City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Campbell City Council for Tuesday, June 16th, 2026. And we'll start with roll call.

Council Member Lopez.

Here.

Council Member Hines.

Present.

Council Member Skizola.

Here.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Present. Mayor Furtado.

Here. I'd ask you to please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, we have no special presentations or proclamations this evening, and we have no communications or petitions. So now we move to oral requests. This would be the time for anyone to address the council on items not on tonight's agenda. And if you'd like to address the council, you will have two minutes. Requests that you fill out a card or form in the meantime, you are not required to do so. I have one oral request on file here, and so I'd like to call Matt Ryan, please.

good all right um i hear tonight i just want to address an incident that i learned about that occurred following our recent police officers association meeting that we held last wednesday at the community center this was not a routine meeting it was meeting directly related to the active mou negotiations between the city and the poa and matters within the scope of our representation Several of our members attended meeting while on duty and parked their marked patrol vehicles in the community center parking lot. They were participating in lawful and protected union activity, discussing the city's proposed MOU and matters affecting their wages, benefits, and working conditions. As officers were preparing to leave, a member of this council approached one of the patrol vehicles, yelling at it, wanting to know why it was at the community center. The vehicle was unoccupied. When approached by a uniform member, this council member then began saying that they were scaring members of the public, strongly implying that they needed to leave the community center. Our members were conducting themselves professionally. They were not interfering with anyone or creating a disturbance. They were simply exercising rights guaranteed to them under California law. What makes this incident particularly concerning is its timing. This occurred while the city and the POA were actively engaged in labor negotiations. Whether intended or not, this incident creates the appearance that employees may face hostility or criticism simply for participating in the collective bargaining process. At a time when both sides should be working towards a fair and respectful bargaining process, this type of conduct sends the wrong message to our members. So I'll be very clear. Our members will not be intimidated from exercising those rights. They will continue to attend union meetings, participate in negotiations, and advocate for themselves, their families, and the future of this police department through lawful, professional, and respectful means. Based on this event and other events that this council and the public is aware of, I respectfully request that this council member voluntarily recuse himself from further participation in any negotiations between the city and the POA. Reasonable people can disagree on budgets, contracts, and priorities. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any other oral requests?

There may be one online.

I'd like... Oh, there's someone online? Oh, please.

Isenia, would you like to speak?

Okay, apparently the person is not there. Any other oral requests? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on. So now I move on to council announcements. So I have a few announcements here on behalf of the City Council. The Campbell Museum is hosting an e-waste and recycling event this Saturday, June 20th. It will be held in the Ainslie House gravel parking lot from 9 to 1. For information on what you are allowed to recycle, please visit the Campbell Museum website at www.campbellmuseums.com. The second announcement is that the Campbell Summer Concert is back with a full concert season. We're pleased to see that. Participants may dance, find a place to just sit and listen and relax if they wish. It's at the Orchard City Green. which is where we've held it for several years. The event offers a variety of music and performers from bands that we enjoy every year to newcomers that we're excited to welcome. The concerts are held on Thursday nights from 6.30 till 8.00 PM and the first concert will start on July 9th. This is also a great time to support the Campbell Museum Foundation by purchasing food and drinks at the event. More information is available on the City of Campbell website, www.campbellca.gov. And the third announcement is that the summer music nights will also return this summer, beginning on Friday, July the 10th. Movie Night Series features a number of family-friendly films that will take place throughout our park system or at different park locations each Friday. And the first movie is called The Incredibles, and it will be showing. They all start at dusk. This one will be held at the John D. Morgan Park at the Pony Baseball Diamond. All films will start, as I said, at sunset or a little earlier, depending upon the light. Participants are invited to bring long chairs and blankets and sweaters. Feel free also to bring a picnic or snacks. Carpooling is recommended. More information, again, can be found on the city's website, www.campbellca.gov. So that's all of the announcements that I have. So now we'll move on to the consent calendar. This evening's consent calendar include items 7.1 to 7.9, which the council will take as a single item of business unless a member of the council, a member of staff or a member of the public would like us to pull an item for further discussion. And I would just personally like to pull item 7.7 for further discussion. Would anyone else like to pull an item for further discussion? Seeing none, could we have a motion to approve items 7.1 through 7.9 with the exception of item 7.7?

I'll so move.

I'll second.

Motion by Vice Mayor Bybee, second by Council Member Hines. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Scozzola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. Just before we discuss item 7.7, I just want to take note of the fact that one of the items that we did just approve that I'd like to acknowledge is to item 7.9. That was to accept a donation from Dale Scribner for a bench installation at the Campbell Community Center running track. It's actually going to be installed, of course, just off the track of the northwest corner of the park, of the track area. And I'd like to publicly acknowledge and thank Mr. Scribner for his generous donation to the city to allow this to happen. Okay, so now we'll move to item 7.9. As I mentioned, this was the item that I requested. 7.7. Oh yeah, 7, yeah. That we discuss further. And this is the consideration of the adoption of a resolution dispensing with the bidding procedure set forth in our municipal code, approving a consultant service agreement with Project Sentinel for rent dispute and mediation services and authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement. So my question was, I just kind of wanted to ask from our representatives in planning, specifically housing, how this project has been going and what the status is on the number of, approximately the number of cases that have been addressed, perhaps over the last year or so, and just kind of a general report on the success of this process for housing. mediating and hopefully resolving disputes that occur between for those that rent their facilities and their landlords.

Good evening, Mayor.

Thank you. Yes, good evening.

Mayor and Council Members, Eloisa Murillo-Garcia, Housing Manager. Yes, I do have some data on the So I have a number of different categories, but for the current fiscal year, so please note that this data is only runs until third quarter because Project Sentinel reports to us on a quarterly basis. So we'll get the year end report sometime in July after the end of the fiscal year. So just keep that in mind with the data. I do have data from prior years, however, though, So through March 31st of 2026, and that's July 1 of last year through March 31st of this year, they have received 124 calls and have provided information and referral. They've opened 37 cases and they've counseled 47 individuals And they've done three conciliations. And as I said, I do have data going back from prior years. So in prior years, it seems like they're kind of on track to do what they've done in prior years. So in fiscal year 24 to 25, they had 191 calls for information and referral. opened 79 cases, counseled 67 individuals, and did six conciliations. So I don't know if you have any specific questions. And I do want to note that we have a representative from Project Sentinel available on Zoom if you have specific questions of Project Sentinel. So we have Yesenia Macias, who's the Director of Tenant Landlord Counseling and Dispute Resolution.

