City Council - Regular Meeting

This is Director Natasha Bissell and the members who are standing.

Ready, begin.

If you'd wait there just a moment, Natasha, with your staff. It's my pleasure at this time to issue a proclamation honoring Recreation and Community Services and also to declare the entire month of July as recreation and parks community service. Recreation and parks are extremely important to every community. They are certainly important to us. And in the city of Campbell, we do have a number of parks. But we're also surrounded by the Los Gatos Creek Trail, which allows residents to utilize property, which is to the south and to the north of us, as well as our own city. We also are benefited in the northern part of the city with Hammond Park, which technically is in the city of San Jose, but we have many residents in that area as well. Community service classes and programs that we have at our community center are outstanding and excellent. And I'm always impressed when I see the catalog that is printed periodically with the number of offerings that you have for people of all ages from young toddlers all the way to senior citizens. So it's my pleasure to recognize you and to recognize this month. While he's coming down, I'll just say we love Parks and Recs.

I just want to thank the council for your continued support of honoring July as Parks and Recreation Month. Parks and Recreation are vital to thriving communities, and Campbell is known for all the wonderful parks that we provide, as well as the services we provide to our community. So thank you for your ongoing support.

Any comments from other members of the council?

Council Member Szczolo. I just want to say there are no favorite departments, but you guys are the most fun, for sure.

And I want to thank you, Natasha, for your leadership of the of the department and the staff that you have always gracious and fun and willing to assist the residents of Campbell and through the various programs that you offer. And it's the best city in in Santa Clara County as far as recreation programs and services. So thank you.

Absolutely, just the scope of how much we do is incredible. I always get comments, and Natasha especially want to recognize the forward-thinking nature of how you're willing to advocate for the department and the interests of the city and bring that for us. But thank you all for your teamwork.

You know, as I said before, I love Park and Rex, and I especially like the upcoming concert series, and I've been able to enjoy those.

Thank you once again. We have no other communications and petitions, and we now go to oral requests. This would be the time on tonight's agenda for any member of the public to address the council on any item that's not on tonight's agenda. So if you would like to address the council, I do have one request. from Susan Landry and anyone else. I request that you consider filling out a card in advance and providing it to the city clerk. You're not required to do so, but at least signally at the time so that I might call on you. So Susan.

Thank you, honorable mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Susan Landry. I'm here to talk about home occupation business license requirements and wanted to highlight that these requirements are so antiquated that it is very difficult to comply with them and still run a successful business from home. The last major update was in 2006. Technology and business practices have changed dramatically since then. Currently, most changes to housing policies focus on the reduction of car usage. Home occupations do just that, no more commuting. Similar to the recent update to the beekeeping ordinance, I would like to ask council to add home occupation rules to staff's work plan and may also suggest that the Planning Commission could help

similar to what they did in making recommendations to the permit streamlining ordinance thank you for listening thank you refer the matter to staff for further follow-up with you on that thank you would anyone else like to speak under oral requests okay seeing none we'll now move on to um council announcements so i have several announcements to share with you this evening. they include the following the city of campbell invites you to the ribbon cutting ceremony for our new police building at 100 north first street i'm sure most of you know that's a brand new building just right outside the council chambers here we have come to the point in time we're ready to cut the ribbon and uh complete the project on that building that will complete the two major projects under measure o and that will be this friday july the 10th at nine o'clock from nine to eleven This measure was funded, of course, by the voters, a bond measure through Measure O. The facility is a direct result of the community's investment into public safety, and the event will feature brief remarks by several members of the city's staff. The second announcement is that movie nights are continuing once again. You can join us under the stars at John D. Morgan Park. You can bring lawn chairs, blankets, jackets, snacks, and so on. It's free. And this coming Friday, July the 10th, the quote, the Incredibles will be the featured film. The feature film can be seen on at the, it takes place at John D. Morgan Park at the Pony Baseball Diamond area. The third announcement is that we invite you to join us on Thursday nights for the 34th Annual Summer Concert Series, starting at 6.30. It goes from 6.30 to 8 through August the 27th. The very first concert will actually happen this Thursday, July 9th, and it will feature the group called Sonic Addiction. And on July 16th, it will be the Floor Shakers. The next announcement is the Chamber of Commerce is seeking volunteers to help the staff with its Relay for Life Hospitality Tent on January 11th, which is this Saturday, from 10 a.m. straight through Sunday, July the 12th. This is an event that's been sponsored in Campbell for cancer research for many, many years. There will be snacks that are offered, refreshments, and a welcoming place for all relay participants who can either choose to run or walk around the track. This is at the community center, of course, at the main track there. And if you'd like to volunteer for a shift, we ask that you please so notify the Chamber of Commerce. You can do so at info at chamber, campbellchamber.net. The History Happy Hour will occur. Come sip snacks and socialize and learn a little history. History Happy Hour is a lecture series at the Ainslie House, which you can learn about interesting topics, meet new people and tour the Ainslie House as well. The lineup for these meetings will be on Friday, August, pardon me, July 31st, August 28th and September 18th. three different dates from 5.30 to seven. The admission is $25 per person. Registration is required. We request that you go to campbellmuseums.com for registration. And we also need to bring to your attention the fact that the Campbell swimming pool at the community center, which is very popular, will remain open all until August the 31st, Monday, at which time that evening it will close and starting September the 20, pardon me, September 1st, the following day, it will remain closed. That pool has been there for many, many years, ever since Campbell High School was an operating high school. The high school closed in 1980. The pool was there for many years before that. It has sort of completed its useful lifespan. We've had a number of leaks in the plumbing that we have repaired over the years, and finally now it is at a point where it's just too much, and we have to undertake actually building an entire new pool and addressing it in a more significant manner. So we regret that the pool is gonna be closed, but it will remain open through the balance of the summer, and we will cover all the classes that we've already advertised, as I mentioned, through August the 31st. And that concludes the council announcements. We now move to the consent calendar. These are items 7.1 through 7.9 that the council will take as a single item of business, unless a member of the council, a member of the staff, or a member of the audience, or someone online requests that we pull an item for individual discussion. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent calendar? Seeing none, I don't see any one online either.

So I would request a motion then. I propose a motion to accept the consent calendar item 7.1 to 7.9.

I'll second.

The motion by Council Member Hines, second by the Vice Mayor Beiby to approve the consent calendar. All those, oh, we'll have a roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines. Aye. Council Member Scazzola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye, and I do need to notice and ask for general consent of the council. There is a desk item that you saw there, a correction of some dates, and that was for desk item 7.3. If that's your concurrence, we'll include that in the motion. Yes, I concur. I see no objection, so.

Okay.

We now go to public hearings and the introduction of ordinances. We will begin with item 8.1. So item 8.1 is the Lighting and Landscaping District LLA-1 for fiscal year 26-27, confirming assessments. And I need to read to you the following statement in that regard. This is the time and place set for the hearing on public comments on the engineering, pardon me, the engineer's report for the City of Campbell's Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 2627. These proceedings are conducted pursuant to lighting and landscaping, to the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. The engineer's report prepared by the city engineer consists of the boundaries of the assessment district, the proposed improvements and or maintenance and operation of the district, the estimate cost of those improvements and or the maintenance costs, and the proposed assessments upon those lots and parcels of land within the proposed district. Any one of these items may be subject to protests or endorsements. Should anyone wish to speak on this item, on any of these items under this agenda item, you are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned by you so that your statement may be correctly recorded. The hearing is declared open, and I will ask the city clerk to report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing, and also to ask the city clerk to report on written protests that may have been received, if any. And following the clerk's report, the city engineer is asked to provide a statement regarding the nature of the lighting and landscaping district, which will be followed by any public comments or testimony. So it's a regular procedure that we have to follow in order here. And so I will begin with the city clerk.

Notices have been published as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Section 54954.6 of the California Government Code. Affidavits and certificates of publishing are on file in my office. A copy of the engineer's report prepared by the city engineer was filed in my office on May 29, 2026 and has been open to public inspection since that time. No written protests have been received by the city.

Thank you. We will proceed now for the statement on behalf of the city engineer.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Roger Storrs, Public Works Department. The City of Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District is established annually to support the maintenance and operation of the city's parks, landscaping, public lighting, traffic signal systems, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Assessments proposed for fiscal year 2026-2027 are as shown in the engineer's report and total approximately $1.2 million. The proposed fiscal year 2026, 2027 assessments are at the same rate as last fiscal year 2025, 2026. No increases in the rate are being proposed. Thank you.

Thank you. So the microphone is now open and available for public testimony. Should anyone wish to speak, you are asked to clearly, as I said before, identify yourself and the property owned by you so that your statement may be correctly recorded. Would anyone like to address the council on this matter? I'll ask the city clerk if there is anyone online.

There is not.

We have no requests for public comments, so therefore I will close the public hearing and would request a motion and a second and a roll call vote.

I'll move that the City Council adopt a resolution overruling protests, and there are none, approving the engineer's report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and assessments.

I'll second. A motion by the Vice Mayor Bybee and a 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 8.2. This is a public hearing also to consider the adoption of an interim ordinance, superseding the prior interim ordinance implementing Senate bill 450 of 2024, as modified by assembly bill 1061 of 2025 to revise historic resource eligibility provisions. And the applicable two unit developments and urban lot splits to simplify subdivision regulations and to eliminate design standards for certain single family residential zoning districts. In order to pass this measure, it would require a four fifths positive vote of members of the city council. Okay, both Council Member Hines and myself have a potential conflict of interest in this matter. So I will start first with Council Member Hines for his statement of recusal.

Yeah, I recuse this because I own a property or the estate that I manage owns a property within the Campbell Village.

And I will recuse myself from this particular measure due to the fact that I have a house in the historical residential district covered by this particular law and ordinance. So since two members of the city council now have recused themselves, and since the measure requires four members of the city council in order to participate in the hearing, we now have the rule of necessity invoked, and therefore both council member Hines and I will draw straws. Whichever one of us gets the short straw will leave the council chamber for the purpose of the discussion and the other member will remain. present and participate and vote. So I'll ask the city clerk please to have us draw straws. So in order to conduct this hearing, I will turn the gavel over to the vice mayor.

Okay, I'd like to ask our senior planner, Daniel Fama, to come to the podium and present the staff report.

