City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to call this meeting to order at 5 p.m. on August 3rd, 2026. Roll call, please. 6 p.m. Roll call, please.

Here. Here. Andy, can you help take us into closed session? Sure.

Okay. Got a thumbs up from most. I'll yell. Yep. Everybody.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Klein, for sprinting. Okay, we're going to call this meeting to order 6 p.m. on August 3rd, 2026. Roll call, please.

Here. Andy, could you please take us and report on the closed session, please?

Thank you very much. Moving on to item 4.3, city clerk's report on posting of the agenda, please.

Okay, we're going to have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Bracco. And then please remain standing for invocation by Pastor Trevor Van Laar from Gilroy Presbyterian Church.

Ready, salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Pastor Van Laar. Moving on to item 4.6, orders of the day. We are going to move item 10.1 from today's agenda to a future council meeting with a date to be determined. So once again, item 10.1 will come off tonight's agenda and move to a meeting with a date yet to be determined. Skipping over 4.7 and going right to ceremonial items, proclamations, and awards. Item 5.1 is I will be reading a proclamation for screen-free week proclamation to be received by Sean Chipper. So, Sean, you can meet me up front. Okay, I'll read this and you'll see if you... Okay, City of Gilroy Proclamation.

All right, okay, moving on from item 5.1 to item 6, presentations to council, this public comment. Before we go into public comment, we have a few public comments this evening. Before we go into public comment, I want to remind everybody we did this last week as well, but we do have a new ability to do public comment remotely now. That started last week. So thank you, Kim, for introduction that. And thank you to the IT department. I know there was a lot of time that went into doing that. So thank you very much for doing that. As a reminder to, I know most of the folks in this room understand t

Thank you, Greg. Just to be clear, Greg, I heard at one point you said tomorrow rec assessment. Wednesday, 9 a.m., 10 a.m., and then 6 to 7 p.m., Senior Center for everybody. Senior Center. And then tomorrow.

Thank you. Okay, Connie. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now move on reports by council members. Council member Bracco. That's in a report. Council member Fugazi.

Yes, for Visit Gilroy, they're actively pursuing methods to train the AI services. It comes up when you search, for instance, in Google, now AI comes up first. That Gilroy is a standalone destination that complements locations like Santa Cruz and Monterey. Visit Gilroy wants to thank the sponsors, volunteers, and organizers of the Gilroy Garlic Festival. and the Hecker Pass Event Center for their contribution to the Gilroy economy. Hotels reported high occupancy and an increased average daily rate on festival weekend. Through the first half of 2026, Gilroy's lodging market outpaced comparable

Thank you. Council Member Marks. No report.

Council Member Hilton. Thank you from Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Save the date for a special event for local elected officials preparing for upcoming air district regulations. The date is August 31st from 530 to 8 p.m. Location is at Sunnyvale City Hall. The Bay Area Air District will vote on updates in the zero NOx water heater rule in October. We anticipate that elected officials may receive or continue to receive many public questions related to both the rules and electrification. The evening is designed to move beyond the headlines and equip you with the facts, context, and communication

Thank you very much. Council Member Ramirez. No report. Okay. Council Member Klein.

I just want to do a shout out to Gilroy Gardens. I got to take my grandkids there for a yearly visit and it just reminds me of what a great place that is. They do such a great job, the staff and all that they're doing out there. So just a shout out to them.

Thank you. I have nothing to report this evening. So I will move on to item number eight, consent calendar. Any council members have questions about the consent calendar? Okay, we have any public comment? Okay, I'll entertain them. I'll have a motion by Council Member Fugazi. Second. And a second by Council Member Ramirez to approve the consent calendars item 8.1 through 8.4. Roll call, please.

Yes, motion passes seven to zero. Thank you. Moving on to item nine, 9.1, bids and proposals. Award a professional services agreement to Kimley Horn for a not to exceed amount of $237,117 for the development of a city of Gilroy comprehensive roadway safety action plan. Add the project to the capital improvement program and adopt a budget amendment resolution to appropriate grant and gas tax funds to the project. A staff report, please.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ON THE BOARD. THERE THEY GO, SORRY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIS AND THEN WE'LL GO COUNCILMEMBER FERGATI.

THERE YOU GO. THAT'S BETTER. OKAY. GOT TO GET MUCH CLOSER.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER FUGATI AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER MARKS.

So the SS4 grant, $1.8 million, what exactly is that for again?

Okay, so this is what exactly that's already been identified?

And what in your experience or maybe the director's experience do you think is our likelihood of getting that grant? Is it a 10% chance or is it a 90% chance?

Is it usually all or nothing, or they usually give you a fraction, or how does that work?

I'M NEW TO ALL THIS, SO I'M LEARNING A LITTLE BIT TOO.

OKAY. AND THE OBAG 4.1, THE POWERPOINT I HAVE THAT I GOT AT LIKE 1 O'CLOCK TODAY SAID 1.49 MILLION, BUT THIS ONE SAYS 7.7 MILLION? YES.

And again we have a high likelihood of getting these or they're like pie in the sky or I'm just trying to get a sense of, and again, this is also, none of these have to do necessarily, or at least this one doesn't have anything to do with the fatalities that we've had recently, right? So it's not necessarily associated with that.

THE NEXT THING REALLY THAT CONCERNS ME WITH ALL OF THIS IS IF THIS REPORT COMES BACK AND THE AMOUNT OF UNSAFE AREAS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY ARE $30 MILLION OF THINGS TO CONTEND WITH, ARE WE PREPARED TO EXPLAIN TO THE RESIDENTS HOW WE'RE GOING TO pay for, mitigate. I mean right now we don't necessarily know all those things, but knowing that now becomes something that hangs out there over our head a little bit.

So you don't have any concern that we have, let's say, 15 sidewalks in town that are now identified as super hazardous sidewalks. And in four months, somebody gets whacked in a sidewalk and We have that hanging over our head because we never could take care of more than 14 months. I don't know how many, I don't know how much deferred traffic safety issues we might possibly have in Gilroy that this would identify.