Thank you, Eloise. I appreciate that. I just kind of wanted to get an appreciation for how we were doing. And are you and the department satisfied that this process that we have and with this organization that it is addressing issues of rent concern and so on. I'm not sure that, I mean, I'm not trying to say that everything gets resolved in everyone's satisfaction, but are you satisfied that the process that we have in this particular approach that we're taking is satisfactory to address city needs?

Yes, the program has been satisfactory in my time here. And I do have regular communication with Project Sentinel as well. We do work on trying to do more outreach in Campbell. And just recently in April, they were part of the West Valley Housing Fair, just to get the word out about their services. And they're always looking for different outreach activities.

Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments by members of the council? Clearly not.

I just want to thank you and Project Sentinel for the work and being able to have the rental discussions are very important to be able to have an avenue for where it can have a discussion. So I just want to emphasize the great work. And with that, I'll propose a motion to accept item 7.7.

I'll second.

Motion by Council Member Hines, seconded by Vice Mayor Bybee to approve item 7.7 on the consent calendar. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Scazzola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. Thank you. We now move on to public hearings in the introduction of ordinances. And the first item is item 8.1. And this is the fiscal year 27 budget and capital improvement plan adoption. And we have been working on this for some time now. And so it's before the council for potential approval this evening. And the presentation will be made by our city manager, Brian Leventhal.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. This has been a long process and I greatly appreciate the council's time and energy to get through this. We've spent many discussions dating back to the March 5th priority setting. all of these dates that are significant discussions are shown on this slide here but tonight our purpose is to actually adopt the budget and it's been an iterative process and every time we come back to you we've made small changes or improvements maybe not so small based on council feedback and we believe tonight the budget before you represents culmination of that work uh and we just want to present uh those changes to you of what has changed since june 2nd and they're enumerated on the slide we've added the climate action plan to the strategic objectives in the comment about the council priorities We've added that we've removed $100,000 general fund transfer to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund. We've reduced utilization of reserves by that same 100,000, and we've increased the Housing Assistance Fund. Excuse me. Based on anticipated revenues from either existing agreements or developments that are submitting, we'll be paying fees by $2.1 million. So this slide really shows you the culmination of that work in one chart. So you can see for our general fund, the comparative revenues and expenditures in each of the last three fiscal years and the proposed budget. You can see this year where it shows a reserve draw, that's the $2.692,000, call it $2.7 million that we're pulling from the reserve in order to balance the revenues and expenditures. And just to be really clear with this slide, when I show revenues of $74 million, those revenues include that reserve draw, and that's why they're balanced. Without that 2.6 million, those revenues would be less, that exact same amount. and then the ending fund balance of the city. So you can track along and see those changes. The representation this year for proposed budget is an increase in the budget of 5.5%. Some of the things when we talk about a structural deficit, some of the things that contribute to that vary over time. And we were asked the question by a council member about why the reserve draw last year was 1.1 million and why it increased this year. Presumably, if we're holding tight on the budget, you wouldn't have to pull more money out of your reserves. But the footnotes in this slide sort of highlight some of those changes year to year. And I just wanted to highlight those for the council, why the structural deficit is increased from last year to this year. And these aren't the only reasons, there's others, but these are some very significant reasons to see in that increase. and they're shown here. Increase in the annual unfunded liability payments to CalPERS retirement system by 630,000. Increase in annual general liability and property insurance premiums by 115,000. And then the increased contract for, I'm sorry, for fire protection services from Santa Clara County Fire District in the amount of 377,000. There is other things that contribute as well, but those are the main ones I wanted to highlight a little this evening. And as we did before, I wanted to show you the forecasting here. And like with the previous slide, this forecasting assumes the proposed reserve draw as part of the balancing of that budget. That green line that you see here is a representation of what happens if we follow staff's proposal to use those reserves. without those proposed reserved usage, that green line would dip below that red line much sooner than it does here in this drawing. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear to the council here. And then last, not to be forgotten, the CIP is a very important part of our budget. This year, we're adding $4,200,000 in new capital projects. That's added to the existing capital projects of 71 million that are ongoing for a total of $75,220,000. We're expecting this year's expenditures for those projects in the $7.1 million range. And just to note that there's been no changes in these numbers since our last discussion. So that sort of brings us to the recommendation, which is here on this slide. And I know there's a lot of words here, but we're recommending the council adopt the operating capital budget by the amounts that are shown here. Approve a five-year capital improvement plan with the projects totaling the amount shown on this slide. And then direct staff to incorporate the final adopted budget, document with any changes or adjustments based on this public hearing and any other minor corrections or errors that need to be incorporated into the budget. And then finally, adopt by resolution the GAN limit of $104,806,000 as a procedural requirement for the state of California as part of our budget process. And with that, I am more than happy to answer questions, comments. We also have our finance director, Will Fuentes, here, who is happy to answer questions. And Nora Vong, our assistant finance director, is available as well.

Thank you, Brian. First of all, I'll ask if there's any questions from the city council. Okay, we have no questions. So the next step is, I would like to open the public hearing to allow any member of the public to comment on this agenda items, specifically the potential approval of the city's budget for the next fiscal year. Would anyone like to speak? During public comment? Is there anyone online?

No, there's not.

Apparently not. I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the council then. What is the pleasure of the council?