Thank you, good evening. Before you is an interim ordinance to implement Senate Bill 450 as most recently modified by Assembly Bill 1061. So a little bit of history here. This is a part of legislation that began with SB9, which was adopted in 2021. That law aimed to functionally end single-family zoning in California. It allowed for two primary dwellings on each single-family lot. It also allowed for single-family parcels to be subdivided in a ministerial process under what's known as an urban lot split. That law was changed again in 2024 by Senate Bill 450. So that law effectively required that cities standardize and flatten standards for single family projects and these urban lock splits. Prior to that time, Campbell, like many cities, had a separate development process for SB 9 projects separately from traditional single family development. So starting with that law, that practice effectively ended and became much more streamlined and flat, as was effectuated by an interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council in January 2025. Later last year, the legislature and the governor adopted legislation AB 1061 that made further revisions to the law. Specifically, this change was looking to target the applicability of SB 9 to historic resources. Prior to this law, effectively the city through its local police powers could adopt a list of historic properties that are entirely exempt from urban law splits into primary dwelling units. Under the new law, the exception is much more narrowed to individually designated landmarks and then non-landmark properties within historic districts. effectively meaning that properties that do not meet those criteria are effectively no longer protected under local historic preservation protocols. So therefore, the proposed interim ordinance before you would supersede the prior interim ordinance 2321 that had been adopted in 2025. It would also update the historic resource eligibility of the law and make other revisions pertaining to subdivision standards, objective design standards, and some more minor changes that we can quickly discuss here. So in terms of the law's effect to historic resources, functionally, we are looking at 27 properties that are located in the single family zoning district that are currently protected by the city's historic preservation ordinance that functionally would no longer have such protection. So these properties may be demolished or altered in a manner that otherwise would have been prohibited earlier. However, two of these properties are covered by MILSAC contracts and are still subject to the terms of those agreements, which would protect their historic integrity. Further, as part of the overall update, staff is also making recommendations to other revisions of the law. So as part of the current interim ordinance, the city did adopt a fairly prescriptive subdivision standards that require all new lots to meet very specific shapes. And while that's fairly easy to do if you have a rectangular lot, there are many lots that don't have a regular shape and those particular properties cannot functionally be subdivided. So based on a lot of feedback we've received, staff is recommending a pivot to how the city regulates subdivisions, going away from that type of prescriptive lot type requirement to a much more narrow mechanism that's going to effectively require that properties be subdivided by basically a straight line. Additionally, the ordinance would make various other revisions to subdivision standards dealing with some ACD compliance requirements and other miscellaneous revisions. And then with regard to single family standards, as part of the change last year, the ordinance that was adopted imposed objective design standards in the two neighborhoods the city has historically had design review. That would be the Santa Paz neighborhood and the Campbell Village neighborhood. Those standards were very prescriptive because state law requires that standards be objective in nature. And so that has the effect of the city functionally telling people you have to design your home in a very specific way with very specific materials. And sometimes there's a lot of pushback from residents who really don't like the city effectively designing their home in that manner. And recognizing a lot of ways that because state law has put a lot of limitations on the city, what we're seeing is that higher density projects are effectively subject to lesser standards than single family homeowners. So it's creating an equity situation. So staff is recommending eliminating those objective design standards, putting Santa Maas and Campbell Village basically at the same level as the rest of the city and historically has not had any design standards. So these same family homes would be regulated solely by development standards, such as setbacks, height, and flyover ratio, which would remain unchanged. some other revisions uh easing standards pertaining to accessory structures allowing homeowners who are have homes that were built under legacy plan development approvals to do additions and remodels to the exterior of their homes which currently have been limited as well as some other technical revisions and additional definitions for added clarity the staff does recommend that the city council by a fourth fifth vote adopt the proposed interim ordinance which would go to effect immediately upon adoption

with that i'll take any questions the council may have thank you thank you daniel are there any questions of the council for daniel i have one daniel could you repeat the um information about the historic how the impact of this on historic structures what what that means so

There are basically three tiers of historic properties in the city. You have at the very top landmarks, and then below that you have the Alice Avenue Historic District, which also includes landmarks, but there are properties within it that are not landmarks. And then the bulk of the historic properties, 89 are known as structures of merit. So the 89 structures of merit, 27 of those are located within a single family zoning district. So those 27 properties now under the law are not subject to the city's historic preservation requirements. And so those properties could be just simply demolished or altered in a manner that in the past would not be allowed. With the exception of two properties are subject to Mills Act contracts, which are through a mutual agreement, they would be preserved.

And there's no way to protect those 27 properties?

Not through this action. The only way would be to expand the city's Mills Act program to entice people to voluntarily protect those properties in exchange for tax savings. But again, it's a very different policy decision.

Okay. Thank you, Daniel.

Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, I will open the public hearing and ask if anyone in the audience wishes to speak on this item, then you will have two minutes and I have a speaker card from Darius Sarabji. He'd like to come to the podium and speak.

Good evening, members of the City Council. My name is Darius Sarabji. I reside at 610 Craig Avenue, Campbell, California, in the Santa Mas area neighborhood plan. I spoke to you the last time this issue came up and brought a bunch of data from 30 years ago that still hasn't resolved inequities within that area where plan development zone owners have 65% floor area ratios. whereas regular single family homeowners are only allowed 45 or briefly we're allowed 50% from when we last tried to modify it in the stamp plan. Last time I came up here, I gave you a bunch of documents. You didn't discuss anything. My hope this time is that you at least take a moment to discuss this or address it to city staff to look into it for the next time we do an interim approach on it. That's all I ask for. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next speaker is Richard Ward.

Good evening, Council Members. I'm Richard Ward. I live at 87 Llewellyn Avenue. Given these rules and regulations are now being modified, I have a request that a driveway coding be changed. At the moment, it's a five-foot setback from the boundary with an eight-foot driveway space. I've done some... Views on my road, my neighbor doesn't follow this. Three houses to my right don't follow this. And I could probably show you about 50 houses in the R16 zone that do not follow this. My background is I would like to have a driveway going along the boundary so I can get a car into my back lot, but the rules don't allow it at the moment. Given the ordinance is open at the moment, I was wondering if that's under consideration or could be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this item? And do we have anyone online? Yes, we do have someone online.

Lauren Jean Rice, would you like to speak?

Lauren? Hi there, yes. Can everybody hear me all right? Yes. Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much to the council. I will be brief. My comments specifically to this proposed interim ordinance are specific to Section 10, which are the objective design standards for the San Tomas area as well as Campbell Village. I'm the owner at 1440 West Mott. And I just recently actually went through this process of approving a new single family dwelling in the city. And frankly, I found the architectural standards to be quite understandable and quite flexible. I think it still allows very healthy differences for homes in the neighborhood and I love the opinion that eliminating those would be quite unfortunate for a few reasons. I think the first of all is some of the design standards that are outlined currently are things like prohibiting rooftop terraces and decks, things like no more than two paint colors per wall, no more than two roof materials. I find these to be personally not, you know, boundary pushing whatsoever. I would not want to live near, you know, if I can help it, something with a rooftop terrace in a very open neighborhood that is the San Tomas area. So I just think it would be quite... quite a letdown truly to get rid of these. Los Gatos has their own design standards. Saratoga just adopted their village standards in April of this year. I think it would just be a loss you know, if Campbell were to eliminate these in their entirety. A second part of this, as we all know, is, you know, Campbell is going to be building per the state's requirements, you know, well over a thousand housing units and taking into consideration how this will be changing the landscape of the city. um i just think is another reason to actually keep these um these are not massive neighborhoods that we're talking about but they do have their unique character and um i just would urge the council to consider keeping these and you know their unique addition to our city thank you for your comments your time is uh up thank you appreciate it okay and then we have um a desk item that uh was

yeah it's just going to bring it up under council comments okay are there any other people on line that wish to speak no okay anyone else in the audience okay i will close the public hearing and bring it back to city council for discussion before i do that daniel would you be um able to respond to the two speakers the questions that were raised regarding um the items that they addressed

Sure, I mean, so there are components of how the city regulates single family zoning that could be considered as part of the council action. It likely would require the council to continue the hearing so that we could actually draft some specific language. So the gentleman regarding the driveway, so currently single family homes require that a driveway have a five foot setback from the side property line. That standard has been in effect probably for about 20 years. There's many standards that really do go back that far. The city's current zoning code was functionally adopted in its current form in 2004 and 2006. So there are standards from that era. Similarly, the floor area ratio is arguably somewhat low. It's 45%. And in consideration of how much development capacity now you can see, it's like a starter home project or even a single family home with multiple ADUs. That 45% also does reflect the development approach from 20 years ago. If that's something the council would like to increase, again, that could be under consideration. With regard to design standards, if that really is a value judgment for the city council to discuss, there is not a right answer to how these areas should be regulated. There are obviously different opinions. There are we have the standards that we currently have, we could look at pairing some of them back as opposed to the entirety of the standards. I mean, if there's a preference to preserve standards pertaining to privacy, and then we can look at just keeping those, or if there are requirements that the council believes are more important, such as roof material or building color, but that direction we can try to come back at a subsequent meeting.

Thank you very much. If I could, I could add one other question that I got from one of my constituents, Dr. Ostrowski, was commenting on the urban lot splits where it would require 1,200 square feet and each lot 40% of the area of the original parcel. Her concern is that the vast majority of the houses are smack dab in the middle of the lot. So it doesn't allow for a lot split if you take 40% of the area of the original parcel. So just a consideration to be able to have flexibility in that is the point that she's making.

The 60-40 split is actually a requirement of state law. So we actually could not allow for a subdivision to fall below that, I believe.

Um, Daniel, sorry if I missed this just now, but I heard you address the objective design standards in the four area ratio. What about the comment referring to the driveway along the property line?

yes i mean that setback requirement goes back 20 years it's probably for aesthetics and maybe somewhat storm water drainage but there's no particular requirement that says we have to have that setback standard the gentleman is correct there are many many many the vast majority of properties do not have a five foot setback from their driveway since those most of those driveways predate that standard that's also one of those kind of value judgment questions for the council okay

Thank you, Daniel. Are there comments from council? Council Member Weintz?

Yeah, thank you very much, and excellent work on this. I have voiced, just talking about the Campbell Village, I've voiced concerns to the CVNA for years on the Campbell Village area plan being in conflict with state laws. I think we must abide by state laws, you're mentioning one of them already, with objective standards. Any neighborhood needs to be able to build on these state laws and to be able to build a housing and focus on the community to be able to support the community, but we have to abide within the state laws. And it, generates tremendous conflict when it's not objective. And many of the points in particularly in Campbell Village are quite subjective in their representation, which generates conflict within the community. So I encourage the staff to continue with the interim ordinance being able to have consistency across the city for objective standards to state laws. Potentially also addressing some of the, how's that? Potentially addressing some of the concerns that were brought up by other speakers, thank you.

Council Member McSolo? Yeah. Council Member Lopez?

Daniel, do you mind coming back up? Just wondering. A couple of the questions raised, you mentioned really our value judgments. Can you walk us through what it would look like to bring that, because presumably it's not a, may not be able to make a final decision tonight, but what would it look like for us to have more of a discussion about that?

Well, with regard, I mean, I think the area that's probably the most complicated would be the design standards.

Yeah, and just to dive in a little bit more, can you walk me through the thinking and recommending simplifying that, just moving in that direction versus the different options that we have had?

And some of this largely reflects an equitable issue. You do have larger developers who are coming in, exercising various provisions of state law, including density bonus waivers that are effectively able to get projects approved by the city and just disregard many, many of our local standards. And that's their right under state law. At the same time, we have objective standards that are applied to single-family homeowners that some, I mean, clearly not all, find somewhat challenging to adhere to. And so, on one hand, the homeowner is having to really go through a very detailed list of requirements while a developer can just say, here are my waiver requests. I don't want to comply. And so that seemed to be creating a fairness issue. So the staff recommendation would be basically recognizing that and just rip off the bandaid and simply say, maybe it's time for objective design standards to not really apply in the way that historically they have.

And I guess just to take that one, from my perspective, I think it'd be a little premature for that. I've heard generally positive feedback from people who've had to go through the process, both informally and up here on the dais, through objective design standards. There's a lot of work to develop them. I think it's a very thoughtful process that led to it. And I wouldn't want to throw that out. I think we could evaluate at a, if it continues to be overly onerous, but that's not what I've heard to date. So while I appreciate the fairness aspect and I think staff is coming from the right place, I personally think we should keep some of that work that really was intended to keep the characteristics that are special about Campbell aesthetically while balancing the flexibility, the broad range of options and making it objective for anyone to go through the process. So there's an equity component within that already that we're trying to get at. And so I don't wanna lose that piece. I'd be curious to hear how other council members feel, but I think it's something that we continue to, If we do hear concerns, which I haven't heard, we can discuss it a future day.