Okay. And this, once it's completed and it's unaltered form, will be available on the city website?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Marks and then Council Member Bracco.

You know, I don't have a question. I have a comment. Would you rather have me wait until after public comment?

On these fatalities you listed, how many of them happened when they were obeying all traffic laws?

I've been responding to accidents for 45 years. Never do they happen unless somebody screws up. Either they're drunk, they're on their phone, they fall asleep. It's always, it's nothing that can be predictable. No one can predict where it's going to happen or when it's going to happen. Otherwise, they wouldn't happen. So, okay, that's all I have.

Thank you. Further questions? Okay, I'm going to go to public comment. All right. So why don't I go to Council Member Marks. You had some comments.

Yes. Thank you for this report. It's a lot more detailed this time around because I was one of your no votes. And as I read through this and I saw the different types of grants, whether we pass it tonight or not, all these situations in the city still exist. And if we can get any kind of dollar amount back through grants, we're better off than getting zero. So tonight I will be supporting doing this application. Thank you.

Additional comments? Yeah, I'll make one. I hear what you're saying, Council Member Bracco. A lot of these things that happen are because of driver error. But something that do give me hope that hopefully prevent members of the public from driver error would be grants Grants that we're attempting to get that we could put in sidewalks and things like that would take people further away from the potential for error. So I appreciate you guys being more detailed about the type of potential that we can get for some of these grants. It's not just trying to interfere with driver practices, but also m

Okay, I have a motion by Councilmember Marks to award a professional services agreement to Kimley-Horn for not to exceed amount of $237,117 for the development of the City of Galway Comprehensive Roadway Safety Action Plan, add the project to the Capital Improvement Program, and adopt a budget amendment resolution to appropriate grant and gas tax funds to the project. I have a second by Councilmember Ramirez. Roll call, please.

Yes. A motion passes 5-2. And now I will entertain a motion to adopt a resolution amending the fiscal year 26 budget with the gas tax fund. to appropriate $189,693.80 in fiscal year 2024 SS4A grant funds to the project, along with $47,423.45 in local match from the gas tax fund balance for a total of $237,117.25. I'll motion. Second. A motion by Councilmember Klein and a second by Councilmember Hilton. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 5-2. Thank you very much. Moving on, we, as I said before, item 10.1 has been pulled from tonight's agenda, so we will move right along to item 10.2. Consideration of the report of abatement of weeds and refuse within the city of Gilroy and adoption of a resolution confirming the imposition of assessments leans against the land. Staff report, please.

Any questions from Council? Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Fregatti.

In short summary, are we getting better with weeds in Gilroy or worse, like year over year?

More resident input, too, right? Yeah. Which is good. All right, thank you.

Additional questions? Okay, then I will open the public hearing and ask the city clerk if there's any public comments. Okay, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to council. Any final comments? Well, I'll make one comment. I think it's incredible. There's five properties that were assessed, and they have a potential fee from $6,000 to $8,000 just for weeds, and they didn't even contact you, so... Yeah. Thank you. Okay. I will entertain a motion to adopt a resolution allowing the assessment of fees minus any qualifying objections as reported by the Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program. Moved. I got a motion by Council Member Fugazi.

And a second by Council Member Marks. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thanks, Jonathan. Moving on to item 10.3, adoption of an urgency ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of a new tobacco retailer permit citywide through December 31, 2026. Staff report, please.

All right, I have first two on the board. I have Council Member Fugazi, then Council Member Hilton.

So when we did the first moratorium, my and even the more general moratorium across the city, we did the first one in the one section and then the general one. My reasoning behind it was because it appeared at the time it was found out afterward that We had major holes in how we administer the TRPs and how we enforce and all of these kinds of things, which I don't need to rehash. So the question I would ask you right now is, do we feel as a city that we've now fixed those things, we've plugged those holes, we are set up to issue the proper TRPs, to issue the proper business license that say th

That wasn't my question, though. That's not even close to my question. My question is now, if somebody, if we were to not do this, could we today, with the way staff is set up and new procedures or whatever they are, affect a TRP application in a new, more enhanced way so that we don't have the problems that we had in the past?

Only if we choose to have those. Only if we choose to have those. As you said, even if we do that, there will be a potential gap in between the moratorium and those being enacted, correct?

Even if you did, you said that there may be a gap.

Okay, so just to restate though, you're in agreement that the city could properly now receive TRP applications, process them, enforce them, and all the things required to have the proper set of things in place for tobacco sales in Gilroy.

I understand that there may be enhancements, but let's say there's no enhancements and there's no moratorium. Are we able to handle it as a city?

We have increased confidence now, is what you're saying, compared to nine months ago, that we can handle this. That's correct. Okay, great.

Council Member Hilton. If I get this right, there's still language that we need to codify that we've been talking about for a long time. One of the items is coming up, but at the same time, THERE'S ALSO OTHER STUFF THAT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE TRP YET, AND THAT'S THE GAP WE'RE TRYING TO FILL WITH THIS TONIGHT. SO, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND IT COULD HAVE COME BEFORE IT, BUT IF THAT ITEM CAME BEFORE IT AND WE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE USE-SENSITIVE SITES, WE'RE FINE WITH SCHOOLS, THERE'S STILL STAFF WORK THAT THEY NEED TO DO. YEAH, NO, NO,

Any further questions? OK. I'm going to open the public hearing for public comment. All right. Bring it back to council. Council Member Furgati.

For myself, the way I stand on this is that we had ordinances in place. Had they been taken care of the way they were supposed to, then we probably wouldn't have gotten to the situation that we did. We resolved it. City came together, staff came together, and did everything that they need to do. At the same time, we have other concerns, or some council members have other concerns, which still exist around tobacco. And to me, they're two completely different things. So I believe that the city and the city businesses should be allowed to continue to follow the ordinances that were already in pla

SO I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU AND THE WORK YOU'VE DONE OVER THESE MONTHS. I AM CONCERNED WHAT YOU SHARE ABOUT CONTINUING THE MORATORIUM. IT'S KIND OF A, I DON'T KNOW, CAN WE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD TOO, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH THE MORATORIUM TOO AS FAR AS GETTING THIS STUFF DONE. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO THIS POINT.