Sorry, Mayor, I just have two comments that I'd like to make, if I could. And thank you, staff, for putting up with all my questions. So it was very clear to be able to get that articulated. Campbell budget is heavily being influenced based on the upcoming court decision. Our budget today reflects that necessary to maintain current services and staffing with labor COLA increases and MOUs. Taking a pessimistic approach would make potentially unnecessary decisions on city services and staffing only to be reinstated with the optimistic result. We should not be pessimistic nor overly optimistic. We should maintain the approach but have a solid plan ready for both the pessimistic and optimistic results at our upcoming mid-year or early-year decision point. So I am in favor of the budget. I would like to talk specifically about my favorite line item of the CFD1. CFD 1 is an additional Campbell Village property tax, which sums up to $150,000 per year and needs to be allocated for Campbell Village Public Works. Campbell Village also pays an equal share as every property owner, equal share as every other Campbell property owner for all other city services. For the past 12 years, the CFD1 funds have gone into a general fund, which in turn pays San Jose 200K per year for no services. That's 2.4 million today that has been paid for no services. San Jose fee was for lost sales tax for the Campbell Village annexation. I am advocating to tell San Jose to eliminate the fee due to demand on Campbell Public Works and Public Safety from the multiple housing buildings on Bascom, Porter and Campbell. Then allocate these funds for Campbell Village Public Works. This line item in the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 is 101.540.7458. I propose a motion to have staff review elimination of 101.540.748, which is the payment of San Jose for no services. I'll propose that as a motion.

council members uh i don't support that and we have discussed this a few times already but uh i believe may have staff uh that is a very beautiful neighborhood as are many of our neighborhoods very expensive homes uh last i checked our average home is about 2.4 million dollars it's probably gone up since i checked last anyhow i believe and please correct me if i'm wrong but If you account for the people who live there, it's a tax of, I think, around not quite $600 a year, which I think that the people who live in those beautiful homes can easily afford. And I think we should drop this because the benefits far outweigh the negatives to the people who live there.

Are there any other comments with respect to the proposed motion? Is there a second to the motion?

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

So does the city have any flexibility in deciding not to pay, to remove that from the budget? Isn't that a legal agreement that we have with the city of San Jose? And what would it take to undo that?

it would take a considerable amount of goodwill from the city of San Jose to undo it. We are contractually obligated to pay that amount to them. And barring San Jose's willingness to renegotiate it, we are obligated to do so.

Yeah, and my motion was to ask staff to review being able to the elimination of the prospect.

So once again, I'll ask if there's a second to the motion. Seeing none, that motion fails.

I'll just make a brief comment on that. I don't think that it needs to be part of the budget vote, but I think it's appropriate to review that and we can discuss more. I think it's really ultimately a political resolution if there is one. So I wanna keep the budget discussion with the staff recommendation, but I understand the frustration.

i wanted to just have that as a separate motion again i propose i accept the budget as uh as listed and uh more discussion yes yeah i just want to say that i have heard uh from you terry many of my council members when it comes to things of this nature staff time costs money and so you know maybe you know i've asked for things that i thought would take relatively little staff time to look into that didn't get looked into because it was argued towards me, we don't have the time for that. So I would just use that same argument in this case, that especially when we have budget shortfalls and we're pulling from reserves, I just think wherever we can save money, I don't think this is an issue. Anyways, thank you.

Any other comments with respect to the budget?

Yes.

I just want to thank staff and all of the departments for getting us to this point and i know it's been a lot of work and a lot of back and forth um the one thing that i did mention to the city manager uh i did want to be sure that the service objectives do get included in the final budget document uh i really feel that those serve as a matter of accountability and transparency to the community and they should be somewhere that we can measure our productivity any other comments

Would someone like to make a motion to approve the budget?

Yeah, I'll move adoption of the staff recommendation to adopt a budget and CIP.

I'll second. We have a motion by Councilmember Hines, a second by Councilmember Lopez to adopt the budget as presented.

It goes the other way around.

The other way around, so.

Okay. Lopez, amend lines.

Yeah. It was Council Member Lopez was the one that- I apologize. I got that mixed up. Okay. You got it.

Okay, great. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Skizola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. Let me also add my comments to thank both the City Manager and your staff, as well as our Director of Finance and Assistant Director, and all the members of the Finance Department. And let me also acknowledge my colleagues my appreciation I'm sure shared by my colleagues of all members of the executive team. I know in this process, you all are required to review your own budgets of your departments and make recommendations and suggestions and go back and forth. And much of the preliminary work on the budget before it comes to the council was done by the staff. And it's been a successful process. We have had questions in our various study sessions and things of that nature and comments and appreciate those being incorporated in this process. And we look forward to successfully conducting our business of the city for the residents and supporting our local businesses as well. So thank you. We now move on to item number 8.2. And this is a council compensation 2026. And once again, the presentation will be made by the city manager. So Brian, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. This item before you, it's something that we talk about every two years about adjusting council compensation. We typically like to do it before the election season opens and it would become effective next January. The state law and the government code establishes the limits to council member compensation. And more recently, Senate Bill 329 made an adjustment to those salary ranges last time we discussed. Currently, the salary by council members is set at $1,275. The law allows that to increase for each year by 5%. But put it into perspective for you, that number is a very small number. The total increase allowed by statute at 5% per year would be $127.50. per month increase from the prior salary of the council members and total $1,402.50. So it's at $1,275. The statutes would allow it to increase up to $1,402.50, and the council can certainly do anything within those two numbers should the council choose to want to compensate its members to a lesser degree. This does require an ordinance. So we'd be asking the council to introduce the ordinance tonight, and then we would bring back second meeting on July 7.

Thank you. First, I'll ask if there's any questions. Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing and invite members of the public that would like to speak on this item 8.2 to approach the podium. So anyone online? Apparently not. Okay, I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the Council for discussion.

Thank you, Mayor. I would definitely support this to the maximum we can. My reasoning is simple, as I've mentioned two years ago. I personally know someone who he was thinking about running for council, but he, you know, working class, struggling family, and that little bump up we did last time was just enough for him to throw his head into the ring. And so there's a lot of people out there that, especially if you want younger, working class families and people with more experience, I think that this is something that would encourage more of those folks to apply and give more of that perspective to our council. And quite frankly, it's a lot of work for very, very little compensation. So I fully support a raise in pay that I don't think I'll be benefiting from.

Thank you, Council Member Hines.

I concur with Mr. Skizola and feel that we do need to, it's still a small amount that we need to be able to have people do it. There's a certain amount of fiscal prudence to hold off until Measure K, but I will defer to the council's decision and approach on that.

Any other comments?

I would support the staff recommendation. I think it's a small dollar amount, and it does keep us consistent with what the state law allows. And I wouldn't necessarily agree to defer it until Measure K settles, because it does have to be adopted prior to an election cycle, and that may not happen with Measure K. So I would recommend the increase.

Would someone like to make a motion?