Council Member Hines?

Yeah, I certainly concur with Council Member Lopez on having the objective standards. I feel though that from the specific of the Campbell Village plan that those that's so outdated and in conflict with state and city ordinances that it should apply the objective standards that the city should apply across the city.

Yeah. to clarify so the the current interim ordinance that was adopted last year so that is the ordinance adopting in part the current objective design standards that replaced the prior subjective standards for the santa mossa area and campbell village area now the current objective standards were developed to try to take the spirit of what the subjective standards we're trying to accomplish and put it into kind of an objective format. And so that's currently what's here. We are already past the point of dealing with the subjective design standards of the past. But I would just also note, I mean, if it is Council's pleasure to retain objective standards, it probably would also be worthwhile for the standards to be refined. regardless of kind of the value judgment of it. In practice, one part that has been somewhat challenging is that the standards were originally developed to deal with brand new single family homes, but they also technically apply to additions. And that has created a little bit of a disconnect for a variety of technical reasons. So that is the council's direction. We probably should revisit that a little bit so that it's clear when the standards apply to additions and when they don't.

I think I would encourage the staff and the council to continue to have the discussion around the objective standards on the points that you just made, as well as the additional points that we heard from the speakers to refine and maintain the objective standards that you just made.

that are refined the ones that are outdated and utilize the ones that make sense to continue it yeah i think that would be reasonable i don't think that was the uh primary intention when we were having those discussions around developing those standards um and i would welcome increasing flexibility without getting rid of them so

We probably would also seek then direction on particular, I mean, the driveway standard is fairly de minimis, but the floor area ratio is probably also probably a fair point of discussion for the council. So currently the city regulates building area by what's known as floor area ratio. It's basically the value of a building's total floor area divided by the lot size. Currently that's 45%. in in the past it was actually possible to go up to 50 uh through a subjective process because subjective processes were no longer allowed uh that mechanism was actually removed uh with the prior ordinance so right now it is at a hard cap of 45 now if the council would like to see that number increase that could be again also incorporated into further further revisions to the draft

So it sounds like what I'm hearing is that we're not ready to make a decision this evening on this. But I want to ask Daniel, is there a time component to this to extend or to adopt the interim work and some of the other?

No, I mean, there is no there is no time present time issue at the moment. I mean, there are a lot of property owners who are eager to move ahead with their particular projects. But the current interim ordinance is in effect for leave until January. So we do have time to look at further revisions.

And I, I would just add, I would be very interested in having the discussion around that higher floor area ratio and moving that up. I think for us to make an informed decision, we need a little bit more information about the trade-offs, but I think that'd be a worthwhile discussion.

Yeah, I would agree on that. I remember talking about it at the Planning Commission when I was on that there was constant discussion about floor area ratio. So being able to have a definitive, objective approach would be quite effective to be able to have that conversation. Thank you.

And as far as the driveway, it seems like we're not consistently applying what the regulations are now. So it just seems like we should have a little more flexibility on the driveway.

Yes, I mean, and it's not a standard that's found in every community and in the higher density projects, you do have stand, you do have driveways that are closer than five feet, again, kind of have an increasing disconnect between how we regulate higher density projects and lower density projects.

And I just wanna make sure that the individuals that are looking to move forward with their projects, they're not inhibited, but without having this, the ordinance is in place, they can move forward with their projects.

Well, no. So currently, particularly with individuals who are seeking to perform urban lot splits, the current standards are limiting their ability to do that. So they have been waiting for an update to the ordinance that would revisit the subdivision standards. So if we continue the hearing and revisit the design standards, I mean, that will, of course, cause a delay for them.

Thank you. I was just wondering if it was possible to do the reverse where we do pass this and then revisit, you know, another time for the design standards, like soon, you know, so that allowing for the people who are eagerly waiting, you know, to go move forward, so they can move forward, and then we revisit after the fact, you know what I mean?

Bill, wouldn't that be adopting two sequential interim ordinances?

Yes, you could not do that on an interim basis. You could do that as part of the permanent ordinance when that comes back to you.

Okay, so there is another opportunity for us to...

There will be another opportunity eventually. The question would be one of timing.

okay well i i'm a little reluctant to hold up i i agree with your sentiments guys but i i wouldn't want to hold up anyone who's eager to get their project going i would i would concur with mr tesola that uh i know that there's a property right in my district that uh is quite keen on being able to move forward with it so i know but i guess what um

hearing we'd like to do is move forward with let's see if we could move forward with this ordinance knowing that when the final version that we could review the objective design standards in the final version is that feasible well it seems to me that staffing correct me if I'm wrong without moving forward with this would then get rid of the objective standards and flexibility so Seems like that's intentional with some of what we've discussed up here.

Bill, can they read into the record or reference? We have a red line version of the current interim ordinance that shows the strikeouts. Could they reference that as part of their action to adopt the new ordinance? i i think council could reference just about anything but i'm not sure what the purpose of that is well to the extent that if they wanted to adopt the interim ordinance with the objective design standards being brought back into it are you saying those are redlined out right now well yeah because it's a new ordinance they're not currently in the draft so trying to see if there's a way we can move them into the draft through a motion

I don't know. I'm not sure without actually taking a look at that and seeing what gets put back in and whether there's a conflict with anything that was changed. That's true.

If not, we can return to your next council meeting with your intended direction and I'm in an ordinance.

So it would be a August six meeting that we can seventh week continue to believe it's August 3, August 3.

Between now and then we'd have to do the amendments and bring it back.

Which one? So that would be the the driveway and the objective standards and

Yeah, I mean, the easiest lift would be to basically maintain the objective design standards as they are, and then eliminate the driveway setback and just bring that back to the council in August. And then I guess defer broader conversation on floor area ratio and maybe further revisions to the objective design standards to another time.

That makes sense to me.

just a clarification that um the ordinance right now that we have in front of us does not include the objective design standards correct okay so i would i would concur that we want to defer to uh have it included back in per the conversations that we have here okay and including the driveway

uh if there's no further discussion could i get a motion to direct that or do we need a motion bill yes yeah you would need first to reopen the public hearing and then continue this to august 3rd it's the date i'm here okay so at this point i'm going to reopen the public hearing on item um lost me great points 8.2. An interim ordinance superseding prior interim ordinance and implementing Senate bill, etc, etc. I need to be the whole title. And then I would need a motion from the council to continue the item to motion to continue item 8.2. There's enough direction from our discussion to staff motion was to continue with dog is there to include the objective standards and the driveway revision.

With a four-year ratio.

To be discussed at a later date. Okay, great. With that, I'll take a roll call.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Scusola.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bidey. Aye. Thank you all.

Okay, we'll continue here now. We will now leave. move to hear the next five items under public hearings and the introduction of ordinances. I'd like to mention at the very beginning that each of these items as public hearings will be taken separately. And the council actually, in this case, enters a different role for itself. This now becomes a judiciary proceeding. As such, every person who wishes to address the council on this matter must be sworn in. The city clerk will administer the oath of office should say the oath of The proper oath to be sworn in if you wish to provide testimony on any one of the next five Subjects so we'll now move to item 8.3 this is the public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution revoking the business license and tobacco retailer permit for california cigar and more number three located at 21 45 south winchester boulevard in campbell um i We'll now ask for the staff report on this matter. I think Rob Eastwood, our community services director, will give the staff report. And Mr. Eastwood, you need to be sworn in. Yes.

Use your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Okay.

Good evening, honorable mayor, council members, Rob Eastwood, community development director, well-presented mayor on the entrance to this item. This is a bit different. You have five items before you that are very similar in nature. The circumstances on each are a bit different. I'll do a little bit more to tee up the item, just to prepare the council for the five, what to expect on five items. Again, broadly before you tonight, you are considering revocation of business licenses for five I'll call them smoke shops, businesses that are licensed to sell tobacco products. Of those five, three of them also include an appeal hearing. So under Campbell's Municipal Code, at the administrative level, we've revoked or had an intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit for three of the businesses. I'm sorry, five of the businesses, three of those have issued an appeal. So tonight you'll consider five businesses. The first three will be a combination of a business license revocation and an appeal of the tobacco retailer permit revocation. The last two businesses did not appeal the revocation of the tobacco retailer permit. It's solely the business license. And as we get through each of those, I'll represent that just to set the stage. On each of these cases, as I'll present the documentation and further evidence and testimony can be provided by your police department. The revocation recommendation is based on documented sales or presence of drugs or illegal products at each of these five businesses as documented by our police officers. Again, the first three that you'll be considered tonight, California Cigar and More number three, Hayes Downtown Smoke Shop. Hayes Smoke Shop will be a combination of a revocation of a business license and an appeal hearing on the tobacco retailer permit. As mentioned, we'll have swearing of any testimony you receive tonight. Per the Cowboy Municipal Code, of course, you can receive any and all testimony and evidence presented by the business owners in their defense of perhaps keeping the licenses. The appeal hearing before you on the tobacco retail permit is de novo. De novo means you're not held to evidence that was presented in the past before the appeal. Any evidence presented tonight, you can consider in your hearing. I will note you did receive some very late correspondence this afternoon from the business owner of two of the smoke shops. Want to make sure you did receive that. As part of my presentation, I will respond to some of the objections and issues that were brought up in that email. And again, I'll be presenting each of the items as your community development director. Of course, I am supported by our very capable police department, Chief Gary Berg, Captain Ian White, and Detective Benjamin Palmer are all here to provide support and testimony.

I just want to make sure. Yes. No, we're only taking testimony in the first one tonight. So you have to do these sequentially. We are doing one at a time. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Each time you receive any testimony, though, the person providing testimony, staff, or otherwise would have to be sworn in. One last precursor before I go into each. As you'll see tonight, the evidence presented before you references the sale of drugs or illegal products from each of these businesses. Just as a sort of glossary up front, when you see these terms, the first one, psilocybin, I think I'm pronouncing that right, is a serotonin receptor, produces hallucinogenic effects, often called mushrooms or magic mushrooms. It's a schedule one substance. That's the most prohibited under federal law. And its sale is both a violation of federal and state law. So if you see that reference as being eligible for sale by the businesses. THC cannabis, know the city council is well aware of, is prohibited for sale in Campbell retail sales and prohibited for sale in Campbell under Campbell's municipal code. Last but not least, in each but if not all of the cases, you'll see documented evidence of flavored nicotine selling nicotine onsite under California state law, health and safety code section as shown on the screen. That is prohibited in California. And the intent of that is to keep flavored tobacco out of targeting youth, teens with those flavored products. So all three of these products are illegal either at the federal, state, or local level. Starting with your first revocation hearing. So this is item 8.3. Again, we'll go sequentially, 8.3 to 8.7. The first item before you is California Cigar & More, number three, located at 2145 South Winchester, as operated under a business license and a tobacco retailer permit. On January 20, 2026, earlier this year, there was an inspection of the business by Campbell police officers. The officers were offered for sale products containing psilocybin and flavored tobacco. Upon further investigation of the site, the officers did discover a hidden room behind the retail area. In total, they confiscated 2,274 flavored tobacco items and 120 psilocybin and cannabis products on the site. Separately, earlier that month, the police documented a forced entry, a burglary of the business. I believe the suspects did get away. It does prevent some evidence that if there is knowledge of illegal drugs and products on site, it could present a hazardous nuisance. The administration, under my signature, sent a notice to revoke, based on these violations, a notice to revoke the tobacco retailer permit to the business owner on June 3rd. Under Campbell's Municipal Code, they have the right to request an appeal and a hearing before you. We did receive that appeal on June 16th. Again, your action tonight for California Cigar and More, number three, is both consider revocation of the business license and a de novo hearing on appeal of the tobacco retailer permit. Again, based on the documented illegal drugs found on site by police officers, staff is recommending that council take two actions tonight. Revoke the business license that at least four of the five findings as shown on the screen, including the operation of the business is contrary to the public health, safety, welfare and morals. It's a violation of the penal code. A misrepresenting of the material fact in which they applied for the license, which was not to sell or have those illegal drugs on site, and that it does constitute a public nuisance. And in addition, staff is recommending that you deny the appeal, uphold the revocation of the tobacco retailer permit, as there is evidence that there is a violation of local, state, or federal law applicable to tobacco products, specifically the over $2,000 flavored tobacco products that were confiscated on site. In summary, that is staff recommendation to revoke the business license and tobacco retailer permit and deny the appeal. I'm available for questions. And again, our police force is here also.

