a traffic sign maintenance review and identified a number of faded missing or
[57:55] or otherwise deficient signs throughout the city.
[57:58] As we begin preparing to replace those signs,
[58:00] staff reviewed existing street name sign standards
[58:03] again against our current traffic control requirements.
[58:07] What is proposed is not a wholesale change
[58:09] to the appearance of Clayton signs.
[58:12] We are keeping the recognizable brown background
[58:14] and white lettering while modernizing
[58:17] the materials lettering and fabrication.
[58:20] The biggest change is moving from an unreflective brown background
[58:24] to a retro-reflective brown background and white lettering.
[58:29] This will significantly improve visibility at night and during low light conditions.
[58:33] In addition to helping motorists and pedestrians, better traffic identification can assist police,
[58:39] fire, EMS, and other public safety personnel when responding to emergencies.
[58:46] We're also proposing to replace the existing PT Barnum style lettering with the FHWA standard alphabet.
[58:53] and use the proper upper and lower case lettering consistent with current standards.
[58:59] The revised standard gives public work some flexibility to select the appropriate lettering
[59:04] size alphabet series and sign dimensions based on the roadway, the speed, the street,
[59:10] and applicable MUTCD requirements.
[59:13] Finally, we're proposing to eliminate the existing rustic jagged edge treatment and move to a conventional
[59:20] smooth edge design.
[59:21] The rustic edge is primarily ornamental and adds a fabrication cost.
[59:27] Based on current pricing, moving to the smooth edge design is expected to reduce the fabrication cost by 33% each sign.
[59:36] If approved, the 13th street name sign locations identified during our May Maintenance review would be the first locations replace under the new standard representing approximately 26 street name signs.
[59:51] Existing signs that are still in good condition would remain in place and would not be replaced simply because a standard is changing.
[59:58] Funding for this work is already included
[1:00:00] In the adopted budget, and no additional appropriation is required. Staff recommends that the city council adopt resolution number 35, 20, 26, approving the revised standard plan S-18. Let's see, into my presentation, but here are some examples. We'll start with the old. You can see jagged edge. What the heck? Not reflective. Hard to see it now. We have a, we have a number of these throughout the city.
[1:00:29] And put on your sunglasses for this one.
[1:00:32] This is the new reflective brown reflective white with a border.
[1:00:37] Shining.
[1:00:37] So a lot easier to read, especially for our emergency personnel in responding to any emergencies.
[1:00:44] This isn't the sign that's going to go on every street corner.
[1:00:46] This is an example of what a compliant sign looks like.
[1:00:51] So as the road, the speed of a street is lower, letters can be smaller.
[1:00:57] As the speed of the road is faster than letters can be letters should be larger as cars are passing at a faster speed and need more time to see it
[1:01:08] So I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have
[1:01:13] Questions for staff
[1:01:15] The only one that perplexes me. How did it get the name PT Barnum is that mean is there is this going to be some sort of a circus?
[1:01:24] There are what
[1:01:26] I'm not sure that's within the scope of our discussion
[1:01:29] Well, it's referenced in the report that was the that was the font referenced in the city standard approved by council in 2008 better than windings
[1:01:42] This is an exactness I get right. It's an example of the new recommended standard sign
[1:01:49] What what is the name of that font? It's called highway gothic
[1:01:53] And it's a standard and it's a standard font used across the state
[1:01:58] no no fans of hellbedica here. Sorry now this is really nice. Craig I do have a
[1:02:05] question for you so particularly in the downtown I noticed signs like that
[1:02:12] are directional for the Clayton Historical Museum or so I don't see those on
[1:02:17] the list are those the brown and you know I love 3-1-1 or see click fix can I
[1:02:28] I'd take pictures and then upload it there, or would you prefer a list of other directional signs in the downtanks?
[1:02:37] I noticed some of those are really faded and-
[1:02:41] I think it would be better to send it through the workflow so they can handle it within a little.