Okay, so I'll go ahead and make the motion to introduce an ordinance, adjusting the council member compensation within this limit set forth by government code section 3516. Second.

We have a motion by Vice-Mayor Bybee, second by council member Scazzola. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Sizzola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. The City Clerk will now read the title of the ordinance.

An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Campbell adjusting City Council compensation for calendar years 2027 and 2028.

I move that further reading be waived.

I'll second.

Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Skizola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado. Aye.

This is a public hearing to consider the adoption of an interim ordinance to extend the interim ordinance, which established an urgency measure in response to Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act of 2025. Members of the public may recall that we have previously considered a discussion and held a discussion of item Senate Bill 79. In this particular item, members of the City Council who live within a close distance of this area or own property within this distance are required to recuse themselves and has been previously noted council member Lopez, council member Hines and myself either live or own property in that area. So therefore we three would recuse ourselves from further discussion. However, in order for this measure to be heard by the City Council, it requires four members of the City Council to hear the measure, because if it were to be adopted, it requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council. Therefore, we now invoke the rule of necessity to allow two members of the city council who previously recused themselves to be seated and go ahead and discuss this. And in order to do this, the procedure is to draw straws. So once again, I will ask the city clerk to provide the straws so we can draw them. The person with the short straw will have to recuse themselves and not participate in this discussion. Okay, I'm sorry. I will do that. So, um, I have drawn the short straw, so I will recuse myself from this item and I will pass the gavel for the discussion of this matter to the vice.

Okay. Thank you. And so we'll move on and I'll, uh, invite our senior planner, Steven Rose to present the staff recommendation.

Thank you and good evening, Acting Mayor Bybee and members of City Council. The item before you is to consider the extension of a previously approved urgency ordinance related to SB 79. Just as a reminder, SB 79 authorizes the city to exclude certain sites from applicability. Two relevant categories to Campbell in particular are those walking path exclusions, so sites which are greater than one mile walking from a transit stop, as well as historic register sites. On June 2nd, the City Council did in fact identify sites that were eligible for removal and took action to do so. As an urgency ordinance, it was effective for an initial period of 45 days, and it is set to expire on July 17th, unless it's extended. The item before you tonight seeks to extend the item for 10 months and 15 days with the intention of providing staff time to develop and return with permanent policies for adoption. And as noted earlier, as an urgency ordinance, it does require a four-fifths vote of the City Council for adoption. In conclusion, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt an interim ordinance extending the urgency ordinance. And that concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Stephen. Are there any questions of the Council for Stephen?

Stephen, do you have the map that shows the exclusion areas?

I do. So on screen, I have varying maps. So I think that this is the walking path exclusion map, which shows those identified properties, which are greater than a one mile walk from the pedestrian access points. Thank you, Steven.

Any other questions? at this point i will open the public hearing and invite anyone in the audience or anyone online to speak on this item is there anyone in the council chamber that wishes to address the council and do we have anybody online with that i'll close the public hearing and um bring it back to council for discussion and or a motion council members no discussion

Yeah, I don't really have comments, but I would move the staff recommendation.

I'll second.

So we have a motion by Council Member Lopez and a second by Council Member Hines to move the staff recommendation. Could we have a roll call vote, please? Council Member Lopez?

Aye.

Council Member Hines? Aye. Council Member Skizola?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Pipe?

Aye. At this point, I'd ask the city clerk to read the title of the ordinance.

being an interim ordinance of the City Council of the City of Campbell, extending interim ordinance number 26-2350, which established urgency measures in response to Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act of 2025, file number PLN-2025-170. Thank you, Kristen.

And is there a motion to wait for the reading?

So moved.

second motion by council member lopez second by council member heinz to wait for the reading could we have roll call council member lopez council member heinz council members isola vice mayor by view the motion passes and um if we could get mayors a lot of that okay

Okay, thank you. We now presumably move on to item 8.4. This is a request for the city council to initiate a general plan amendment to change the land use designation of a property within an existing single family residence located at 480 Chapman Drive from neighborhood commercial to low density residential. And the staff report on this presentation will be made by Daniel Fama, senior planner.

Good evening. Before you is a preliminary application for consideration of city council initiation of a general plan amendment for property located at 480 Chapman Drive. So procedurally, the city zoning code requires a private request to amend the general plan first come before the city council for basically permission for an applicant to submit a formal application. It's basically a type of gatekeeping function that prevents unnecessary expenditure and money to be spent by an applicant if a proposal It is made that the council does not feel it warrants further consideration. So the application site before you is a 9,500 square foot parcel located on Chapman Drive between Walnut and Winchester. The property's current general plan and zoning designation is neighborhood commercial. It is developed with a single family residence that was constructed circa 1956 and is bordered by single family residences to the west and a converted residence that's a daycare to the east. The existing house, as you see here, is a non-conforming use, meaning that it's basically grandfathered in under the rules and effect at the time when it was constructed in 1956. And as a result, under the city's limitations for non-conforming uses, while the house can be maintained and remodeled, it cannot be expanded or rebuilt except upon involuntary destruction, such as a fire. So the applicant's request before you is functionally twofold. They're seeking to get council approval to submit an application for a general plan amendment to change the zoning and land use to single family residential. That would render the residents a conforming land use that would allow a homeowner to do in addition to the home. They're also seeking city council consideration for a reduction in application fees for the required amendment as we'll discuss in a moment. In terms of context, the site here shown in the outline is part of a run of properties along Winchester that is currently zoned neighborhood commercial. You see a fairly defined line between the properties that abut Winchester and the residential properties behind it along Walnut Drive. This run of properties has been some form of commercial since going back to 1966. The graphic at the top right is from an old zoning map that highlights the area as CH. So that was commercial highway zoning. And then for quite a while, it was general commercial. And then with the city's adoption of the 2023 general plan, it was down zone to neighborhood commercial as it exists today. In terms of a quick land use analysis for the proposal, the general plan, the most applicable policy guidance is Policy LU 2.9. That basically requires the city, including staff and the council and the commission, to consider various considerations with land use changes, particularly having to deal with compatibility of the changes, wanting to ensure that any land use changes don't create new compatibility issues such as noise into a neighborhood. So here, the change would basically allow that residence to be cohesive with the adjacent residential properties, allowing it to be functionally used in a performing way as the neighboring properties are currently used. Now, as noted more in the staff report, the trade-off here is that without the two properties, the daycare and this property, it seems unlikely that there would be any future development for the adjacent daycare property simply because it would be so shallow. But after 60 years without any redevelopment, that may be more of an academic point than a realistic concern. With regard to the fee reduction costs, the formal application cost of this involves three separate land use amendment applications, a zoning change, a general plan amendment, and a form-based map amendment that in total exceed $36,000 in application costs. That number is fairly high, generally because these types of requests usually involve fairly substantial policy considerations that just aren't present here. This is a rather unique request, given that it deals with a single property that has been long developed with a single family residence. So based on an estimate of 24 hours of staff time that would incorporate basic staff report presentation and review by director holding public meetings, estimate cost is about $6,000 for a realistic cost recovery basis. So in terms of staff recommendation and next steps, staff does recommend that city council adopt a resolution that would authorize initiation of the general plan amendment subject to the formal application being submitted within one year's time. And just to clarify, this actually would not guarantee approval. It would need to be formally considered in further detail by the planning commission and city council and could ultimately be rejected. And then staff would also recommend approval of a reduced application fee in the amount of $6,000. And with that, I will take any questions that Council may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions by members of the Council? Council Member Hines.