Thank you. First, I'll ask if there are any questions by members of the council. We apparently have no questions at this point. So the first step here is to invite the appellant or the applicant or their representative to present comments to the council if you wish. And if so, you have five minutes to speak as the appellant. Does, yes, please come forward. Just sort of touch the microphone, the little microphone. There you go.

Okay, one second. Can you raise your right hand?

Yes.

Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. First of all, I just want to take responsibility for what happened. This business was poorly managed. I can argue about what happened and how this happened, but I won't. I'm just going to take full responsibility and I'm just asking for another chance to Before you guys revoke my license, this is my livelihood. This is how I support my family. And I just want another chance before you guys revoke my license. That's all. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions?

I believe so. If someone else gives testimony, you can come back for an additional moment of speaking, if you like. So I will, for this particular matter, 8.3, open the public hearing and ask if anyone would like to speak on this matter. Is there anyone online? No. Okay, so I will close the public hearing. Sir, you can come back and make some additional comments if you wish, but it's totally up to you. Okay. So I will close the public hearing completely now and return the matter to the city council for review and or action.

I do have questions for either for staff or for PD as it may be relevant. This one stood out in that it did have psilocybin products on site. Does that add an additional, as I believe one of the other businesses did, but does that add an additional level of seriousness to the findings given its federal status?

robbie street community development director again i i would believe you'll see five cases with different evidence i'd say in this case uh you we have evidence of the sale of three illegal products uh psilocybin uh thc cannabis and also flavored tobacco so i'd say that assuming that's much more serious offense than maybe just one of those items but if there's any more testimony you need by the campbell police can ask them

Is it possible to get a staff report, PD report? Yeah, that would be great. I may have an additional follow-up question.

Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. I believe you're asking about the seriousness of the offense. In regards to the psilocybin, that is a felony in California, whereas the other offenses being the marijuana and THC products is a city ordinance, and the flavored tobacco is a misdemeanor. So to answer your question, yes, it is a much more serious offense, and it would carry a heavier sentence for the people that are selling it.

And city attorney, you can comment on this. This is outside the scope of what we have to consider here, but I read through all the documents. I read through the police report. I was concerned that in this case, it seems like the employees were being charged, which may be appropriate, but not the people in charge of the business. I'm just wondering how that plays into this hearing, if at all.

Yes, for purposes of licensing ordinances in general and the ones before you, the owners of the business are responsible for the actions of their employees. That was your question. And yes, you can consider the violation, other law violations, determining whether or not to provoke the licensing.

And was there an additional charge outside of what we read in the police report for the owners of the business?

We did not file criminal charges against the owner of the business. In speaking with the district attorney, they typically would not file on something like that since they weren't present.

Okay. I think that's all my questions.

Did you have a question? i i have a question so the report says that um there were complaints received um how how many complaints who complained was it just a random inspection of the property or

So I'm not personally aware of the direct complaints that we received. That was something that was informed by my supervisor. I typically lead all of the tobacco enforcement for the city. And I was made aware that we had received at least one complaint. And there's a business and profession code that allows us to do a random inspections up to once one per day of these facilities. And that is what the authority we use to do the inspection was.

Is the revocation a permanent? I mean, would they be open, have the ability to open another establishment?

Robby Isha, Community Development Director again. Under Campbell's municipal code, the revocation of the tobacco retailer permit would prohibit them from opening under another permit for at least one year.

In that regard, though, we do have a moratorium on smoke shops. So I wonder if you might comment on that. We do.

We do. Very astute, Mayor Furtado. We do have a moratorium on smoke shops. For him, it's new smoke shops coming in to Campbell. A smoke shop, and I clarified this through our staff and check on our city attorney, under this instance in the same location, technically if it was revoked, could reopen in one year. Now, it is staff's intent. You currently have a moratorium on new smoke shops, tobacco retailer permits, between now and at least a year from now to bring back a permanent ordinance that would dictate and regulate how many smoke shops are allowed. If tobacco retailer permit was revoked and there was no further action, they could reopen potentially within one year.

I understand your question.

In the same location. Yes, not a different location.

Any other questions? What is the pleasure of the council?

I would propose a motion and in particular because of the psilocybin to revoke the, accept the staff recommendation.

I will second the motion. This psilocybin is a schedule one drug. Schedule one drugs in the Federal Register are prohibited from possession by anyone, let alone seller. So I'll second the motion. Is there further discussion on this motion?

Yes. I would just like to say that I very much know the feeling of, you know, when you unfortunately hire incompetent people and they do things outside of your vision. So to me, this is this is difficult because we all agreed to the moratorium and now we have these violations and I believe we did. uh express that that we wanted more inspections this is what we wanted so we got the news now uh you know far more than i would have thought are out of compliance as we'll see in the next four or so uh as well so we're going to be doing a lot of repeating here over the next few items uh but I'm not exactly sure how to vote on this, because to me, it sounds like it would be a year gap if we do this. And then, you know, I'm assuming he doesn't own the building. So then someone can move in there in the in between the year. And then since he has to open up in that exact location, that basically means he can't open again. And I'm understanding this correctly. Am I anyone in disagreement of that? So I'm just saying that I'm not personally, I'm not sure how to vote on this matter myself. I might end up abstaining because I have deep sympathy for the business owner. However, I do acknowledge that his employees were dabbling with illegal substances, which we do not want in the community. So yeah, I don't know what to say. I wish that it seems like I can just see where this is going. And it seems like this means we're putting this man out of business for good, at least in Campbell. That's what it sounds like to me. So just putting that thought out there. I really don't know how to vote on any of these, quite frankly.

I just have to comment, and I'm really trying to lend myself to factual statements. Again, I read through every document in this very closely because I take it seriously. I'm not going to get into specific names or details of individuals, even though these are private documents. But one, I want to commend the excellent work of our police that was clearly exemplary in following procedure, going through this and carefully documenting multiple cases. I don't believe it's fair for an owner, and I'll just speak in broad terms generally as you were doing, but For an owner, just put the blame on lower level employees. In this case, these were very young individuals without a lot of power in this situation or in their situation in life. And I just don't believe it's fair to put that blame down on those who are at least positioned to do something about it. And I just personally looking at the facts, do believe that the owner has to take responsibility in this case.

Well, my opinion, of course, is that it is the owner's responsibility. He has taken responsibility for it. And I think the proper action is, I'm sorry, but to revoke the And so I'll ask for any further comments and then we'll need to vote on this matter.

I do want to thank the owner for taking accountability. The decision that I've just voiced are the decision, but I encourage the business owner to take another direction and work that through.

If there's no other comments, Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez.

Aye.

Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Scazzola.

Abstain.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. So the matter is judged a revocation. Is there any further action I should ask the attorney on this matter that we need to take on this matter?

No further action is necessary.

Thank you. we now move to item 8.4 and 8.4 is a public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution revoking the business license and tobacco retailer permit for hayes downtown smoke shop located at 469 east campbell avenue in canberra

Good afternoon, Mayor Furtado, honorable council members, Rob Issu with you again, the second of your five revocation hearings. As mentioned, this is Hayes Downtown Smoke Shop, 469 East Campbell. Item before you is both by business license revocation and the appeal of the decision to revoke the tobacco retailer permit. The evidence before you is on March 5th, 2025, an inspection of the property by Campbell Police identified a large amount of flavored tobacco products for sale. Campbell Police also identified a hidden room within the business. In total, Campbell Police seized over 4,900 tobacco flavored items on the property. As mentioned, tobacco flavored items are prohibited per state law as they target youth and teens to use tobacco products. For history, we did send an intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit on June 3rd. We did receive an appeal on June 15th. That's the item for you tonight is both the appeal hearing and the business license revocation. Any questions by members of the council? Sorry, still finishing up, Mayor Furtado. Sorry about that. Pardon me, you paused.

I thought you were done.

I will recognize this is the item and the item behind it. You do have a desk item, same business owner on two properties. You did receive an email correspondence late in the day today. The email identifies a series of issues and objections related to the noticing, errors in the resolution, insufficient timing to prepare for this hearing, requesting more timing, a request for more time to evaluate evidence, and the wanting to obtain counsel to defend and support the business owner. Staff's response, I verify with city clerk, we did send out all notices in accordance with requirements under the Campbell Municipal Code. sent 10 and five days prior to this hearing. There is a very minor clerical error in the resolution. In the header, it does list a different business. And if you do go forward with staff recommendation to revoke the business license, I'd request you read into the resolution a minor, very minor amendment, the business name in the header of that resolution. I will say with respond to request for more time for evidence, the The visit to the property by Campbell Police occurred on March 5th, 2025. The business owner was aware of this visit and the confiscation of evidence. It's been well over one year since that happened. The business owner could have requested information, evidence, anything from Campbell Police with respect to that. Again, it's been over a year since that inspection. We did send a notice of intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit over a month ago and could have received a request for more information. And again, in your administrative record and in your agenda you've had since last week, the full police documents available to you. With that, staff does believe, based on the presence of over 4,900 items seized, illegal flavored tobacco items, that the council can make at least three of the five findings to revoke the business license based on public nuisance, contrary to public health, safety, welfare, and a violation of the penal code. In addition, as a flavored tobacco is illegal to sell under California state law, you can revoke the tobacco retailer permit. With this, staff recommendation is before you. If you are willing to go forward with adoption of the resolution revoking the business license tobacco retailer permit, we'd recommend you do a very minor amendment to the resolution acknowledging the business name in the resolution. With that, I'm available for questions. Thank you.

thank you questions yes i have a question rob on the email that we received from the um owner item number seven yeah uh revocation is not authorized for a first violation under the city's own code is that you're talking about it's title under item 8.5 the title at the top no no the email that we received from from this person item number seven

Yes, I know what you're saying, but the... It's mistaken though, because it refers to both 8.4 and 8.5. They just listed 8.5.

But it is the relevant property. So this email is relevant to this item?

Based on the business owner and the reference business, it's relevant to this item and the subsequent item. 469 East Glenbrook.

Okay. So item number seven in this email talks about revocation and that there's steps that could be taken not to revoke the permit, but that we could suspend it. Is that accurate? Is that what our code says?

That would be an option for a temporary suspension. That would be one option. Also, there are monetary fines that can be imposed. or the fines can be imposed on top of a revocation or a suspension as well.

Is that something that the staff would recommend?