[1:02:46] So the first step in this was engaging council and approving the new standard.
[1:02:51] Now that if we approve the standard, then we can take meaningful steps to start replacing
[1:02:56] seen replacing faded signs that the first focus would be the traffic study performed in May.
[1:03:02] That's going to be the first batch I would say to replace so we can close that out for council and make some progress towards sign replacement.
[1:03:13] I just wanted to say it looks great, it's a long time coming and speaking of public safety, it will really help the ambulance service who sometimes takes 35 minutes to come to Clayton.
[1:03:26] Because there's not enough of them in our county and they come from other areas and they look at those street signs
[1:03:34] Even though they're supposed to be they have a map, but they don't have the time. They're in a hurry
[1:03:38] That's gonna be really nice and the same for our fire station. We often have
[1:03:43] Firemen assigned here that are just here for a day or two
[1:03:47] Because they can't fill it with regular people that want to be assigned here all the time
[1:03:52] And they're also looking at those signs and they're hard to see
[1:03:55] They've told me about it before, so that's a welcome to our town.
[1:04:03] I just have two things, one, several years ago we jumped the gun a little bit when we
[1:04:10] were doing our traffic lights and we installed signs that said lights, time, two speed limit,
[1:04:16] and that was our intent, but we never did that, so hazard.
[1:04:21] So we could not get the technology to work correctly, but we still have the signs.
[1:04:26] So as we're doing this, if we want to remove those, that would be great.
[1:04:32] Second, what are we doing with the old signs?
[1:04:37] They're currently in the sign graveyard.
[1:04:41] Are we going to dispose of them?
[1:04:42] I would recommend that we recycle them.
[1:04:46] Can I have one?
[1:04:48] Or can we auction them off?
[1:04:50] Maybe somebody would.
[1:04:52] It's like a souvenir.
[1:04:54] If we were going to dispose of them, then sure.
[1:04:57] But if we're going to actually get some benefit, then we should do that first.
[1:05:02] You can find it on eBay maybe next Tuesday.
[1:05:05] I mean, we need revenue, I say.
[1:05:09] If that is available, then that would be wonderful.
[1:05:13] If they were just going to go into the dumpster, then feel free to let me know,
[1:05:17] and I'll visit the dumpster afterwards.
[1:05:24] All right, thank you very much.
[1:05:25] Those do look quite snazzy, so where are we?
[1:05:32] Any other questions for staff?
[1:05:35] Public comment on this item.
[1:05:42] All right, no public comment in the room, nor online.
[1:05:45] So I will close public comment, and this one we are not continuing.
[1:05:51] So I think we are looking for a motion to approve the new standard,
[1:05:56] As described, is there a motion to approve the new standard?
[1:06:01] I'll make a motion that we adopt resolution 35-2026, approving the Revise City Standard Plan S-18, street name signs.
[1:06:13] Second.
[1:06:14] All right, would you please call the roll.
[1:06:16] Council member Diaz?
[1:06:18] Yes.
[1:06:18] Council member Trupeano?
[1:06:20] Yes.
[1:06:20] Council member Tillman?
[1:06:21] Aye.
[1:06:22] Vice Mayor Anya?
[1:06:23] Yes.
[1:06:23] Mayor One.
[1:06:24] Aye.
[1:06:24] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:06:25] All right, that concludes item 7a, next is item 7b.
[1:06:30] This is a reclassification of, actually,
[1:06:41] all right.
[1:06:44] All right, this is 7b, the reclassification of a position within the staff, I believe our city manager will kick us off.
[1:06:52] Sir, thank you.
[1:06:54] So there are three recommendations and three resolutions attached to this.
[1:06:58] one item. First and foremost, as you're all aware, a few years ago, we made a switch
[1:07:05] to HDL to be our business license vendor.