I'm sorry, the last point that you said, I think you said it would reduce a reduced application fee. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes.

Vice Mayor Bobby. That $6,000, Daniel, does that include then hearings at the Planning Commission level? It does. Noticing and City Council?

Correct.

And would you expect that he might exceed the $6,000 goal?

I mean, it is an estimate, so that is always a possibility, yes.

So would you recommend a contingency?

I mean, this is being structured as a flat fee. I mean, the council could direct staff to collect a deposit, which we could bill against actual staff time.

Could you, Bill, if the staff time exceeds the $6,000, could you bill per hour, whatever excess hours were needed to process?

Yes. I mean, basically, that would change. I mean, what's being recommended here is just a flat rate of $6,000 based on the estimate. The alternative would be to take a $6,000 deposit and then actually count on an hourly basis for all the staff time that would be involved. And then if we exceed that amount and collect additional funds, that would be charged against the hourly rate. I mean, that, of course, would also involve more accounting work, which, of course, would also increase the overall cost.

So I'm not meaning to overcomplicate things. I just want to be sure that we recoup our staff costs.

Any other questions? Thank you. So I will open the public hearing and allow someone to or anyone to speak on this item. The applicant may take up to five minutes if you'd like to address the council.

Hi there, Mayor and Council. Appreciate the time on this matter. I have a presentation to share. Oh, and I'm Jenny from GKW Architects.

I'm Gordon from GKW Architects.

Okay. All right. All right, so we are here presenting the 480 Chapman Drive project. And the general plan amendment would allow the owners to be able to expand their home. They are a husband and wife with two kids, one of which is a newborn. So this addition to their home would help their expanding family.

seven months and four year old. Let me move this over here, okay.

So the existing floor area is 1,470 square feet. It's a three bedroom, two bath. They would like to add 499 square feet to the rear of the house. It would increase the size of their great room and allow them to add an office or flex room with a new floor area of 1969 square feet. This is the rear view of their home as it is currently. We have put together a rendering of the proposed house with the addition.

With an extra kid.

Yes.

Maybe ours.

Play date.

And this is an aerial view of the existing home. And the proposed aerial view of the addition. And this is the front view. And as you can see, the addition is not visible from the front.

That concludes our presentation. Any questions? We're here, and so is the homeowner. And yeah, we really appreciate the time. And we really do think the City of Campbell does a great job with all the local people here.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I'll just ask clarification here. The item before us is a zoning change. And while I think it's fine to see the proposed new home, that is not what we're approving. We're simply approving the zoning change. And this item would come before the appropriate bodies, presumably the Planning Commission, I don't know, perhaps the Council at a future time in terms of the specifics of the presentation that was just made. Am I correct in that?

Yes. this would be if ultimately approved by the city council in addition of this type would just be a building permit administrative application thank you however thank you for your presentation would the applicant herself or himself like to speak as well good evening mayor and members of the city council my name is alicia and i am the homeowner of 480 chapman drive

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you this evening. I am proud to call Campbell home for the past eight years. This city has been the backdrop of some of the most meaningful chapters of my life. And over the last four years, my house on 480 Chapman Drive has been the center of it all. What began as a home for my family has grown into so much more. And that growth is exactly why I'm here tonight. Since moving in, my family has expanded and we are now raising two young children who deserve the space to play, explore and grow. We are so grateful for everything this community has to offer. The new library has been a wonderful addition and my children have truly loved spending time in there. It is exactly the kind of thing that makes Campbell such a special place to raise a family. Our current zoning classification as neighborhood commercial limits our ability to make the improvements necessary to accommodate my family's needs. By approving my application to rezone, the preliminary application to rezone the property to low density residential, you would be giving us the opportunity to expand our home in a way that allows my children to thrive here in the community we love. This is not a temporary fix or stepping stone. This is our forever home. We are deeply rooted in Campbell, invested in the neighborhood and committed to being longstanding members of the community for many years to come. The rezoning approval would allow us to responsibly utilize the space we already have to create a comfortable lasting home that reflects that commitment. I respectfully ask the council support of this application and thank you for your time and everything you do for the residents of Campbell.

Thank you for your presentation. Appreciate that. Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the council for further discussion.

Council Member Lopez. Thank you. First off, thank you to the applicant. Your love for Campbell clearly comes across. And while we're, of course, not voting on the design, I appreciate hearing a little bit more about the plans. I do support the staff recommendation. I think for the first off, I think just the zoning. change is just common sense. So appreciate you being pragmatic there. I, of course, support cost recovery, but I do support going with the amount that's estimated because as it is an estimate, it could exceed that amount or it could also potentially be lower if ultimately it may not need every hearing that could go either way. And I think it's such a lower amount. It's better just do a flat fee. I think for larger projects, it may make sense to actually track and kind of billable hours, but I'm cautious of creating more work for staff for what ultimately is gonna be, I don't think very much of a difference in either direction.

Thank you. Any other comments? I might add myself that I do support the staff recommendation. If by chance the fees involved would be less than what the flat fee is, I would just suggest that the staff come back to the council with a potential reduction of fees for some additional fees, which they will need to pay for permits and things of that nature. With that, would someone like to make a motion? I'll move the staff recommendation.