I just want to say, we've already kept a number of businesses like C-Stores, convenience stores, and others on hold for quite a number of months to not be able to establish a business YOU KNOW, IN THIS AREA. I HATE CIGARETTES, OKAY? I HAVE NO LOVE FOR CIGARETTES, BUT I DO HAVE A LOVE FOR BUSINESS, AND I DO HAVE A LOVE FOR BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO SET UP IN GILROY, AND I MENTIONED IT BEFORE, AND ACTUALLY THE MAYOR MENTIONED TO ME A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, WHICH IS THERE'S EVERYTHING FROM THE C-STORE WHO HOLDS CIGARETTES TO THE HIGH-END CIGAR STORE THAT WANTS TO GET SET UP AND SERVICE THEIR CLIENTELE

SO I HAVE SOME COMMENTS. I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, COUNCILMEMBER FUGATSI. I THINK WE'VE COME A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG WAY SINCE WE STARTED THIS PROCESS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. AND WHILE I APPRECIATE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS FOR YOUR REASONS, FOR ME, THIS IS A TOOL IN THE TOOL BOX. AND I THINK WE'VE COME SO FAR, AND WE ARE VERY CLOSE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I CAN SUPPORT THIS. BUT I'M GOING TO NEED SOME HELP ON COUNCIL.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU FEAR, MAYOR? IF THE MORATORIUM IS LIFTED, WHAT DO YOU THINK MIGHT HAPPEN THAT WOULD BE THE ANTITHESIS OF WHAT WE WANT HERE?

AS COUNCILMEMBER HILTON SAID AND AS STAFF PRESENTED, THERE ARE A FEW GAPS. I WANT US TO GET OVER THE FINISH LINE.

And to me, too, it's to be able to see the final product. We have not seen that yet. We haven't had a chance to see that yet. We still have to go through that next item. But even if that next item gets approved or not approved, we still haven't seen the new TRP, the one that we can vote yes or no on. We haven't seen that yet. We're trying to get to that point, but we're not there yet. That's what staff and that's what I'm trying to ask you to give us a little grace for. We have not finished the process yet.

Again, every time we have something that we're trying to regulate in town, we don't enact a moratorium so that we can then figure it out for six, eight, ten months and then make the changes that we want and enact it, whether it's a card carrying thing or whatever it is. Yeah, card room, thank you. We do what we need to do and in the interim, until it gets done, it stays the way it was. And so if somebody can give me a public health reason why this should be stopped, then that would make sense to me. But if it's just, hey, we'd like to get it finished, what is possibly going to happen? We're go

I noticed driving around Gilroy, it looks like about half of them are gone. The stores are empty. They're boarded up. Do you know how many have just left?

So that's all TRPs, though. We're not talking about smoke shops.

You don't categorize them into the smoke shops or vape shops?

Okay. And like Council Member Fugazi was saying, I mean, it's been a year. If we don't adopt anything, you still have rules that you go by, right?

And how long of a moratorium are we looking at?

Okay, thank you. Council Member Marks and then Council Member Ramirez.

All right, the problem, I am supporting this moratorium. I'm supporting this moratorium because I think what angers me the most is that these smoke shops come in, they're given all the regulations, they know the rules, and they break them every time. And I just find that's unforgivable that we're exposing our kids to drugs that they're selling. And then they play dumb, like, oh, I didn't know. Well, you have to read it. And you have to know what your responsibility is. So I have no sympathy for them. Secondly, Can you have this done by end of September or at our second meeting in September? Be

WAS IT ONE, TEN, 100? I MEAN, AGAIN, THESE ARE BUSINESSES THAT ARE TRYING TO... FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S A SMALL BIT, MAYBE ONE TO THREE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR SOME ACTION HERE, SO ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION?

Sorry, I think we're going to break this into two motions.

Okay, so I have a motion by Councilmember Hilton and a second by Councilmember Marks to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading.

Yes, motion passes 6 to 1. Thank you. OK, moving on to item number 11, unfinished business. If you haven't got enough tobacco talk, here we go. Consideration of a tobacco retailer permit prohibited areas around youth oriented facilities. Staff report, please.

So it looks like quite a bit of coverage of the city. Probably with three more youth facilities, you'd pretty much have the whole city pretty much off limits if they were one over on 1st Street, one over on 10th Street, and one over by the outlets, I guess, or somewhere around over there.

Right. So that's, I mean, a potential area for filling station or C-Store as well as down on, you know, over by 10th Street and over that way. And if the ones over there off First Street are not, you know, you have a grandfathering issue there. So it's quite a bit of the city covered by that. The second question, maybe it's I think it's for our director of economic development, because I'd like to hear her opinion on this and how it affects the city. And if she was working with you and anybody else on this topic, how it affects our economics and what her feelings are about having this.

Would something like this be a concern? It's something that obviously is going to limit business and economic development.

Well, we have some new C-stores in town, one over off of 10th Street and whatnot, and a big component of their business is tobacco sales. And clearly that business is a big economic concern for us, gas sales and everything else. So, I mean, limiting these abilities would affect the economic return to Gilroy, would it not?

CORRECT. For the comments, questions, excuse me, for the questions?

I mean, is there a concern from the city, from a health perspective, of a tobacco establishment, tobacco sales establishment, cropping up within 600 feet of a place that has five-year-olds in it? I mean, are we really worried that they're going to hop on over and grab a pack? I mean, I don't understand...

Yeah, I understand. I get it. Again, you just said it right there. Is there an economic development impact? And I would expect that to come with your report for something that restricts the economics of Gilroy.