Staff recommendation is before you. I would note in the code under that section, Reference another part of the code that speaks to selling of tobacco to underage. You do have those options, but it speaks to selling of tobacco to those who are underage. Broadly, as there's violations of state law by selling flavored tobacco, I think it gives you broader options. But as Attorney Seligman mentioned, you do have those options before you also.

Thank you. Yes.

Yeah, I just had a question on the desk item we have here would be page three, item seven. So on the final page, but there's a claim here. I just want to know, you know, the veracity of this claim, if it's true or not, but that apparently the permit was issued in 2020, October 6, 2020. And then the claim here is that this was before California's flavored tobacco ban took effect. uh which was i guess december 21st 22 according to this uh and so this person feels that there was nothing to disclose and i understand it was a huge amount of product and so i'm kind of trying to understand if that's accurate at all first of all if there's any truth to that uh i'll start with that again i've already been i think you're good okay um

So, I'm sorry, could you repeat, you said that was the initial claim?

In this desk item that we have here, there's a claim that the flavored tobacco ban took effect on this certain date, and then that his permit or something allowed him uh him or her i'm not sure whoever uh to have those items like almost like it was grandfathered in kind of thing so i want to know if that's accurate or not i think what the business owners referring to in this is that um there was some sort of ambiguity between um whether a

business that has a wholesale license could still possess flavored tobacco products to be sold like out of state online. And that has been clarified to now that they cannot. However, I would just like to point out in this case, When I spoke to the business owner on site, he made a comment to me that the only way that his business would stay in business in the city is if he was to retail these flavored tobacco products as location. He said he cannot make enough money selling legitimate items, and that's why he had been doing it. Also, when we looked at the areas that he claimed to be wholesale, there was a bunch of boxes that had been opened with like the individual packs of like five or 10 items that have items one or two missing. That's clearly not wholesale. And furthermore, for this location in particular, the display floor, primarily had legitimate items displayed. However, they had a small corner of items that were technically flavored tobacco items, but they were labeled ambiguously. So that is to like conceal the fact that they're flavored. However, people that use these products can come in, they see that and they know that this name, you know, blueberry cloud or whatever blue cloud is blueberry flavored. And then that is kind of the signal for them to ask for all the items that were then being accessed in the back of the, the shop and in amongst the debris and everything that the garbage that he had back there that was outside of the room that was hidden. And it was actually a pretty clever hidden room. It was very, very well set up to disguise its identity. But in that packaging, you could see there were flavored tobacco packages that had been opened and discarded. So they were actively selling them and using them on the premises. So I, I, I believe that it was the owner's intent to try and skirt this by using his wholesale license and get away with selling these items. I really appreciate you painting that picture for us. Thank you so much.

I just have a brief follow-up to your remark. My understanding is that the possession alone, even if you were, is illegal and to sell it outside into a legal state or legal area is itself illegal because the point of sale is from a place where it's already illegal to possess it and sell it.

So to clarify, the possession of a person, like for a person to possess one of these flavored tobacco items is not illegal. The possession to sell them at one of these sites is illegal. And he was claiming that the wholesale location was separate being in the back of the business versus the front of the business being his storefront. And at the time of this violation, it was technically illegal, but there was some ambiguity that was trying to be clarified that had to do with the flavored tobacco list. being published, and essentially it was not being enforced by the state because the state had not published the flavored tobacco list. However, all of these items that we're seizing are clearly flavored, whether a determination had been made or not on if they're flavored by the state for that list. Thank you.

Sorry.

Yeah, I have a procedure I need to follow on this matter. So I will invite the appellant to speak first, if you wish, or the owner or the representative. And as such as the appellant, you can actually speak for five minutes. So if you'd like to speak, if you are the appellant or the owner, you may do so. Clerk will need to administer the oath.

Do you affirm to tell the truth?

Sorry, let me start over. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Good evening, everyone. My name is . I hold the permit for both shops. Hayes, I think it's 8.4 and 8.5. I don't know if we get to that yet. So I emailed my full written statement to the clerk today and asked that it be entered into the record. I ask you to continue this hearing. I got notice that a week ago over the holiday weekend to answer a case that city worked for 15 months. That's not a fair chance to get a lawyer or counsel. If you proceed, please follow your own code section 5.580.120, make a first violation of suspension at least 30 days. Revocation only comes on a third violation. This is a first violation and 5.580.130, the only first offense revocation route does not apply because my permit issue in 2020 before the flavor tobacco ban exists. The lawful penalty here is a suspension, not a revocation. I reserve all the right under code of civil, producer 1094.5. Thank you. Also, I just want to say something. Most of the flavored tobacco were seized. It's FDA approved. Literally, there's a lot of flavored tobacco were seized. It's FDA approved. And I've never sold any THC, any drugs, anything like that. It's just flavored tobacco. And I received a big violation from the state, and I'm paying it. So I don't think it's fair to get my license suspended, sorry, revoked, because of a one-time violation within six years. I've been a good shop, check, we never sold to anybody under 21 and over, check IDs, and this tobacco, flavored tobacco product, everybody were confused about it. And for the wholesale business he was talking about, yes, I did have a wholesale business, back before the flavor tobacco ban. And I do have invoices, I have everything that actually is coming from that location. I have invoices for other people, not to the public, for people that actually hold license, legit license, that I have invoices, I sold it to them. So if the officer is saying this product was used for the public, that's not true. So all I'm asking is, I need an extension more time for that because I think this is unfair to just revoke my license and get on my employees, get on my store. I don't think this is fair. That's all I'm gonna say. Thank you guys.

Thank you. Before there's any further comment from staff or the attorney, I'm going to open the public hearing and take additional testimony. So is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this matter? Yes, please come forward.

Good evening, council members, fellow members of the public.

You'll need to be sworn in also.

Oh. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I swear.

Good evening. My name is Myrna Champ. I am a family. My sister is married to Ted. He is my brother-in-law. I'm here speaking on behalf of myself, not as his attorney. I'm asking you to do two things. Continue this hearing. If you don't, follow your own ordinance. And if I want to answer what staff was just talking about, because a few of those points don't really hold up. First notice, staff pointed to the notice of intent from a month ago. That is not the notice that matters. Your own code section 5.581.150 of Campbell Code Municipal Code requires that the notice of tonight's hearing be mailed at least 10 days before the hearing. It arrived June 30th for a July 7th hearing, while it was also during a 4th of July weekend. Staff still has not pulled you the date that the hearing was actually mailed. I'd ask them to state it on the record right now.

You'll need to complete your testimony.

Okay, second, perfect. Second, staff said that full police record has been available to the council since last week. That actually proves our point. If the council itself only received the complete record last week, when the owner who got it days over a holiday did not have a fair chance to review it and respond, that is the fairness problems. Not the answer to it. The city worked this case for over a year. The owner got a few business days notice. Third, staff said the owner could have more information. Respectfully, this is a de novo hearing. What that means is that the burden is on the city, not on him, who is the petitioner here. The owner... Here, the city has to prove their grounds. It can't shift the burden onto him. Fourth and most important, please look at the provision staff put on your screen for the tobacco permit. The city is relying on section 5.58.110, read its own penalty, a civil fine, of 250 to $1,000 per violation or nuisance abatement. It does not authorize revoking a permit. Revocation lives in section 5.58.120 and 5.58.130 and those apply to sales to minors violation or a permit that was wrongfully issued. This is neither. This permit was issued in 2020 more than two, two years before the flavor tobacco ban existed. So it was validly issued and the application was not false. So the city's own record does not support the revocation at most, it supports a fine. I'm asking you to continue this hearing so it can be heard fairly. Thank you and I'm asking the city not to revoke.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter? So I will invite the appellant to come back if you like for some additional comments.

Yeah, I have more comments. So again, my business has been established for over six years now. We've been following the code. No under 21 of age is allowed to enter the store. We have a big sign. I have my employees. Everything we do is legit. We never had any violation. We never had any problems with that store. It's only one time. This happened. Everybody was confused about the flavor ban. It's just a one-time violation. Again, most of the flavor that they took is FDA approved. They're saying it's illegal because it's not FDA approved. No, most of it was FDA approved. I can show you proofs. I can show you everything that it's FDA approved. If you go online, look at Juul, for example, it's the FDA approved. Zenf is FDA approved. A lot of cigar, flavored cigar, are FDA approved. And again, I've never sold any THC product, Delta-8 product, shrooms, anything like this, never, and will never do. And also, all those things that they use for the heavy drugs, It's not allowed to be in my store. We literally, people come in and ask for it. We said, we don't have it, sorry. Please don't come back again for it. So literally we follow the law. We're good, good store. And I have a lot of customers that come and buy cigars, cigarettes, cigars, cigars. I have a lot of them. From 40 years old to 70 years old, they come in and they're regular. They've been coming to my shops for a long time. They buy cigars. I can't just not sell cigars because I don't have a tobacco license. And this is my regulars. Cigarette, cigars, tobacco product. It doesn't have to be flavored tobacco. Okay, no flavored tobacco, but I have other tobacco items that I can sell. I have shisha. Shisha is 100% legal in California. Even flavored shisha is legal in California to sell because it's traditional. I have too many people, they come in and buy cheese and tobacco. I just tell them, no, I don't have it. Please go to the next store. I can't just lose my business like that. I have to have a tobacco permit to sell these kind of items. It doesn't have to be just flavored tobacco. Okay, if I sold THC, if I sold stuff like this, okay, I'll tell you this. I'm sorry I was wrong, but I've never done anything like that. All of this is a flavored tobacco. Okay, we're not selling it anymore. It's done. You're coming at me a year and a half later to revoke my license? Yeah, that's it. So please just, I don't think revoking my license is an option. Yeah, maybe you can, I already have a big violation. I'm paying it. I have a big violation from the state. I'm already paying it. So revoking my license and paying my violation and have another five years lease with my landlord to pay him another my five, five, because I have to get on my store just because one violation everybody was confused about. That's pretty much it. Thank you guys.

Thank you. So I will close the public hearing on this matter, bring it back. I would like our city attorney to comment on the legal matters brought up and where we stand and what your opinion is on this matter.

Fairly broad question. The City Council is charged with determining whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke the business license as well as the retail tobacco sales license. If you find that there was a violation of the law in the operation of this business, you can revoke the license. There was a comment that we had to wait until, I believe, the third violation. There is a provision in the statute that makes revocation mandatory after that number of violations. it does not proscribe imposing a revocation for one violation or two violations.

So what you're saying is that we're not prevented from revoking the license. It's just that after the third time, it's mandatory. Correct. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. I'll ask for any further comments right now by the council.

Yes.

Yeah. So again, about these specific ones that are coming up right now, you know, I ask, where's the victim? You know, that's one thing, like, as far as I know, you know, we got to take these by case by case basis, but is there any information you can anyone answer if they're was an actual victim or like, you know, somehow like a mom was upset that her kid, you know, if there's been no violations with, when it comes to the other legalities, like, you know, he was talking about how he always makes sure to ID, et cetera, et cetera, and does all the state standards other than, you know, this flavored tobacco. So again, I'm very conflicted. I see someone who's learned a hard lesson, you know, business member of our community, you know, and if he flies right from now on, if he learned a really hard lesson and he flies right from now on and we continue our random inspections, I think that, you know, our smoke shops, all of them. Well, let's hope that they'll get into compliance. So that's kind of where I feel about this. And I was just curious if anyone can see what i'm saying there you know like i believe in forgiveness basically you know when it's not like straight up illegal you know like he has not i mean well i guess flavored tobacco but i'm i the information that's in front of us right now i feel like we are lacking some information because of what i'm reading here and you know that was a good picture like i understand you know both perspectives i truly do so i'm again at a loss but i don't like the idea of eliminating businesses in Campbell, which is at the lifeblood and also it's their family's lifeblood. So I heard a couple of pretty compelling testimonies right now from owners and people who care about the owners in their shop. So I just like to see if there's any any agreements with my sentiments here that maybe forgiveness, you know, if it wasn't like to me, you know, it was, we're taking these by a case by case basis. Am I right? So in this case, I, I'm not leaning towards revocation. Oh, yes.