I'll second.

Motion by Council Member Lopez, second by Vice Mayor Bybee. If there's no further discussion, roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Skizola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. Welcome and thank you. Okay, we now move on to new business item 9.1. This is the calling for a general municipal election for the districts three, four and five, and to request consolidation of election in accordance with the California election code. And the staff presentation will be made by the city manager, Brian Leventhal.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. It's my pleasure to present again. This is something that we do in years of election. It's called the calling for the election in which the council's asked by resolution to set the elections in this case for the three districts that have elections this year. As the council is aware, several years ago, we went to districts in Campbell. And so there's five election districts. This year, Districts 3, District 4, and District 5 is up for elections. So only the residents that live in those districts will be able to vote on those council members. So tonight we're asking you to call for those elections. We're requesting that the council approve consolidation of those elections with the county register of voters. And that the council also determines in advance to resolve any tie votes by lot versus by having a runoff. And that lastly, the council approves the levying of a fee for each candidate and their candidate statements. So with regard to the candidate statements, Starting in 2004, the council has subsidized those candidate statements. The current estimate for a statement of a candidate is $3,392. That's the cost for the registered voters to print that statement from a candidate in the ballot material. And in the past, the council has set the fee to the candidate at $300, thus subsidizing the remainder of those costs on the city. In the past, FPPC, the Fair Political Practices Commission advice letter did make a determination that the city can absorb some or all of the cost of the form of its ballot statement. However, the council can choose to charge a higher amount than we have before in the past. So the recommendation before you tonight in that is to follow past practices and charge $300 flat fee to the candidates. And then lastly, the election codes allows for the council to choose how tie votes are broken. The council can choose to require a runoff election, or the council can resolve tie votes by lot, much like we drew straws this evening. And it's staff's recommendation to resolve tie votes by lot if we were in that unfortunate situation. because the added cost to a consolidated election. If we had a runoff election, it would not be consolidated because it would be sometime after the November election. We would have a standalone election, which would be tremendously expensive for the city. So our recommendation is to resolve those tie votes if we had one by lot. And then lastly, The staff report addresses what happens or what could happen. The council could choose if we don't have candidates that run in either district. There is a very short time window for the council to make that decision. But it's our recommendation that we don't make a determination what to do in that instance right now until the election filing period has come and gone. And then if need be, we would set up a special meeting of the council to talk through that. I just wanted to be clear on when we say calling for the elections about the dates for this. So if the council were to approve staff's recommendation this evening, the municipal election on November 3rd, the filing period for candidates wanting to file for one of those three districts would begin July 13th and end August 7th. So those are the dates that we're working off. I know it's now only June, but we do this in advance so we can do the preparatory work for that. So if the recommendation by staff is approved by council, we would call for the municipal election. We would consolidate the election with the register of voters. We would determine to resolve any tie votes by lot, and we would levy a fee for each candidate of $300 for the state. With that, I'm glad to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions? Okay, no questions. I will allow some time for the public to comment on this matter. Would anyone like to speak on this matter before the council? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment and bring it back to the council for discussion or motion.

Well, if there's no discussion, I'll be happy to make the motion to approve the staff recommendation, including the candidate statement fee at $300.

I'll second. Motion by Vice Mayor Bybee, second by Council Member Hines. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez? Aye. Council Member Hines?

Aye.

Council Member Skizola?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee? Aye. Mayor Furtado?

Aye. Thank you. We now move to item 9.2. This is the approval and award of a contract to authorize the city manager to execute a consultant services agreement with GUIDA, that's an acronym, for city surveyor services. And the presentation this evening will be made by our director of public works, Amy Olay.

Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. The purpose of item 9.2 is to seek city council approval to award a new contract for city surveyor services to Gaida and authorization requested for the city manager to execute a consultant services agreement for an initial two-year term with up to three one-year extensions. The reason we are seeking consultant services is because all subdivision maps must be signed by a licensed land surveyor for technical accuracy. And the city does not have the expertise in-house. So this then requires the city to contract with a consultant to provide the surveyor services and act as city surveyor. The contract also would cover miscellaneous surveying tasks, such as monument setting, for instance. So since 2021, the city has been working with CSG consultants and the workload has increased significantly due to state housing laws. And so due to the workload, the agreement has been amended six times with the most recent amendment expiring on June 30th. So with that, we issued an RFP in April, where six firms responded. Four firms were interviewed by a panel of engineering staff, and Gaida was identified as the most qualified firm after the full evaluation. Initial contract will be for two years, and $250,000 with an allowance for three annual one-year extensions of $125,000. And so the extension provides for CPI increases and a contingency is included to address fluctuations based on workload. The costs are all budgeted in the Public Works Operating Budget Program 740. However, the expenditures will be offset by MAP review fees, revenues that we get from the applicants. And with that, I'm happy to take questions. And I'm here with staff. Roger Storrs, Senior Civil Engineer, is here with me. So we're both available for questions.

Thank you, Amy. Questions for the Director of Public Works?

Nope.

No questions. So thank you. Would anyone first? Yeah, no questions from the council. Would anyone like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'll bring the matter back to the council for discussion or motion.

Just having the dealt with surveyors on one property that I had purchased and then sold. It's very important and that survey was used quite often. So I fully support this and I propose a motion to accept the staff recommendation for item 9.2 of the contract for the surveyor.

I'll second.

Motion by Council Member Hines, second by the Vice Mayor Bybee. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Svizzola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. Thank you. We now move to item 9.3, the approval and award of consultant services and agreement to BKF engineers and approve a funding agreement with the Valley Transportation Authority for the Hamilton Avenue Highway 17 southbound off ramp. the widening project, project 24-CC, and to authorize the city manager to execute the appropriate agreements. The presentation, once again, by Director of Public Works.