But we don't know the impact. That's the thing that's what I'm saying is we know the impact of where it is, but it's hard to make a decision if you don't know what the intent the exact implications or even the unintended implications are of doing something like this to then go, oh, well, if we did this, it would restrict the city from earning this in the future potentially.

But you and the economic development director can have an opinion, right? Like that this is going to have a significant, a mild impact, a I'M NOT GOING TO KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT I'LL BOOK END IT AT 300 GRAND TO 500 GRAND A YEAR, SOMETHING, RIGHT? SOMETHING TANGIBLE. NOBODY'S GOING TO HOLD ANYBODY TO A NUMBER.

So I'll ask a question and make a comment, sorry, all at the same time. Hopefully it's related to what you were saying. And maybe Councilmember Hilton, you can help a little bit here. Going back to where we were a year ago or so, what did we have? We had an ordinance that prevented TOBACCO RETAIL WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK AS ALL OF US ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU HAVE LESS CONCERNS. JUST BECAUSE ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE ON HERE, THEY'RE TAKING GUIDANCE FROM US TODAY. I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR A DISCUSSION HERE THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT ALL OF THESE. This giant list of thin

Are we still on questions? Are we still on questions?

I'm just trying to put in perspective what she said, that there's a giant list that, okay, here's a question. Can't we consider doing a lot less of what's on the list? Yes. Okay. There's a question. Council Member Rocco.

Yeah, I'm not sure what our end goal is here. We have rules a thousand feet from a school and I think we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. These mostly are all legitimate businesses that there's no problems with. So I think we should just leave it the way it is.

Okay, so let's, thank you. We'll go to public comment, please. Okay. I can't get a break. All right. Okay, let's open it up for deliberations.

All right, go ahead. You know, one of the things I wanted to bring up because it was brought up on council here is that tobacco establishments and some that are labeled as a smoke shop, which we tried unsuccessfully to try to define at one point, are bad because they sell illegal things. Well, if they're allowed to sell illegal things, then we're bad as an enforcement arm of the city to keeping them from doing that. If they are violating other ordinances around signage or smoking around the facility or any of these other things that are all written in there, it's a very comprehensive ordinance

Well, we're not taking action on this tonight. So after we do the deliberation, this is what staff is looking for, right? Some guidance from us. What do we want to see?

I feel just input a little bit. I feel the same way as Council Member Ramirez, Council Member Fugazi, and Bronco about it's not as big of a pressing issue. We're concerned about that, but we're seeing what's been taking place in these last nine months and where it's really improved. We want to see this ordinance in place. I just think Not maybe as much like what you said still look at that. We want to complete this I get that too, but maybe not as much Now can I ask another question to like okay?

So let's say we decide as a group to tell staff that hey look Let's just leave it the way it is We just passed a moratorium for what reason that's why I said why did we put these in that order because if we came to this conclusion First, we might not have passed a moratorium.

You know, I think I'll take credit for pushing us towards this youth-oriented one because, you know, we were trying to think of anything and everything that we could do to regulate at that time, but we kept pausing when, you know, back in June where we wanted to, like, push, push, push, and we all kind of agreed, like, hey, hold on a second. You know, let's use the summertime. Let's have a little bit of a cooling off. Let's figure out whether we want to do this or not, and, you know, THIS IS A GREAT TOOL THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER, BRYCE. I APPRECIATE IT. WHAT I WAS REALLY TRYING TO GO AFTER IS THE

NEW SPEAKER COUNCILMEMBER RAMIREZ AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER MARKS.

Okay, I have a question, because from what I'm hearing right now, it sounds like this council is going in the direction of saying, let's leave the locations alone. We have it 1,000 feet from a school. Now, my question, Bryce, I thought at one time this council said they did not want smoke shops downtown. If we left, if we go back and just leave it alone, as I'm hearing it talked about, does that mean a smoke shop can open up downtown? Yes. Okay, we have to think about that because I would not approve that. I would want to see no smoke shops downtown. So I would agree with everything else, but.

And to be clear, what he's presenting to us is about youth centers, not about downtown. So that's a completely different thing.

But downtown was why we got here. That was one of the reasons when that smoke shop tried to come. That opened up all these conversations.

Right, because again, back to smoke shops selling illegal things in order to make a profit. When they can't sell illegal items, they don't make a profit. So the reason C-stores exist is because they sell a lot of other things. They happen to be at a gas station and they sell cigarettes and it's part of what they do.

But the reason that smoke shops, the only ones that exist, the smoke shops, are the ones that are selling illegal things. So if you make yourself a town that doesn't allow illegal stuff to be sold... by tobacco retailers, then you won't have them here. The reason we don't have food trucks in town as much anymore is because we attracted all the illegal food trucks. Then we created a temporary food truck ordinance, and they all left because they didn't want to get county permits, and they didn't want to get all of the regulations. And so when you enforce the things that you have on the books, it

So how do we get to some language to give some direction to staff? I've heard, I've heard from this council that we want to stick to what we already have, but I'll also heard from council member Hilton that you meant you, you've mentioned the youth centers. I want you to re re give your words of what the direction we're going to get to staff and see if we have a consensus.

It would be basically be to, to not focus around these youth centers, right? That's clear enough. Whatever we already have existing, the buffer on the school zone is where we'd like to move forward. BUT WE ARE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY OF THESE YOUTH-SENSITIVE OR YOUTH-ORIENTED SITES.

SO ESSENTIALLY, WE ARE STICKING WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS, WHICH DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO HAVE A MORATORIUM BECAUSE WE ARE STICKING WITH WHAT IS ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT BACK FOR A NEW ORDINANCE, DO WE?

OKAY. BACK TO THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE GIVING STAFF. DO YOU HAVE THE GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL? I BELIEVE THAT WE ALL AGREE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER HILTON SAID ON THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE GIVING TO STAFF. CORRECT.

Well, I have six people nodding their heads. Okay. Okay. So we have six. Thank you very much. Thank you everybody for the conversation.

I just have a question. So if we allow the moratorium to continue under what you're working on, would smoke shops be allowed downtown?