Could a member of staff respond on the adequacy of the notice?

I can speak to that. Um,

You should probably swear you mean.

Oh, you want to do that?

I will do that.

You know the words? I do. Okay.

You affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do.

So notices were sent to the property owners as well as the store via certified mail on June 26, and then again on July 2 via certified mail.

And did we request a return receipt?

We did request a return receipt. So I pulled the tracking information for the notices that were sent on June 26. Those were all received. It shows that the it does show that they were delivered both on June 29 and June 30. They were picked up from the post office on June 27. They were postmarked June 26.

Is that within the legal requirement of our code? Yes, we have a 10 day or 15 day or something?

Yes, with regard to the business license, the notice has to be mailed only five days prior to the hearing date with regard to the tobacco retail permit revocation hearing. It needs to be within 10 days prior to the hearing and both of those meet those timeframes.

And then the owner referenced a couple of state violations, or he's paying on the state violation. Did he receive some kind of penalty from the state?

So the CDTFA, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, they do tobacco enforcement, federal tobacco enforcement. And this case was referred to them instead of to the district attorney for prosecution. So instead of requesting criminal charges against the owner in this case, we provided them with all of the flavored tobacco products, which they destroy free of cost to the city. And they do go after the business owner civilly. I don't know the extent of that.

So that was probably what he was referring to then?

I would assume so.

Thank you.

While you're still there, I'm just going to ask you, could you just kind of repeat once again the violations that you actually found yourself?

The violation was for selling flavored tobacco products at a retail tobacco facility. I don't recall the long code off the top of my head, but I could provide it to you if you needed it.

And the date? that you had that, that you saw the violation?

I believe it was in March of 2025, is that correct?

Okay, thank you. Can I ask for staff to respond on a suspension versus a revocation? Is that an option, is there?

Yes, indeed, suspension is an option. In fact, it's mandatory. A mandatory for the first violation is a 30-day suspension.

And what does that exactly mean?

That means they cannot operate the business for 30 days.

No other, I mean, they can't sell

They can't sell tobacco products.

Council Member Hines, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I got that question answered. The second question on the response on the FDA approved, can I get the clarification on the meaningfulness of it being FDA approved?

So I'm no expert in FDA approval of these kind of products, but the FDA is a federal body who approves certain products and foods for federal approval, but it has nothing to do with the state ban on it. It has no bearing on it whatsoever, and I don't think it is relevant.

Thank you.

Maybe I can clarify a little bit of what the gentleman was speaking about earlier is that it is legal to sell certain. Oh, well, let the public record know this, that what the gentleman, the business owner was talking about was that we do allow, the state does allow for certain flavored tobacco products to somehow be sold legally, even though there's a law against it. You can go to your local 7-Eleven and get yourself some Zins, which is tobacco patches with flavor in it. That's so true. a 7-Eleven you can't buy, you can, trust me. Like if you wanna look into it, you can totally buy those products, trust me. And Jules, which are technically, anyways, it's a whole thing and it is confusing. He's not wrong about that because certain, Places are able to sell certain things that are technically flavored tobacco products, but for whatever reason, they're okay. And so there's massive confusion. I agree 100% with the shop owner about that.

I'll ask the city attorney for an opinion. I thought flavored tobacco in California was illegal to sell in the state of California to anyone of any age.

That is my understanding. I can't say I've specifically researched the issue.

So as in, even though it is literally tobacco with flavoring that you put in a pouch in your mouth, that is not considered. I that's I'm just saying that that is sold at 7-Elevens and gas stations all over the place. And so that doesn't qualify. I'm just not aware of. Yeah.

So there are unflavored tobacco products that are legal for sale. You can buy unflavored Zin at any gas station 7-Eleven. Those are that there are specific products that do not fall underneath the flavored tobacco because they don't have a characteristic flavor characteristic profile, which is defined by the state. And that's where the flavored tobacco retail list came from. It was to establish which items are flavored and which ones are not. However, you cannot legally buy any flavored tobacco from 7-Eleven or anything like that. The owner did make a reference to Shisha, which is a flavored tobacco product. It is one exemption to the law. It is a product that's made to specifically be smoked out of a traditional hookah smoking pipe where you have a big bowl and a thing on top and it's done at a tabletop. It's not something that is readily available for kids to run around and be using that. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I cannot call on anyone from the public. I've closed the public hearing the matters for the city council. Other comments by members of the council? Sir motion.

I'll propose a motion to suspend the license.

What period of time? The 30 days?

Is there a shorter?

That's the 30 days is the mandatory amount of time.

30 days.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. I will not support this motion. I'm sorry, but flavored tobacco is illegal in the state of California, and I don't see a way around that. And so I will not support only a suspension. But we'll take a vote, of course. So roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez?

No.

Council Member Hines?

Aye.

Council Member Skizola?

So this would be, I'm sorry, but this would be like kind of the minimal penalty that we're invoking here. If I vote yes to this?

The motion on the floor is to suspend the license for 30 days. 30 days, okay.

And that just, that did seem like kind of this, like minimum, okay, I'm just going to say aye. I think that's, I'm going to yes vote.

Vice Mayor Beebe? No. Mayor Furtado?

No. The motion fails. Is there another motion? I will offer a motion to revoke the license. I'll second. We have a motion and a second to revoke the license. If there are no other comments, I'll take a vote on this matter. Did you want to comment? Oh, no. Sorry. I'll ask the clerk to call roll. Pardon me. I'll ask the clerk to call for a vote on this measure.

Council Member Lopez. Aye. Council Member Hines.

No.

Council Member Scusola.

No.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. So for item 8.4, the license to revoke, we now move to item 8.5. This is the public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution revoking the business license and tobacco retailer permit for Hayes Smoke Shop located at 2050 South Bascom Avenue in Campbell. I'm sorry, I had my microphone off, but I think you heard me. So once again, I'll ask Mr. Eastwood to provide the comment from the staff.

Mayor O'Connor, all council members, back with you again. This will be very similar to your prior item. Facts are similar, but distinctive to this case. Item before you today is, I'm sorry, let me bring up the item. is proposed business license revocation of Hayes Smoke Shop. I believe it's the same property owner. This business is located at 2050 South Bascom. The evidence before you today is a March 5th, 2025 inspection by Campbell Police. Large amount of flavored tobacco products were found for sale. In this instance, also a hidden room was found on site. There were receipts of flavored tobacco sales also found on site. Campbell Police Officer sees over 630 flavored tobacco items. Similar with the prior case, a notice of intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit was sent on June 3rd. We did receive the appeal, which is brought before you today, the de novo hearing on tobacco retailer permit on June 15th. Thus, the item for you today is to consider both the business license and the tobacco retailer permit. Similar to the last case, same business owner submitted the same email objecting and providing issues with respect to noticing errors in the resolution, evidence for the hearing. Staff has the same response as with the prior one. verifying that the notices were sent out in the proper time, 10 and five days prior to the hearing. Again, if you do move forward with the resolution, there is a very minor clerical error that we would ask you amend in the resolution. And again, as mentioned, the police documentation could be available if requested as the police investigation started on March 5th of last year. With that, staff is recommending that the council revoke the business license as at least three of the five findings can be made, revoking the business license, and that also you uphold revocation of the tobacco retailer permit, denying the appeal. I'm available for questions as are our police officers. Thank you.

Any questions by members of council at this point? Okay, so now I will invite the appellant on this matter 8.5 to address the council. And if you'd like to do so you have five minutes to speak.

Yeah, I mean, again, I don't think, again, it's fair to revoke that license. Again, he said they only found 630 items. Again, it's most of it or whatever, it's FDA approved. So, yeah. Also, I ask you guys to continue this hearing because I need more time to... consider a lawyer for this matter. Again, Section 5.58.120 doesn't make the first violation a revocation, it should be suspension. Again, when you said a suspension for 30 days, I think that's very fair. You can suspend me for 30 days, but not revoke my license for one year. Losing two stores just like that, it just really, really hurts. I got a violation. I already learned my lesson not to sell flavored tobacco again. Again, we're not selling drugs, not selling THC, not selling any of the other stuff they were talking about. It's a flavored tobacco. Even if you read the law, it says if you sell flavored tobacco, it's not a crime. you will be into penalties. Flavor tobacco is not a crime, but you'll be fined this much for each item, which is I got fined this much for this item. I'm paying a lot of money right now for my violations, but to just revoke my license, I don't think it's fair. I think it's unfair. suspend my license for 30 days. No problem. I mean, I can manage that. But just to lose my whole license for one year. I don't think that's fair. It just give me more time. Let me fight that. Let me just do something but just to lose my license to lose my source to use both locations. Again, I don't think it's fair. Maybe you guys don't know a lot about flavor tobacco ban in California. But About a year ago or two years ago, everybody was confused about it. Like every each store in California was confused about it. Okay, I got a violation. I cannot sell flavored tobacco anymore. Yes, I'm not going to sell flavored tobacco anymore. It's done. But I have other tobacco items I have to sell to survive. Like we have other tobacco items to sell to survive. They're not flavored. They're unflavored tobacco. As the officer says, there's a lot of unflavored tobacco. Yes, there's a lot of unflavored tobacco. This is what we're selling right now. So, okay, no flavored tobacco, no flavored tobacco. But there's other tobacco items we have to sell to survive. Just close my store and to do what? What should I do? Just get rid of my employees? I have a lot of employees. Just get rid of them, get rid of myself. How am I gonna take care of my family? How am I gonna take care of everything else? I'm surviving right now without selling flavored tobacco. So that's the case. I'm surviving without selling flavored tobacco. Yeah, just please, just consider that not to revoke the license for that store, specifically that store. I don't want to get that tobacco license revoked. This store has been open for six years. It's been established. For one violation, just revoking license, yeah, just follow your code. Follow your code and give me a 30-day suspension. That's pretty much it. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Is there other, does anyone else wish to speak on this? Yes.

I just want to ask, should I get sworn in again?

No, you can get sworn in.

I just want to speak to the legality of the revocation. The slide that was presented was pointing out to section code 5.58.110 that authorizes a fine, not a revocation. The only section that authorizes revocations are 5.58.120, which requires a third sales to minors violation, and 5.58.130, a wrongly issued permit. Neither one applies here. There's no sales to minors allegations and the permit was validly issued before the flavor ban existed. If the council revokes anyways, it's acting without authority under its own ordinance. The other reasons that matter is that a revocation has to be supported by findings that tie the evidence to the section that actually authorizes the revocation. There are none here because no such section fits. Second review, if it is challenged by writ under Code of Civil Procedure of 1094.5, the court asks whether the city proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the findings were supported by the decision. Revoking on 5.58.110, which only allows a fine, would not survive this review. Also, on the matter of the published list of the flavored list that came out, that list only came out in December. And the inspection was done months before in March, nine months before the even list of approved, what was approved, not approved, from what was flavored and not flavored, that wasn't even out yet when they went through and ramaging. And this was still figured out, being figured out. This just got into play last, just barely, it was December. so that's another that's another huge point so the list didn't come out till december 31st 2025 in this inspection thank you thank you would anyone else like to speak on this matter yes sir good evening everyone how are you guys i'm speaking oh uh fayaz ahmed do you affirm to tell the whole truth

Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do. Hello, good evening. I'm just speaking in general to California Cigar, number three. My friend just bought this business like a year ago. I mean, this is his first valuation. And this business has been in Winchester for almost more than 10 years. And he just bought it. He's just a young guy. He just started for his family. And this is whatever valuation, you have a flavor product. He said he's sorry and he's ready to, so we can give him another chance just by the business. I'm sorry, is this referring to the previous item on Winchester? Yeah, this is for California.