[1:07:11] We have had some complications. I know personally
[1:07:19] Councilmember Diaz had some struggles with HDL. I worked with a few business folks, you
[1:07:27] We do as well, Mayor One, when council member Trupiano was there, she and I worked with a handful of businesses that could not accomplish just getting their business license renewed.
[1:07:42] There were some struggles.
[1:07:44] We've had numerous people on the third floor, and let's just say we're not happy with HDL and the service and the answers that they were providing.
[1:07:53] It occupied a lot of time from our community development technician, our admin services director and myself.
[1:08:00] It has not been a good program.
[1:08:04] So we have given HDL notice that we are going to exit that contract.
[1:08:11] And the item this evening is a reclassification of the community development technician to a community development specialist.
[1:08:19] Essentially, those duties at HDL was performing will be absorbed into the city operation as it once was prior to engaging HDL, so that if people need help, they need assistance, they can come to city hall, the community development specialists will work with them, assist them, get them what they need, they have questions, we can answer those questions and just facilitate a much better customer experience and provide folks what they want.
[1:08:47] The other issue that we were seeing with HDL because they were the more money they collect, the more they make.
[1:08:54] So we were seeing instances where they were trying to double dip for a variety of reasons on certain businesses,
[1:09:01] of sending a lot of folks.
[1:09:03] So we want to treat our business community with kindness and respect, and so bringing this in-house will do that.
[1:09:11] There are a couple of changes that we have to do if council agrees with my recommendations
[1:09:19] of this reclassification number one adopting a new salary schedule and reporting that to
[1:09:25] CalPERS as required.
[1:09:28] The increase in this position at top step is just under $2,000 a month.
[1:09:35] We are currently paying HDL over $30,000 a year, so by making this change, essentially year one we'll be saving a little over $6,000.
[1:09:45] So providing better service, getting this accomplished by bringing it in a house and eliminating the rising cost of what HDL could bring in.
[1:09:58] This also aligns with council's goal of the positions of being at 85% of median.
[1:10:03] This salver scale that's in your staff report achieves that.
[1:10:07] And it's shown in your attachment for what would be the new updated salary schedule.
[1:10:13] And the third piece is an amendment to the miscellaneous memorandum of understanding.
[1:10:19] The MOU would just be simply changing community development tech to community development specialists.
[1:10:25] So that's the only amendment that would happen within the MOU.
[1:10:29] With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[1:10:34] Questions for staff?
[1:10:37] So in the staff report, the background, it says the city has terminated the contract with HDL,
[1:10:44] but we haven't terminated it yet.
[1:10:46] We've just given that notice.
[1:10:48] We've notified them, okay.
[1:10:49] And I think that we signed that in October 20.
[1:10:53] Yes, so we have some transition time between now and October.
[1:10:56] Okay, that's just so it's a nice smooth transition, because we normally do renewals in June or July as it or, yeah.
[1:11:05] Oh, it is year-round?
[1:11:06] Oh, I always get it January is a big month.
[1:11:10] January is a big month, okay, because I must be in that second.
[1:11:13] Okay, thank you, that's it.
[1:11:15] So, other questions for staff?
[1:11:17] No, question is just I want to compliment Chris on the staff to address a problem that has
[1:11:23] It's created so many issues, I know some of us have involved directly, but out there, there's a number of people that call on a regular basis that we're throwing their hands up in the air and trying to get their license renewed, and we want them to be in compliance.
[1:11:36] Thank you, on their behalf.
[1:11:38] Thank you, thank you very much.
[1:11:53] Questions and answers and not have to wait for a contract company to call them back?
[1:11:58] Are you telling me that the proposal to outsource didn't save money, make it better, and get more revenue like was promised?
[1:12:07] That's exactly what I'm saying, no way.
[1:12:14] Council Member Tongue.
[1:12:16] Thank you, I just have a couple of questions.
[1:12:18] The city's new web platforms e-commerce site you're saying is going to be used to collect the business license application fees.