So basically, we went right back to where we were 10 months ago, except the only change was we now had enforcement that could have, and yes. And some less smoke shops because of the enforcement.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to reconsider item, sorry, make sure we got this right, 10.3 on tonight's agenda. So roll call, please.

Thank you. Moving on to item number 12, introduction of new business, report on Gilroy Connect C-Click Fix, service level agreement performance update, benchmarking comparison and communication protocols. Bryce, again. Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you. We'll start off with Council Member Hilton, and then go Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you. So I have a first couple questions and then maybe on round two I'll ask more. So my first one though is we're developing this policy, right? We're going to provide some direction on this. How is this being passed on to the staff member that's the actual user end? How will they know what we're implementing and how do they know these standard practices?

Okay. The second one is, do department directors get notified when some of these standards aren't being met or there's a ticket that's been opened and there's not continuing conversation? Aren't there automations that are automatically sent in there, and how high up do they go?

So, I mean, there's tickets that have been out there that are still out 60 days, 90 days, 120 days. Who's getting notified every day that council members, when we hear from our constituents and they're like, what's going on with this? Who's the department director that I can go and speak to, you know, along with the city administrator copied on it, but I can say, this has been going on for 90 days. Did you know about this? Will they know about that? They would. So they're getting an email?

So, okay, that's good to know. My last question for this round is, I can see that there's some AI technology that has been implemented into it, into some of these changes over the last like 30 days. Maybe that's made it a little bit quicker. You know, it can detect, you know, what they think the issue might be, but it's also being automatically assigned to staffers. And I see that being implemented in the public works division. But how have you decided, are you testing it out in certain departments to see if it works? Or are you planning on implementing that for other departments?

Can we have questions? Oh. And leave that deliberation. Okay, sorry. Council Member Furgati.

So to be clear, these practices you're showing are new practices that you intend to put in place, not practices that are currently in place? Because I was a little confused.

That's what I was asking. So the communication protocol is what's changing? So to get a more enhanced communication back and forth with the public?

So to follow up on the escalations from Council Member Hilton, Escalations have been in place since its inception, have they not? So when we get something that is out there for a resident that has taken 30, 45, 60, 120 days, those directors are getting those emails? As long as they're signed up on the escalation. So they're choosing to ignore C-Click fix? I don't understand how that can be possible.

Sure, but I'm talking about there are cases where there are ones that have zero.

I'm talking about where somebody said, hey, somebody will help you is the first response. And then three months later, it gets closed with no other communication, no other person coming in. So if we're doing escalations, I guess the question I'm asking is, are we going to improve our ability to respond to escalations? Because escalations have been in place. And that is where I think we're missing the mark on a lot of this.

So obviously we have the staff are the ones creating the SLAs, right? And are the actual SLAs determined by what we can do, what we strive for, or what even the public might expect? Because those are all different things.

So there's a real, I'll give a real example. Since you say it's what we think it's close to what people should expect. So a dilapidated car on a public street in front of somebody's house that gets reported, you've got an SLA in here of 30 days. I don't think most of the public would think that that is a reasonable time frame to have the dilapidated car pulled off from in front of their street.

So what you're saying doesn't align with the SLAs that we think that they're close to what the public might expect. If somebody downtown wants to have a, what is the SLA for food trucks or food vendors downtown, according to our ordinance there?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. I believe it's 30 days, but let me double check. I think it's 15. Yes, 15 days. 15 days. So if somebody reports having a food truck on one weekend or a food cart, I should say, that's illegally on the sidewalk, their expectation is that it might be there for another two weekends before we get to it. And that aligns with the SLA. I mean, that aligns with what we would think those business owners would have as an expectation.

I know that's what you're committing to. That's why I asked the question. Is this what staff can do? That's what we think is close to what residents can.

Sure, we'll discuss that later in comments. But this is why the question was valid for me because when we show these things to residents, I think it's going to be a big disconnect for them on many of these to go, wait a second, Why does it take 30 days to get rid of this car from in front of my house? And I, anyway, I'll ask more later.

Other questions? No. Jump to public comment. All right. BRING IT BACK. COUNCILMEMBER HILTON, WERE YOU REACHING? NO.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on most of that. The anonymous thing is there so people don't have retribution concerns and they will report things that they might not otherwise report, including the examples that I gave earlier of dilapidated cars in their neighborhood or, you know, food carts that happen to be on Monterey. So the anonymous thing I think absolutely has to be there. I don't know how much you've utilized the C-Click fix thing, but even as anonymous, You get all the responses back. It comes to your email. It's anonymous. And you can have that conversation with THE STA

Yeah, so, you know, beautification economic development was a top concern of this council when we met, you know, several times, whether it was a reintroduction with a new city administrator or even before. You know, I can tell you some council members might feel like abandoned cars and junked cars and cars parking on lawns is not a, they don't see it every day, is not a concern that they hear from their constituents and their They're districts, but I can tell you my district and the areas that I've been really trying to help people and coach them to use this tool. Blight is a big concern for t

CAN I SAY ONE THING QUICKLY TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE MENTIONED AT LARGE OF WHERE THINGS ARE TAKING PLACE, THIS IS REALLY THE BLIGHT ISSUES THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PUTTING IN PLACE. THEY'RE NOT HAPPENING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE HAPPENING IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T DESERVE THIS TO HAPPEN TO THEM. THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT PEOPLE QUITE FRANKLY CAME IN AND TOLD ME I WOULDN'T PAY ATTENTION TO. THOSE ARE THE ONES WHERE I'M PAYING THE MOST ATTENTION TO. BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE ALL OF THIS BLIGHT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, COUNCILMEMBER. I THINK THERE IS A DISCONNECT. I THINK THERE'S A DISCONNECT IN THREE WAYS. I THINK THAT STAFF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TOOL THAT WAS BROUGHT ON BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL THAT WANTED TO SOMEHOW ORGANIZE THIS AND GET AWAY FROM SENDING EMAILS AND THEN FOLLOWING UP THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND THEN HAVING OUR CONSTITUENTS CONTACT US AND BE FRUSTRATED. BUT I THINK THERE'S A DISCONNECT THAT STAFF IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO WORK IT AND MAKE IT BETTER, AND IT IS GETTING BETTER, BUT I STILL, I DON'T FEEL INCLUDED IN THAT. I DON'T THINK THIS COUNCIL IS INCLUDED IN

Thank you. I just want to follow up on the one thing he said, which was this community involvement. I think absolutely when you're creating these SLAs, when I read the staff report, it said, well, that was decided by our little team of people who work on C-Click Fix. I think that whether it's even through email or a survey or whatever it is, you should be polling the residents or have a small group of people to help you, guide you with that. And if you need to have, like, this is what our target is, this is what your expectation now is, I think that would be really, really helpful.