I'm sorry, you're speaking on 8.3?

Yeah, for California Cigar.

We've already heard the... We've already taken action on 8.3. We're on 8.5 now.

Yeah, but he forgot to add something to the...

But we've already taken action on 8.3. You can only speak on 8.5. Yeah. I'm sorry. I mean, I thought you were talking about this particular...

No, no. But also for him as well, too, like he's mentioned, tobacco product, it's been a chaos for everyone, you know, and everybody tried to make a living. That's all the businesses they have. So what else are they going to do? I mean, besides, but at least like mentioned, fine, 30 days suspension. I think that's fair enough, you know, but just put them out of business. I don't think that's fair. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Okay, well, the appellate can actually come back if you like for three additional minutes since there's no other public testimony. 8.3 or 8.5?

8.5.

It has to be 8.5.

We've already taken action on 8.3.

Again, I'm sure a lot of you guys don't really know about the flavor tobacco. You're probably confused about it. What's right to sell? What's not right to sell? The whole thing is confusing. That's why she mentioned in December of 2025, they came up with a list. California came up with a list. It's called the tobacco list or something. What you can sell. And whatever is not in that list, you cannot sell. So California said, we're going to provide a list. And what's nothing in that list, then you cannot sell it very much. So this is where I'm coming from. This is what I'm telling you. All the flavor tobacco is confusing to everyone. OK, I got a violation. I'm paying that violation from the state. It's a huge violation, by the way. It's not a small number. And I accept it, and I'm paying it. So now losing my store is another thing. Please, just, I think suspension is fair enough. To revoke my license is unfair. You know, unfair. From one violation, revoke my license. I've never had any violations. Never had any violations. I've been open for six years, never had any violations. Never, never. We had, sometimes we had undercovers comes to the store and they check like, because they send decoys and undercover that's underage. We have to see their IDs. If they're under 21, we tell them, please do not come to the store again. Like we follow the law. One violation revoking license, I think that's unfair. So please just consider just suspension. Suspension I'm happy with, I'm okay with. I can live 30 days with a suspension. but live one year with a revoking license, I think that that hurts, that's too much. So yeah, please just, thank you.

Thank you. So I will close the public hearing on this matter, bring it back to council. I'll just make an initial comment myself. Since this is the second store of this person, you've already taken action one store, I'm willing on this particular motion to, to, to propose the 30-day suspension to allow him to remain in business to sell back. That's just my opinion. I'm open to other comments.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I think it's a good compromise to lose both stores is totally brutal. That's just potentially life-ending for any businessman. So yeah, I would agree with the mayor.

Yeah, I concur as well, because I have two comments on this, is that the event that had the issue was back almost, it was over a year ago, March 2025. And I'm not aware of any subsequent investigation in there. So... that duration of time experience I think is a consideration. Absolutely, there should not be any selling of flavored tobacco. That's absolutely the case. But I just want to make those comments because I do agree with the suspension, as I had said before.

Other comments?

I just have a question. What's different with this one? as opposed to the previous one. It's the same situation where they're selling illegal product.

I would say.

I'm sorry. I'm asking the mayor. Oh, I did not know that.

I thought it was general.

Sorry. What difference is it with this one, suspending it rather than revoking?

Well, my only thought was this was the second business by the same owner. he apparently has no other means of support. And I was willing to consider that in this situation only. I will ask the city attorney once again to comment on the law. Several comments have made about when lists were published, when they weren't published, whether the law was clear or not. And I have to rely on your opinion as to your understanding as to what and when. And I wonder if you could comment further on this whole matter.

It is my understanding that at the time that the inspection was made, that the list of flavored tobacco items had not been published. So there could have been some confusion. at that period of time as to the products. And officer may know differently with that regard, but it's my understanding that the list had not been published, whether that it was clear or not that what was being sold at that particular time qualified the officer may have a better handle on that than I do. With regard to the ordinance that we're using, This is a model ordinance that was developed by, well, I don't know the nonprofit that developed it. It is not the most precise ordinance that we have on our books, I'll say that.

To clarify about the flavored tobacco list, I believe that the flavored tobacco was prohibited back in 2022 sometime. In January 1st of 2025, the Health and Safety Code 104-559.5 defined characterizing flavor, which is the term that they use in the prohibition of flavored tobacco. It says characterizing flavor means a taste or odor distinguishable by an ordinary consumer either prior to or during the consumption of a tobacco product. Other than the taste or odor of tobacco, including but not limited to taste or odors relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, spice, or a cooling sensation distinguishable by an ordinary consumer during the consumption of a tobacco product. So as of January of 2025, prior to this case, they defined a flavored tobacco and what it is. And it's pretty apparent to anyone that if you're buying a flavored tobacco that is labeled as a fruit or a berry or some sort of dessert flavor, which is many of the items we found, that that is a prohibited item. The purpose of the tobacco list is it's actually an unflavored tobacco list and it's to clarify for certain things. For example, Camel Crush is kind of a vague item. If you smoke a Camel Crush cigarette, it is a normal tobacco flavored cigarette while you're smoking it, unless you crush the ball in the filter, which releases a menthol or cooling sensation. So in order to distinguish between these products that are vague or unclear, they started to create the unflavored tobacco list, which would allow items that are maybe uncertain to be justified as being lawful for sale. It's not a list that completely lists all the things that are prohibited. And the ones that are broadly apparent to people should already be well known that you cannot sell them.

No, at the very beginning, you said January 22, but then it's January 25. So I just wondered if you might

Yeah, so I don't know if it was in January, but back in 2022 is when the flavored tobacco prohibition started. In January of 2025, the Health and Safety Code defined the term characterizing flavor to clarify, probably due to issues of uncertainty in the past. And so at the time that this case happened, that law had already been in effect for several months, and it pretty blatantly explains what is flavored.

Okay, thank you. That helps. I have an additional question from the incident report. Comparing this one and 8.4, it was clear in the police report from the previous one that there had really been an intent to conceal this hidden room. Was that the case in this one?

So in this story, it was quite a bit larger footprint than the last one that we spoke about. There was a decent-sized... footprint of the store that sold mostly non-prohibited items. However, we did find some private items on that display floor. And then there was a small room that was adjacent to the cash register where the employee could easily run back and grab the flavored items. And they were set up on shelves outside of boxes, ready to go for someone to grab one with items missing from certain packages. And something of note for this location is there was a much larger room, probably double the size of the one from the last one that was found that is in the same building. It was behind a closed door on either end of the shop. There was two doors that led into it. And the owner had posted his wholesale tobacco license on the door under a different name. And it was my intention that, or my belief that his intention was to try and protect that product that was back there from seizure. And at the time the CDTFA gave guidance not to seize the wholesale items as it was a separate store. However, when we did inspect that area, there was a lot of open packages that had single items missing. And it's my personal belief that he was restocking that small room that the cashier was selling items from with the items that were if you will, protected by this wholesale license that was adjacent to it. I would estimate that the items in that room that were not seized in addition to this 600 or so that were seized was probably in excess of 5,000 items.

And that warehouse license had the same address as the retail location?

It had the same address, but I believe it had a different name. I believe it was under Black Wolf Wholesale or something along that line.

Sorry.

I'm sorry about that.

Officer, this was in the March 2025 investigation. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you.

It's an entire different spin on this whole thing here. Any other comments?

Well, I am curious about a little bit more detail on, you know, the wholesale aspect and what was found there. Like, so the majority of it was, I'm picturing kind of like big box shipping boxes filled with product or something of that nature, or how, how was it arranged? Because what I'm wondering is, you know, anyone could go like, even me, you know, I sell kettle corn. Well, I'll sample a bag of kettle corn from time to time. So, I'm just saying just because you have a box open, it doesn't necessarily mean guilt of selling those. Can you please paint me a picture of the exact scene? Are there pictures of that evidence?

Yes, there are. And there's body cam footage of us walking through the room. The vast majority of the boxes that were in there were open. I mean, it was common to see like if there was two boxes of the same item, that only one would be open. But the large shipping box would be open and then the smaller boxes inside of that and even like the if you, well, Zinn comes in what they call a roll. It's five packages in a plastic wrap thing. Those rolls were individually broken open. Whereas if you were selling wholesale to a buyer, like another retailer, you would not break open a roll. You'd sell it by the entire roll or like as a carton of cigarettes would be sold. You know, retailers don't buy single packs of cigarettes. They buy cartons and cases of cigarettes.

And again, so was the amount, what I'm asking, and thank you for painting that picture, but when you see the item, you said you'd see two packages of maybe these five rolls or whatever together, and one might be open. You said you'd see that pretty commonly, that one package might be open versus another. So half or more were still sealed, or...?

I wouldn't say half or more were sealed or unsealed. I don't recall it specifically. But if you had one case of these individual rolls, half of the rolls would be missing out of the case and several of them would be broken open as it's been not like someone tried just one item out of an entire case. It's like it had been being depleted over time.

but technically he could have sold half of the box at wholesale by if so long as they were in those like five pods as you're describing like if he was selling those one at a time out of the big box like that could be that could account for a disappearance of i understand where you're coming from i mean um

I don't think that it's typical to sell a roll at a time as a wholesaler. A wholesaler would normally be selling a whole carton or like a crate of them at a time. However, I mean, that is a legitimate argument, I suppose.

And like, I'm just trying to picture because, you know, I could picture a small business to small business transaction, you know, where, you know, you might not be shipping like, oh, I don't need a whole crate. It'll take me a year to sell those. Right. But like, you know, selling like one or two of whatever. at a time to another small business.

I could see that happening. So at the time, the CDTFA was giving guidance to the business owners and the owner and I spoke about it as well, that they were only to be selling wholesale out of state for flavored tobacco items. And so, I mean, I suppose that some small retailer may order two, five rolls Zins to be mailed all the way out of state, but I don't think that's as typical or practical business model.

Okay.

Okay, what is the pleasure of the council? Wanna talk about this more in terms of? Go ahead.

Go ahead. I'm gonna propose a motion. Oh great, I hope it's still on then. I was going to.

I propose a motion to suspend the license for 8.5, the Hayes shop at 2050 South Baskin.

And if I may, for clarification, that would include changing the name on the title of the resolution to the Hayes down space, which Hayes are we talking about here? A smoke shop and revising the last line of the resolution. to state that the instead of stating revokes the business license and tobacco retail permit to state suspends the business license and tobacco retail permit for Hayes Smoke Shop located at 2050 South Bascom Avenue, California for 30 days.

So I will repeat that to, I propose a motion to revoke, I'm sorry, to suspend the tobacco retailer permit and business license for Hayes Smoke Shop located at 2050 South Bascom for 30 days. Second.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I do have a comment myself. I mean, I know what I had said earlier, I'm a little concerned about the volume of material that was stored there and its purpose. And I find that troubling, quite frankly.