[1:12:26] Is that up and running and working currently?
[1:12:29] It is in process.
[1:12:31] Okay.
[1:12:32] Yes.
[1:12:32] When will it be ready?
[1:12:34] Before October.
[1:12:36] Okay.
[1:12:37] That's why we have, that's why we've built in the runway for the next couple of months.
[1:12:41] Okay.
[1:12:42] They're finishing up.
[1:12:44] It's called pads and that's kind of, that is the module that will do business license, facility rentals and some of those other needs that we have.
[1:12:54] Okay.
[1:12:54] Great. And while we still have HDL, or even as you guys were considering doing this,
[1:13:00] do we know how many businesses still do not, are out of compliance, don't have their licenses, etc.?
[1:13:08] They can provide, they've agreed to provide all the data to us.
[1:13:12] So whether it's a current business or an expected non-compliant business,
[1:13:18] we can get that data from them.
[1:13:19] Okay.
[1:13:20] And then our person will follow up.
[1:13:22] Okay.
[1:13:22] Okay, and then there was something else someone said that made me think of a question and I can't remember it now, maybe it'll come back to me.
[1:13:31] Just one clarification, so the $6,000 Delta that you identified in software, that's not fully loaded though, right?
[1:13:38] So, no, no, that's just, that's not a salary, correct.
[1:13:41] So, I mean, I just want to make sure there is a purge impact here, and that's not nothing for the $6,000.
[1:13:49] It's, yeah, it's small because it's an existing employee who's just pay raise it's a marginal increase.
[1:13:56] Yes, correct, but okay, just keeping clarifying that's the salary number, not the fully loaded number.
[1:14:03] Yes, and I think when we originally signed that agreement with HDL, I'm glad you asked that question,
[1:14:10] Councilmember Tillman, because I think we asked for a guarantee that they would transfer
[1:14:17] all files, documentation, number of businesses, those out of compliance.
[1:14:24] This was an extended discussion that I had with them because I said everyone exits contracts
[1:14:28] eventually so how do we get our data back?
[1:14:30] You did.
[1:14:31] You did.
[1:14:32] And they included provisions within the contract to do so.
[1:14:36] Yes.
[1:14:37] All right.
[1:14:40] I remember.
[1:14:41] You have a question. All right. What is the time split between the duties adding on these additional duties?
[1:14:46] So I'm going to assume that they are not that they have the bandwidth to take this on, but what will be the division time split?
[1:14:55] So this is
[1:14:58] He's it's kind of
[1:15:00] Swiss Army knife of positions because this is the person who does code enforcement, does the over-the-counter work with permits and kind of assist our senior planner with that permit process. So he's already doing a lot of counter work. So we're kind of encapsulating those two together. And once pads is fully operational, people don't have to come in. They'll be able to do it online. They'll be able to use the system through our website.
[1:15:29] and so the occasion of him, most of his time is going to be making sure that the notices have gone out, that they have renewed, reaching out to those folks that have not renewed to let them know, hey, here's your first warning and so on and so forth.
[1:15:47] So, there will be an increase in kind of a shift in his duties, but we're thinking that
[1:15:55] it's going to compile with his current counter duties at the same time.
[1:16:00] And then I think there's going to be a ramp up at the beginning to get people, because
[1:16:04] again, we're shifting the system on all of our folks, and it's going to take a little bit
[1:16:09] to get them onto the platform.
[1:16:11] Once they're on the platform, the renewal should be.
[1:16:13] And so his dedicated time at the counter for just business license will diminish too.
[1:16:20] Okay, thanks.
[1:16:23] It'd be like the restaurants to have the QR code right there that you could just self serve.
[1:16:28] All right, cool.
[1:16:31] Okay, no other questions for staff?
[1:16:33] Public comment on this item?
[1:16:39] No public comment in the room, nor online.
[1:16:42] So I will close public comment for items 7B.