Thank you. Hello again. Purpose of item 9.3 is to seek council approval and award a consultant services agreement with BKF engineers for $640,000 plus a 10% contingency in approval of a funding agreement with VTA for $256,000 in Measure B funds. This project would improve traffic operations at the Hamilton 17 southbound off ramp by widening the ramp and adding a third left turn lane. So addition of a left turn lane is needed to efficiently handle the traffic volumes at the off ramp intersections and also address queues on the ramps and along Hamilton Avenue. By doing this, it will also give the city flexibility to reallocate green time from the off ramp to Hamilton Avenue. So operational deficiencies were identified back in 2004 from the development of the coal site. And then subsequently, we have the Creekside Center and City Sports have also contributed funds. And to date, we have 544,000 in developer contributions. Additionally, the project has been included in VTA's Long Range Valley Transportation Plan since 2009. And by doing that, that allows us to apply for grant opportunities. And therefore, the project was awarded Measure B funds in the amount of $2.4 million with a $600,000 local match. In early 2026, the RFP for design services was released in which two proposals were received. BKF engineers ranked most qualified based on technical review and interviews. And so the scope for the consultant services would be includes the environmental clearance and the design, which is the plan specs and the estimate, and then working with Caltrans to get the necessary permitting. Right now, we have a current funding gap of $256,000. So with that, we went to VTA to use a portion of our $2.4 million, enhance the funding agreement with VTA. But the remaining funds that we have, about $2.1 million, will be retained for construction. So in terms of the project design timeline, we expect to complete the design and the environmental work by December of 2027. And in early 2028, we will return to city council for the approval of the PS&E. So what it allows us to do with a completed design package is that it will advance the project to be a bit ready stage and it allows us to compete for future construction grants. And with that, happy to take questions and I have Aruna Baduna, our senior civil engineer here with me.

Thank you, questions for Amy? I actually have one. One of the problems right now, and I could only see it possibly increasing, when you exit that ramp, if you exit west on Hamilton Avenue, you're oftentimes stopped by the stoplight there, and it holds the traffic for quite some time. And I'm concerned about that, and I'm just wondering if that would ultimately be part of addressing this whole matter, because while It can help clear the lane, especially the right turn lane. It can be held up once again with the traffic light and also well, persons coming off that ramp have the right of way in the lane closest to the side of the road that they turn into. Oftentimes then travelers in the second lane over proceeding when they have a green light often want to turn right into the parking lot there to go to polls, for example. And so consequently, there are a number of ways cars that sort of jam up a little bit because of that. And I just wondered if that whole issue of the stoplight and its potential adjustment will be addressed in the future on this matter.

The first step is for us to widen that off ramp, right? And then so by separating, so currently we have two lefts and a through shared left and a free right. And so what we want to do is separate that shared through left and have its own. So creating three left turns and its own through and a right turn. So really separating out the different phases. While doing that, as I mentioned, that's going to allow us some flexibility in adjusting the green time through the Hamilton corridor. So while looking at timing for the other intersections nearby will not be part of this design, it's definitely some of the things that we would take into consideration. And ultimately, we would do a timing of Hamilton corridor.

Okay, thank you. Any other? Oh, yes, Vice Mayor Biden.

Likewise, I had a question about the right-hand turn, because right now it can be somewhat congested when you've got people turning right onto Hamilton, and you have people coming west on Hamilton. They want to get over to make that right-hand turn there to turn down El Marina, and it's Is there any way to have a protected, a better configuration to avoid some of that confusion there?

I think that's something that we can look at as part of this design. I don't have that. I can't answer that right now just because once we have the design, we can have the consultant look at that. Okay.

Basically, I have the same similar question building off of what you just mentioned. It should be its own dedicated lane, at least for a point. And maybe I've seen other structures where you'll have some kind of pylons, you know, the flexible ones or something. So that is the main issue is that people like to dive over into that lane when people are making right turns, you know, during the heavy traffic hours, especially. And so I think that we really should consider that. I think it's crucial. I like the idea of the concept here of expanding and having one more dedicated lane, but I think it would be absolutely critical to ensure that we stop that jam up that happens pretty much every day there. Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, we can certainly look at the facing of the signal.

That's my little piece. Thank you. I also just want to offer some feedback to pass on to the consultant. But my biggest concern there and the issue that I see almost every time I'm getting off that lane is the left turn and conflicts between the second lane from the right and the third lane from the right. that second lane from the right to turn left, which it can go in several different directions. So, but when people are turning left, then that lane has the right lane and they don't have, I think people assume that it's gonna get on the other on-ramp. And so the third lane from the right. often tries to go over into that lane. I see a lot of near misses. I've almost been hit many times. I think it makes a lot of sense because if you just got off the highway, it doesn't make sense that people would then be trying to get back on the other on-ramp unless they got turned around. But having some way of making it more clear that that lane has the, they don't have to turn into the highway and go the next lane over. They can stay in the right lane to go uh east on hamilton um so and i can if if it doesn't make sense i can draw a draw a map sometime we can follow up a draw a diagram um but it but it's something i see almost every day and i'm sure there are collisions that do happen there yeah we're hoping that with the separation of the shirt through left that that might help with that yeah yeah great

I'll just join in to the conversations across the board on that. I won't use the expletive, but it's an experience that needs to be a lot safer. So thank you.

Yes, sure. Just one more quick comment. Also, sometimes you'll see, you know, when it's especially congested, there's so many lanes and we're even adding one more lane that to just throw down some paint, you know, obviously more than the arrows. Like, I think that if you have a lane, I think a lot of confusion, which... Sergio was just talking about right now is that people don't know if they're getting on the freeway or not. So if we just drop a giant 17 south or something for the particular lane on the roadway itself, that might help. These are just some ideas to help with the confusion there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'll also invite any members of the public that might like to comment.

okay seeing none um bring it back to the council for further discussion yeah i'll just make the additional comment that it's it's great that we're getting the funds and that we've been so successful in in uh getting uh some bta funding you'd like to make a motion or maybe did you want to come no i'm sorry i'm ready to make a motion or oh okay sure i'm happy to make the motion i'll move the uh staff recommendation second

Okay, so motion by Council Member Lopez, second by Council Member Skizola, Rothel.

Council Member Lopez?

Aye.

Council Member Hines?

Aye.

Council Member Skizola?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee? Aye. Mayor Furtado?

Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we now move to item number 9.4. This is the adoption of the technology disruption policy in compliance with Senate Bill 707. And the presentation will be made by Assistant City Manager Angelique Gaydon.