I'd like to say I do appreciate the app being able to refer people to that because someone will complain and I just point it on my phone, download this app and make the report. And it's easy to do. I appreciate staff and what they've been doing to make it better, you know, bringing it on at the beginning. It was really important to us. And, again, economic development, you know, talking about our gateways and making it look better. And this is a tool to really achieve that. I do appreciate both my council member Hilton and Pagazzi and their passion in this and driving this. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much. Great conversations, everybody tonight. Great ideas. And thank you, staff, for the report.

Okay, moving on to item 12.2. Consider recommended actions before adopting a zoning code amendment to section three zero point four one point three one This is from a an agenda item from a fair memo submitted by councilmember Hilton Take it away, Michael A moment mayor.

I'm going to go Council Member Hilton, and then Council Member Bracco, and then Council Member Fregazzi.

Thank you. Great staff report. Appreciate it. Like how you split it up a little bit. My question was, when was the last time the city even hired somebody to do something like that? And I know you came from another agency. Is there like a standard, like, let's go through this, let's do this during the zoning code update, which would happen with the general plan, you know, maybe every 10 years. But is there some sort of standard that we have? Because right now, if we were to look at this, we obviously don't have it.

All right, and just a quick brief statement, since this was my fair memo, I'm more than willing to also split up the power tools and the reduction of the 70 to the 60 also, if that's a, I just want to throw that on the table.

So, we have grocery stores in town, so Costco, Walmart, Knob Hill, Safeway, they have a big rig in the back unloading, reefers running, so you could go out and site them for that?

And how many noise complaints have you gotten in the last six months?

So, I guess this is for Council Member Hilton. What is our goal here? What are you trying to fix?

So one of the reasons why I wrote this five years ago was because I was being asked by community groups that I was meeting with if there's anything we can do to limit the time that commercial landscapers would be coming to like the shopping center plaza like next to them when they're living upstairs in the next unit. Like is there any way that we can just, you know, so I was, I love getting into the detail of the code. I was like let me look at the code. And when I looked through the code, I realized it was like, oh, in 2013, it got removed. It just got removed. I can't tell whether it was lik

I'm more, I guess, opposite of you. I would like to throw out the rest and just keep the landscaping part.

Yeah, that's what I mean. But do something about the landscaping because that's everywhere in town and residences and stuff. People are out there at 7 o'clock in the morning with a weed wacker and stuff.

Yeah, I think it's a problem in the residential zoned areas, but I think it's also a problem, like we were talking about, where you have the commercial industrial impacting the residential.

I'm going to go to Council Member Fregatti. This is a comment, even a question back at you, Council Member Bracco. Because you asked about some of the large trucks delivering. But aren't we at the state level already have no EIDL laws that sort of takes care of that? You would know with your big trucks.

Not with the reefer units. They have to run. Otherwise, the load goes back. Okay.

So it says... such as drive-through facilities. So it's not just drive-through facilities? I'm very confused.

So is it, you know, as Council Member Bracco said, the supermarkets as well would be one of these, or it's only drive-through facilities?

So it would be specific to that kind of business? That is correct. Okay. And existing businesses, what would happen to them?

So I want to hear the story on why the drive-thru, because that wasn't their idea. That was our idea. That was actually.

No, I know the one that was basically for the new Starbucks over there near that other one. That was before I was on council, but I remember that issue. So.

It was, but it also had to do with emissions too. That was the big.

So. Generally, for these drive-throughs, it's not the vehicles that are creating the sound. It's the intercom systems and whatnot. Is that what we're seeing?

One could be mitigated fairly easily by the businesses and the other cannot.

and other cities that are doing this, what would be a couple of examples that have done this that I could go look up?

Okay. And again, whether it's to city administrator or to our economic development director, do we see this kind of restriction having, you know, a significant impact at all in businesses that would want to bring drive-thrus and whatnot? Or, I mean, or we've got enough examples where we think it's not going to be a big deal?

Yeah, it's twice as loud, 60 to 70. That's the way the decimals work.

That's all my questions for right now. I got one follow-up one.

Council Member Ramirez and then thank you.

So going back to the drive-thru, do we have enough, is there enough discretion, or do we need to write a, do we need to put in the code to do things like the one where the the project was developed right behind those homes, right? Where second story homes could look down on it. And I don't know whether I didn't think about this until now, like whether staff said, you know what, but you're going to put your speaker box on the other side. So it's not facing the residential. Was that a discretionary move or, or was somebody in staff thinking like, Hey, don't, don't put it in the back where, you k

I just know, living where I've lived for 26 years, and the level with the, I know, concern about the guys doing the yards, but it's always in that time factor that they have after 8 o'clock. I've never had that issue. The schools down the street, I don't really hear much other than the kids, the traffic, and all that. I'm wondering how many projects would this address in the future? I mean, how many places could we put drive-thru near residences that we've already done that to this point? But for the future, how many more restaurants can go or fast foods can go near a residential based on wher

Yeah, it's fine. Don't forget about redevelopment. Right. No, I understand. Yeah. You got to pick back there.

It's not 10 p.m. 10 a.m. It's 9. All right, let's go to public comment.

Thank you. All right, bringing it back to council.