[1:16:45] And bring it back, if there's no other further discussion, then I think we need a mo, we're looking for a motion for the three resolutions.
[1:16:55] I'll move approval of adoption of resolution number 36-2026, approving the reclassification of the community development
[1:17:04] technician to community development specialist, resolution number 37-2026, amending the miscellaneous employees memorandum of understanding.
[1:17:15] and Resolution No. 382026, adopting an amended Clayton salary schedule effective August
[1:17:24] 18 today, 2026, in conformance with CalPERS requirement to provide a public, excuse me,
[1:17:33] provide a publicly available salary schedule.
[1:17:39] I'll second that.
[1:17:40] Would we please hold the roll?
[1:17:42] Council member Diaz?
[1:17:44] Yes.
[1:17:44] Council member Trupiano?
[1:17:46] Yes.
[1:17:46] Council Member Tillman.
[1:17:47] Aye.
[1:17:48] Vice Mayor Anya.
[1:17:49] Yes.
[1:17:49] Mayor Wan.
[1:17:50] Aye.
[1:17:50] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:17:52] All right, that concludes item 7-B.
[1:17:55] Next is item 7-C.
[1:17:58] This is the designation of a voting delegate
[1:18:01] and alternate delegate for the League of Counts cities,
[1:18:04] 2026 annual conference in Anaheim
[1:18:07] towards the end of September.
[1:18:10] Is there a description?
[1:18:13] The only description is the general assembly meeting is on the last day Friday morning there is one, there will be one item to vote on during that meeting.
[1:18:24] And so it is just, we have three council members attending this conference.
[1:18:30] Council member Tillman, vice mayor Ania and council member Diaz, I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, vice mayor Ania won't be there that Friday morning.
[1:18:41] So Council Member Diaz and Council Member Tillman will be available.
[1:18:46] So I will turn it over to you for discussion and selection of the voting delegate.
[1:18:50] Are we separating this with the actual thing that we're voting on?
[1:18:54] Are we talking about that at the same time?
[1:18:56] I think it's in the staff report, it's talking about at the same time.
[1:19:01] Okay, great.
[1:19:03] Any questions for staff?
[1:19:08] Public comment on this item?
[1:19:10] All
[1:19:14] right, no public comment in the room, nor online, so I'll close public comment on item 7c and bring it back for discussion.
[1:19:22] Does anyone want to raise your hand to be the voting delegate or the alternate?
[1:19:29] There are two choices given that Vice Mayor Ania is not going to be in attendance.
[1:19:35] So you guys could flip for it.
[1:19:38] I will offer my services to be there because I plan on being there for the full conference.
[1:19:43] Okay.
[1:19:44] As the voting delegate.
[1:19:47] Okay, and I concur, that makes more sense.
[1:19:50] I will actually be sitting on the Resolutions Committee and debating it the prior day, which is what happened
[1:19:56] the last time with my presidential appointment, and there were some shenanigans that occurred with
[1:20:02] what we read in the packet versus what was discussed on the floor.
[1:20:06] So, yes, I will be the alternate and I think he should be the delegate.
[1:20:11] Sounds great. Does anyone have any other recommendations? There's really only one.
[1:20:17] Down to. My niece is getting married. I'll wait no, we're not there yet.
[1:20:25] We're still discussing. Still discussing? Okay, so that's good. Now I think, I mean it's Disneyland,
[1:20:30] Land, you don't want to go?
[1:20:32] That's not a, there's some conflicts going on at that time.
[1:20:37] Okay, so then I think we, that seems pretty cool, reasonable.
[1:20:43] Now the actual thing that's being discussed, does anyone have any comment on that?
[1:20:50] Would you like to share it with a group?
[1:20:52] I'm glad Councilmember Tillman is going to be looking at this resolution because I think
[1:20:56] It's in my opinion, it's a long time coming.