Thank you, honorable mayor and members of the council. This evening is a continuation of the city's compliance with the recent amendments to the Brown Act approved by SB or Senate Bill 707 by the governor in October of last year. In June, beginning of June, June 8th specifically, staff actually provided the council with a memo and it contained guidelines for remote participation of council meetings, or council members and council meetings. And this is a continuation of that effort to make sure that we're keeping the meetings open and making information as accessible as possible. So the first part of the resolution that we're asking you to adopt actually deals with technology disruption policy, which actually tracks the language of the Senate bill and includes the following requirements if the policy is adopted, that the mayor or city clerk will announce the disruption, that the meeting will be recessed while staff works to restore service, that staff will make good faith efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service. The meeting may also remain in recess for up to one hour while restoration efforts are underway. But if service cannot be restored, then the council can do one of two things. They can either adjourn the meeting or continue the meeting upon making a finding that good faith efforts have been made to restore the service, and that it's in the public interest to continue the meeting, and that interest outweighs the public interest in remote access. Finally, the city clerk would document the disruption, the restoration efforts made by staff, and any required findings in the meeting minutes. So that's the first part of the resolution we're asking you to adopt. which specifically deals with that policy. The second part of the resolution that we're asking you to adopt actually deals with the efforts of making outreach to encourage public participation in city council meetings. And some of that is actually putting the information on the city council's webpage. Most of the information that the bill requires us to share is already on our city webpage, but not specifically on the city council's webpage. And so in that regard, we would ask you to direct staff to essentially put the information on the city council webpage, including the email address that goes directly to the city clerk's office so that people can make a request for agendas and documents. And also the information that is currently on the agenda webpage, but specifically linked to the city council's webpage would be information about how to participate in meetings, how to offer public comments, how to participate in person versus remote participation, things of that nature. And then lastly, we would ask that the council direct staff to report back to you at a later date with additional ways that we can increase community involvement in meetings. So this would provide the staff with an opportunity to just explore different ways to reach out to different communities that aren't typically participating in council meetings. And if we had the time to do that, then we could come back with some ideas that we would recommend that you adopt. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Any questions? Any member of the public like to speak on the matter? Apparently not. Thank you, Anjali. So it's up to the council now to decide here. Would you like to make a motion on this matter?

I'll make a motion to proceed ahead with the adoption of the technology disruption policy for staff recommendation.

I'll second.

A motion by Council Member Hines, second by Vice Mayor Bybee, roll call.

Council Member Lopez?

Aye.

Council Member Hines?

Aye.

Council Member Skizola?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee? Aye. Mayor Furtado?

Aye. Thank you.

Thank you.

There is no unfinished business. And we now move to council committee reports. So members of the council have reports to make.

Councilmember Hines. I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I had a chance to meet with the Los Gatos El Camino Hospital leadership team. I had the opportunity to attend the League of California Cities HCD, where there was a significant discussion on the backup ballot measure, the BACA ballot measure coming up. The DCBA Car Show, fantastic event. And then attended a Bay Area Rule 11-18 webinar. A very extensive review of that. Met with the PG&E Government Affairs representative and excellent discussion there. Had an SVCE board meeting. That was a good discussion we had on the SVE programs that are planned. And then we had the Service Academy appointees review of the city volunteer appreciation today. It was an excellent meeting and excellent lunch as well, and still going. And then finally a shout out to the Dozone in the prune yard. Recently having a chamber of ribbon cutting. They're very proud of the ribbon even. So I'd suggest to give out, try out the Dozone.

I had lunch there this afternoon, so definitely recommend it. I can share just very briefly. So I attended the Cities Association summer membership event. And while it was a long discussion, the event went a little bit over, the discussion was very substantive in the area of emergency preparedness. with people who have a panel who have actually dealt with the issues. And speaking very candidly, best in our roles as selected officials about what is and isn't helpful. And basically in my own words, I would sum that up as don't make yourself the main character of the incident and let staff do their jobs while helping amplify putting out guidance that they share. But very worthwhile event and really appreciate the Cities Association, especially President Tina Walia, who really made that happen in Saratoga. You also had a VTA board of directors meeting. And one thing that I'll just highlight there is the VTA is taking a summer recess as is our ordinary practice. So there will be an additional meeting June 26th before going offline for the month of July and part of August. And also attended the Dozone opening. Great, great, great event. And I know they're excited to have the chamber there and to be coming to Kimball. Thank you.

Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers.

Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers. Mayor Mrakas, City Council Chambers.

Thank you. I also just want to add to the comments made previously about our volunteer recognition today. It turned out very nice. It was good that we were able to publicly honor and thank the volunteers for their countless hours of work and support on behalf of the city. And I think it was a very nice event. And also, I wanted to comment. Councilmember Hines, your brief comment regarding El Camino Hospital. We've seen in the press that El Camino is planning to revise what used to be known as Los Gatos Community Hospital, which they took over a few years ago, and replace that with a very large hospital there. That should be very interesting. And we're very lucky in this area here to have so many great healthcare facilities. Of course, we have the Kaiser Outplacing Clinic right here in Campbell and Winchester Boulevard there. Sunny Oaks, but then also I was advised that Sutter Health is planning to come to 900 East Hamilton Avenue right over here and open a specialty pediatric clinic. So that is very welcomed. Of course we have County, health facilities just a short distance away, as well as O'Connor Hospital, now owned by the county. And we have Good Samaritan Hospital. So we have a number of hospitals readily available to our residents and available to us and within close commuting distance and more and more outpatient clinics as well. So I think that's great. I mentioned that I also wanted to attend, I did attend the US Conference of Mayors meeting recently. It was held in Long Beach. A very good conference. It drew a lot of mayors. Of course, city issues are sort of almost universal. Affordability of housing was a big thing for us. We talked a lot about the environment. There was a presentation by the American Institute of Architecture. They have sort of transitioned or sort of specialized now in an area which I want to understand more about, but it's regenerative engineering where they design buildings specifically with the ecology in mind and the environment in mind, making them sort of healthy buildings and environmental friendly. So really some very good talks, talks about security, public health, not public health, but public official security and so on. It was a good meeting and I appreciate the opportunity to attend. So with that, a very long meeting, but we got through it here actually in relatively short order. Once again, thanks to staff, city manager, city attorney, and city clerk, and the executive team, and my colleagues at the council, and I will adjourn the meeting of the city council.