So here's my suggestion. If we could put this all together, this would be the three items that I would like to move forward with. Number one is to incorporate the drive-through, those standards, those open source standards that are already probably good practices that are out there. Be able to have those standards put into our code. Number two would be to remove that word prohibited so it's very clear to anybody that reads it. And number three is talking about the power tools yard and landscaping to make sure that that's prohibited, not subject to the L-10 between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.

Go ahead. Sorry, I was trying to keep up with that.

So the drive-through part, all of the physical restrictions and whatnot that Andy happened to mention, I think I'm totally on board with. I think that's reasonable. 60 dB sound levels and whatnot in any part of the city I am not on board with at all. I think that's way too restrictive. I think when it comes to the landscape stuff, I don't know if this is only intended to be in commercial and industrial, but I would extend all the way across the city. I think that we have, I mean, if you really wanted me to say, I would say like four days a week and like no two-stroke you know in the city and t

Council Member Bracco, then Council Member Marks.

Yeah, I agree with Council Member Fugazi because a lot of our businesses, they hire these outfits. They come in 2 o'clock in the morning. You know, and they buzz their parking lots and do the sweeping. So I don't want to limit our businesses. You know, Knob Hill, Safeway, they have nighttime deliveries. And these trucks are going through the alley there. And I don't want to see us. I feel like we're creating a problem where there is no problem right now. I've never heard a complaint about the commercial businesses making too much noise. So I think we've done a good job at policing our city and

So are you, where were you on the power tools and the yard stuff? Before you said that was okay to put that in there, are you not?

Well, no, I was talking about residential.

I have a question, I guess. Now, would this affect golf courses? Because on weekends, I believe golfers are out there at 8 o'clock early in the morning, and to restrict all of the lawn mowing until 9 or later affects their business. And for a council that seems to be so bent on economic development, all of a sudden we're cutting into their development. If I had to choose, I would go for option one with commercial right by residential, you know, for the drive-throughs. I'm a firm believer that for some of the people that are complaining about noise on a business that's already existing, you kno

I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT. I KIND OF LEAN TOWARDS COUNCILMEMBER FUGATSE AND LOOKING AT THIS. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH THE DRIVE-THROUGH, JUST BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT, A LOT OF THAT'S DONE. BUT THERE SHOULD BE STANDARDS, SO I GET THAT TOTALLY. THE CONCERN IS JUST THE the noise level in the residences. I'm not concerned about industrial. I'm more concerned about residences and maintaining that. So the timeline, where I live, it's not an issue, but other places it could be. So allow that, like what Councilman Pagazzi talked about.

If you have to carve out golf courses, that's fine. I mean, the Gilroy golf course, isn't really a business when you look at the numbers. And then you have two other golf courses, one of which sits in the middle of a ton of houses already. But if you wanted to carve those out, that could be done also.

But also, most golf courses, I mean, if anybody plays golf, they're taking care of the course the entire day. They don't do everything before everybody starts and then go away. They're working around people. They're oftentimes even cutting while people have already shot. So I'm not too worried about that.

So I have a question about, back about the comment from the power tools, let's say the 10 a.m. to 8 a.m. or 7 a.m. on weekdays. Sorry, I missed that. Is there a... Thank you, sir. Correct. My question, though, is about the... Is there a noise level that you're attaching to those timelines?

No, it's not. It would not be subject to any percentage or any level. It's just prohibited.

No, so what I was wondering is what if someone's using a battery powered power equipment, which is the way the state is going to and the decibels are already fairly low? Right? So the state is already moving towards two strokes and gas powered, and we're going towards the battery powered. And I'm sorry, I don't know the decibel levels of those, but I believe they're quite low. And that's the way we're going anyway. So I just want to be careful. If we want to encourage quieter, let's be careful and not allow outlaw quieter. So keep that in mind when we come up with some final language. Because

Well, you would just make it more hard on staff to determine. They'd be like, okay, great. Something happened within those hours or whatever, but let me go out and make sure that it doesn't meet within this decibel. Rather than just saying clear cut, hey, man, I don't care what you're using. We do not, you do not do yard work at this time, period.

They can do yard work all night as long as it's quiet.

I mean, back to that point, an electric blower is still pretty loud.

I still hear it often when I'm out tabling, when I'm meeting with community groups, especially those that are impacted by us building more residential development near commercial industrial. I hear it often. I wasn't trying to stack the room full of people tonight. But we did, especially the drive-thru one, that was clear years ago. And they haven't shown up here tonight. But that was clear that they wanted us to develop some type of standards, maybe even not allow it.

I believe the residential is an issue. That's why other cities around the Bay Area are banning them completely. They've gone to complete bans, not just time zones. So you'd be meeting them halfway.

Correct. The equipment in residential zones, which is everywhere in this community.

It drives me crazy, too, being woken up. But, you know, I mean, let's take it piece by piece. I don't know if we could, if that's something that's, you know, that everyone would be interested in.

Well, go back to what you said. Sorry, go back to what you said about landscape equipment from the 10 p.m. to the 7 a.m. He's asking for 8 a.m. Go back to that. And I think there's a conversation to be had here about that.

ALL RIGHT. SO WHY DON'T WE DO IT IN MULTIPLE MOTIONS HERE. MY FIRST MOTION WOULD BE TO CREATE STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGHS. NO, THIS IS MINE. FORGET ABOUT WHAT STAFF HAD.

EXCEPT THEY SAID SUCH AS. SO HE'S BEING MORE SPECIFIC.

I would just have a question. So you are eliminating the decibels then with what you're just proposing? No. Or are you saying it's going to be six? You want... No, no, no.

I'm piecing them out. We're talking about drive-throughs.

So what would the decibels be for the drive-through that you're proposing?

I don't really care about the decibels. That's not what I'm going for. I'm more going for developing standards. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LIKE WHERE TO PUT THE SPEAKER BOXES, THOSE THINGS THAT ANDY TALKED ABOUT.