[1:21:00] With this resolution does, it's a resolution to support the establishing of a working group to evaluate a state constitutional amendment or another initiative to restore local housing and land use authority, bringing it back to the cities.
[1:21:19] cities, which Cal cities has not taken a stand, even though there's 419 cities, I wonder
[1:21:28] how many cities want to restore it back to local use.
[1:21:32] Cal cities has not done anything about that.
[1:21:36] So finally the city of Torrance and another city, there's a few cities.
[1:21:41] Can you lay, there's a few cities now that want to do the working group to try to get Cal cities to move on?
[1:21:50] Am I saying that correctly, Councilman Tillett?
[1:21:55] What's in the packet is a resolution that was submitted by the City of Marietta, and they have letters of concurrence from banning Calamesa,
[1:22:03] Canyon Lake, Marano Valley, Norco, Torrance, and then a couple of mayors from specific cities.
[1:22:08] So, after that, they want to refer to the housing, community, and economic development committee.
[1:22:14] So, a lot can happen between now and then, but yeah, their letters of support are all in the document.
[1:22:23] I mean, this is like the smallest of baby steps I've ever seen, but that's fine, I suppose.
[1:22:29] I mean, you would think that CalCities represents cities, but this is actually the first time that I've seen it.
[1:22:33] So, that's great.
[1:22:34] The step in the right direction will be at the smallest possible one, I think.
[1:22:39] So I think as a council, we would say to the voting delegates, we would be in favor of forming a committee to talk about stuff.
[1:22:50] Yeah, we did that already.
[1:22:57] Does anyone dying to make public comment?
[1:23:02] Yeah, we did, we did do it though.
[1:23:04] I thought we did it on the delegate part, not on the second part.
[1:23:06] It's just one part.
[1:23:08] So that's why I said, like, are we doing it together?
[1:23:10] there. But if anyone is dying to make public comment, like we can make an exception.
[1:23:18] You can make as many comments as you'd like.
[1:23:21] You know, our housing element, our housing element is good to 2032, is that it?
[1:23:27] So we should start planning now because that's how long it takes the HDD to approve it.
[1:23:31] Is it 2031?
[1:23:33] Okay, so that gives us five years to get our legal California cities to try to get an
[1:23:40] amendment to that or legislators, because what a lot of people don't know and claim, do you know how much we spent to get our certification on a contract, 430,000?
[1:23:55] four hundred and say four hundred thousand dollars. That could have went well to
[1:24:02] balance it our budget, but we hired a consultant when the end didn't
[1:24:07] produce. It was Senator Grayson. I was for his didn't Grayson. Senator Tim
[1:24:16] Grayson that we went to that helped us get that done. So I'm looking forward to
[1:24:23] or league of cities to do it much more in this case for us.
[1:24:28] It'll help us a lot.
[1:24:30] Thank you.
[1:24:37] Well, we've already done public comment.
[1:24:38] And so I think that we've expressed,
[1:24:40] the council has expressed the collected desire
[1:24:44] in favor of doing this thing.
[1:24:47] And so we've selected or nominated, I guess,
[1:24:50] the voting and alternate.
[1:24:51] So I think we need a motion on those things.
[1:24:54] If anyone would like to make a motion.
[1:24:56] So moved.
[1:24:58] Second.
[1:25:00] Would you please call the roll.
[1:25:04] Council member Rdias.
[1:25:05] Yes.
[1:25:06] Council member Trupiano.
[1:25:07] Yes.
[1:25:08] Council member Tillman.
[1:25:09] Vice Mayor Ania.
[1:25:10] Yes.
[1:25:11] Mayor Wan.
[1:25:12] Aye.
[1:25:12] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:25:14] Excellent.
[1:25:15] That concludes item 7-C.
[1:25:18] Next is item 8.
[1:25:20] Adjournment.
[1:25:20] It is 8-25.
[1:25:22] We're done.
[1:25:26] 8.