SO IT WOULD BE TO CREATE STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH, HAVE THAT COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE COMMUNITY INPUT, WHICH STAFF TALKED ABOUT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE CAN DELIBERATE ON WHAT WE WANT THOSE STANDARDS TO BE, BUT WE CAN HAVE

Standards that are put in front of us is like a base to start from okay modeled after yeah from other cities Okay, so there's a motion by councilmember Hilton and a second by councilmember Ramirez to create standards for drive-throughs You know some number Brock.

Thank you. So my second motion would be to remove the word prohibited. Is everybody clear where I want to try to remove that?

So currently it reads commercial and industrial noise impacting residential properties. Noise from properties that are zoned for uses other than residential is limited to a max of 70 dBA. We're not going to change that. 70 dBA or less measured at the residential property line. Such noise is limited to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The reason why I want to mark out the word prohibited because it's not true. It is not prohibited. It is subject to the L10, which is a percentage of time. It just cleans it up for the everyday person to speak

SO THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO STRIKE THAT WORD PROHIBITED. LEAVE IT AS A MAX OF 70 DBA.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FUGASE. OTHER QUESTIONS?

So I'm going to read what I originally had on there. If somebody wants to do a friendly amendment or talk it out, let's do it. But I don't want to lose this one. I would love to have a citywide residential, but I don't know if this council is willing to go that far. So I'm going to throw it out there. My motion would be to for under commercial and industrial noise impacting residential zone properties. The language would be the outside use of power tools, yard, landscaping, and similar equipment is prohibited, not subject to the L-10, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Fri

I'll make a friendly amendment to change that to citywide and 8 a.m. on weekdays as the ending.

Well, I will second it and add that as a friendly amendment.

So how would this affect your commercial sweepers that go sweep through all the businesses in the middle of the night?

Yes, power tools, and maybe we need to define that, but power tools...

I'm going to put that back on staff. How would you apply it? If someone said there's a commercial sweeper that's coming through at 2 a.m. and it keeps waking us up in this apartment house, what can I do?

But if that's the only time they can sweep for the outlets, outlets use it? I don't know about Costco, what they do, or Walmart, but I do know the outlets use that, and they do it in the middle of the night once everything shuts down. How would you handle that? Because they're not going to want to sweep during the day when their customers are there.

And the cars are full. That's why they do it at night.

AT NIGHTTIME. BUT WHAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR JUST SAID, BASED ON THE LANGUAGE, I THINK, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HILTON JUST CAME UP WITH, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION. SO NOW ALL SWEEPING WOULD BE IN VIOLATION IN THE CITY AND ALL PARKING LOTS. UNLESS WE CARVE SOMETHING OUT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. DO WE CARVE THAT OUT, HAVE OTHER

So outlets, you're okay, but if you go to Nob Hill and the sweeper goes around the back, just sweeping the back, and there's all that residential back there, that would be a violation. And that would be Safeway, that would be Nob Hill, that would be a lot of stores. So that one's a challenge.

Yeah. No, it is. This is why we're having a discussion about it.

Does that, I mean, if it was applied with an L10 type standard for that, wouldn't that solve that problem for power tools? Or then that would also then open it up in residential to not be applicable because most people are going to be running them just for an hour or something like that on their property.

Is the language that I proposed good enough that this doesn't apply to commercial sweepers? I mean, Recology commercial sweeps are residential neighborhoods. I said power tools, yard, landscaping, and similar equipment. Would a street sweeper even be considered a power tool, yard, landscaping, or similar equipment anyways?

So would it even be it? Is that a mute thing?

But in residential, it would kind of blow the whole thing up in residential because you can come in, for instance, I mean, not all of it, but you could come in, do a small amount of work for an hour, and you're still going to be within your L10, right? Right. And you're still creating that disturbance. So where you might want that in commercial and industrial, you wouldn't want that carve out for L-10 in residential.

But that's not in here, though. Garbage truck is not part of it. And neither is a commercial sweeper, as far as I'm concerned, or even a street sweeper. That's the intention behind this. So how do we pass that on?

I think you should leave the L10 in for the sweeping, because even though we can talk about the outlets, we go back to Nomp Hill, Safeway, all the apartments there. Do we want to penalize those grocery stores and say you no longer can sweep?

No, I think we stopped talking about sweeping and we just stick to landscaping, power tools, yard, landscaping, similar equipment. It's not even... That would even be... Yeah, someone would literally just say, hey, they're allowed to sweep their lots at that time. That's not prohibited.

So you just want to keep it then to the landscaping?

The commercial landscaping company, who's more than likely... Do they show up at 2 a.m., commercial landscaping? They don't. They work within regular hours anyways, and that's the intention behind this. Okay.

He's up at five, yeah. He's not working. Does that make sense?

Okay, so you still want to? I'm on board. So restate the motion is going to be commercial and industrial noise impacting residential zone properties and residential zone properties. Would that be the proper way to say it? Because we're doing it citywide.

Oh, industrial zoned. Okay, so it's covered. Read it one more time, please.

It might make, it might be redundant when I say the residential. You just have to say citywide. Citywide. So commercial and industrial noise impacting residential zone properties citywide. So that means the residential then taking over.

YEAH, CHANGE THE TITLE. WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE THE TITLE TO BE?

LANDSCAPING IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.

COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, And residential zone impacted properties?

But here's the language. The outside use of power tools, yard, landscaping, and similar equipment is prohibited, not subject to the L10, between the hours of 10 p.m. Did you say 8 a.m.? 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., Monday through Friday, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

That's where we're at. And then talk about the areas where it's going to impact.

I already did. I did. So commercial, industrial, and residential citywide impacted properties. So it kind of covers each individual sector.

All right. So we have a motion by Council Member Hilton and a second by Council Member Fugazi. With the changes and friendly amendment. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 5-2. Thank you. Thank you for the great discussion. Moving on to Item Number 13, City Administrator's Report.

City Attorney's Report. Okay, we're adjourned at 9.15 p.m.