May I? Yeah. you know, just any business, you often have a huge volume of product, you know, and so I personally feel that he's expressed himself very well and it really, truly, you know, asking for us to do this, we already, he already basically lost the other shop, you know, and that I do genuinely feel he's learned his lesson and I do not think that he'll be, doing this ever again and even if he does it's our due diligence and thank you campbell pd for doing these random checks to ensure that our community is safe and that everyone's selling the legal product so i i just would respectfully i said you don't think about the volume uh you know it's now it's just going to be replaced with volume of you know legally sold tobacco.

Yeah, well, the volume is significant because, I mean, flavored tobacco was actually illegal since 2022. It's the owner's responsibility to know that. If I'm correct, I mean, the owner is responsible for knowing state law. Whether they know it or not, they're responsible to know it. I'm sorry, but I've closed the public hearing. The matter is only before the council, and we're the only ones that can talk about it now at you've had your opportunity and I'm following what the law is and what I'm required to do so.

Yeah. You are correct, Mayor Furtado, that all persons are charged with presumptively knowing the law.

Thank you. I'll just reiterate my comments that I said before. Sure. This violation was for March 2025, and it was the first violation in March 2025. I also reiterate again that I'm absolute adamant about following state law and not selling any flavored tobacco. because of the duration of time since then and the CDTFA find that they're paying a supportive suspension. And so that was my motion. Sure, yes.

Just one last comment. I also would, this hasn't been brought up yet, but I would think about the possible time that would be tied up and the cost to the city if like any, you know, I don't know if any legal things might happen. Like I personally feel like I know we put in ordinances and there is the state law, of course, but I don't ever want us to overreach, you know, potentially. And I don't know if we're doing that right now, but for me, it feels kind of shaky. And so anyways, that's another reason why I seconded that motion. Thank you.

Okay, so we'll call for the vote at this time. I'm gonna ask the clerk to call for the vote on whether the motion on the floor is to suspend the license for 30 days.

Council Member Lopez? No. Council Member Hines?

Aye.

Council Member Skizola?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee? No. Mayor Furtado?

Aye. So the license is suspended for 30 days. I will say I'm troubled by this whole matter, I'd like to give you a chance to correct this matter. So now we go to item 8.6. And this is a public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution to revoke the business license for Sage Smoke Shop located at 484 West Hamilton Avenue, Campbell.

Mayor Furtado, council members, Rob Eastwood with you again. Acknowledgement on the next two items, they're a little different. Both of these items, you do not have an appeal of the tobacco retailer permit. So solely before you for these two items is revocation of the business license. In both instances at the administrative level, staff issued a notice of intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit. They were afforded a 15 day appeal period. The seed did not receive an appeal. So in effect for both of these businesses, and we'll go one at a time, the tobacco retailer permit has been rescinded. You are solely reviewing and deciding if you should revoke the business license. As mentioned, the business license revocation item for you is Sage Smoke Stop 44 West Hamilton. The evidence presented before you as grounds to revoke the business license is two inspections by Campbell Police. First was on March 5th, 2025. A large amount of flavored tobacco products were displayed for sale at the business in question, and Campbell Police did seize 959 tobacco flavored items. There was a second inspection on January 20th of this year. During that inspection, plainclothes officers that visited the site were offered flavored tobacco products for sale. Again, no appeal was received of the revoked tobacco retailer permit, thus before you tonight is only revocation of the business license, but in effect, they do not have a license to sell tobacco. Staff believes based on the violations presented of selling flavored tobacco, and not one, but two instances, that there is grounds and staff recommends to revoke the business license based on the three grounds highlighted on the screen before you. With that, I'm available for questions, as is Campbell Police. Thank you.

Questions? Yes.

So, Rob, the business license that was issued for this business, was it for tobacco sales? Or are there other things that are going on there?

Yeah, that's a great question, Council Member Bobby. I don't have all the information before me. If they have, I mean, effective today, they cannot sell tobacco. Do they, as typically a smoke shop sells retail items related to paraphernalia, there might be some prohibitions on selling some of those if they're that closely related to tobacco, but there might be availability of just to do some retail sales in this instance.

And so they didn't renew their license. Do we know why they didn't renew their license or was that prior to the revocation of the tobacco permit?

We did get that information from finance. I don't have any information why they did not renew their license. Thank you. i'm sorry just a clarifying question on that that was they did not review their uh tobacco license did not read a license i know that generally there was a there's two licenses which which license didn't they i'd have to look it up i believe they might not have renewed both off to open the case typically there's a staying period uh that campbell has uh once uh you're Your expiration has come up that you can come in within a certain period to renew and that same period is still open.

Gotcha.

But in the interim, based on the violations that the administration has revoked the tobacco retailer permit as of right now.

Thank you. Did you want to make some comments.

So in regards to this case, I'd just like to comment on the two inspections we did here. The first one was a normal inspection where we walk in and we They're aware that we're there and we're checking for the items. And that was when we had a large seizure. At the time, the business owner told me that he had recently purchased the business and he was trying to figure everything out. We had a lot of excuses about the flavored tobacco stuff. And we talked to him extensively on his permitting, licensing, the regulations of the signs he needs to post, and the sale of flavored tobacco products. When we returned, it was actually on a minor tobacco decoy op where a minor went in to purchase tobacco. And I was there with a minor in plainclothes. They had a display of a zin, like a zin rack on the counter that displayed multiple flavors, but it was completely empty. While the decoy was trying to exit the store, it's quite a distance from the front of the door to the counter where he attempted to make a purchase. The employee asked me how he could help me. And so in order to buy time for the decoy to exit the building, I informed him that I was looking for a Zinn product. As I saw that the rack was empty, hoping that he would offer one for sale. He went into the back room and pulled out a whole box of different assorted Zinn-flavored tobacco products. He offered one for sale to me, which I purchased. At that point, I called in the rest of the uniformed officers. While they were responding in, the employee went back into that enclosed room, which we later found there was a large safe back there. And when we went into the room, the entire box that he had offered for display was no longer accessible, and he refused to open the safe. Based on my previous conversation with the owner when we first contacted him, when we did this initial inspection where we found the majority of these products that were seized, There was a party there who was not identified. He claimed to just be picking something up from the business, but he was very well aware of what's going on. He was laughing at us and he was refusing to cooperate with us and identify himself. The cashier at the time, said that he was not an employee at the business, so we didn't push the issue of identifying him. However, here I have a body cam image pulled up from one of our body cams that day, and I do believe that the gentleman here that I'm referring to is the gentleman that just spoke up here. I'd like for you to come up and tell me if this is you or not, because it really does look like it is for you.

Thank you.

Yes, that's okay.

Also, it's my belief based on seeing him in person both times that there's the same party.

Okay, so this matter is before the council. Yes.

I have a question. So how does this person get a business license? And what's what was the business license issue for if, if he if if the previous owner of dreamy exotics isn't the owner any longer.

I heard Director Eastwood, yes. I'm having trouble with names tonight. I heard Director Eastwood's testimony was that there was an application pending for a business license. I don't know if it has been granted or not.

But what is it for? If the tobacco retailer permit was revoked?

The only evidence I have is that there has been received in finance an application for some sort of retail permit on the property. Something like a mini-mart, that's all we've received. I do want to reinforce that the tobacco retailer permit on file is the one that has been subject to the violations and we were sent, we sent all notices to the property owner and the owner of the business that's on file with the city today.

And have we recently inspected the business to see what's going on there? Has there been a recent inspection of the business to see what it is that they're selling or doing there?

Absent the testimony received from Chief Berg and Detective Palmer, you might provide more. I'm not aware of anything else.

The most recent police report we have from the business was from February 10th of this year, where we had patrol officers that went there on a call for service and they seized over 425 flavored tobacco items.

And so- But according to this individual that spoke, he said that he opened the business in April. So what I'm asking is, has there been an inspection of the business since he claims.

We have not had an inspection of the business since then. We wouldn't even be aware that it changed ownership since it hasn't been issued. And also it's also very labor intensive to do these inspections.

Well, it seems like if there's a problem with the business and the tobacco retailer permit has been revoked, that there should be some attention to what business moves in there.

I think that the tobacco, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the tobacco retail permit was just recently revoked after that April date.

So all of the inspections took place prior to the current owner of the business?

I can't really speak to who the owner is, but that's what it seems like, yes.

So are we... Are we looking to revoke the current, the tobacco license has already been revoked and we're looking to revoke the business license as it exists today on the books. Is that right?

Okay. I actually had a question about that. In his testimony, the person who identified himself as the owner did say that he was here to appeal the tobacco license. Is that a valid outcome of this proceeding potentially for our city attorney?

Excuse me, I was reviewing the code, so could you repeat the question?

During his testimony, the person who identified himself as the owner stated that he was here to appeal the tobacco license. The item is agendized for the business license revocation. Is that a request of possibility? I just want to be

be clear on what we can consider or not the the tobacco retailer permit has been revoked by the by uh there being no appeal from the notice of revocation that and that was properly noticed because the uh code requires it to be sent to the applicant at the address on the permit

And it was and that is the business address?

Correct.

Okay.

So then what we're looking to revoke is the business license from somebody who owns the, for that business, we're looking to revoke the business license.

You're looking to revoke the business license for this, for the particular business stated in the report.

Thank you.

Thanks. I guess I'm a little confused. I'm not sure because, you know, I know that certain licenses are able to be transferred over, whereas others are not. You have to get brand new ones. So where does this fall? I'm a little confused on, like, is this new owner still under the last license or they got a new license? Like, I'm a little confused on that. Some clarity on that.

Yeah, they... would not be able to obtain a license for tobacco retail.

But what's the I think we're asking, like, what is the business if it's not selling tobacco? That is definitely a question that I have is like, what is it currently? And is that like an all separate, you know, business license? Like, what are we I'm very confused. I'm sorry, but yes, I just want some clarity.

And I entered Yes, that the current or the person claiming to have acquired the business would need to get a new business license. That makes sense.

But there is no tobacco license?

There is no tobacco retail license allowed for that premises for a period of one year.

So I'd like to make a suggestion at this point. I would recommend that for this item, we continue to the next available date for a few reasons. One of them, I think, first and foremost, the issue at question that we dealt with on the previous ones of both, in this case, the psilocybin, which is especially serious, but moreover the flavored tobacco. the illegal items have been seized and the flavored tobacco is moved because the tobacco license in any case has been revoked. I think there are outstanding questions about what it sounds like as a permit that is sitting now at finance that I would like our staff to get more time to review, and while I trust that our staff to their due diligence, it would also give more time for noticing for the next hearing. So that would be my recommendation at this stage, given the outstanding questions that it doesn't seem like we will be able to resolve up here. With my appreciation for all the work, this site stood out to me as by far the most egregious of the five up here, and there were significant resources and police work and many many incidents that went into that you shared another in there where I think for in the staff report, so appreciate that. But I think that would be best at this stage.

I guess from my standpoint that the most egregious aspect of this is selling psilocybin, which is, and I think that's under the current business license. The tobacco license already has been revoked. I would contend we should proceed ahead to revoke the business license because that business was selling psilocybin.

Yes.

Yeah, so for me, I agree with Council Member Lopez that this is clearly the most egregious one, you know, and for us to be consistent or Council, even though I abstain, Council decided to revoke and I know we already revoked it, but this does, long story short, I do feel like we need to revisit this because I feel like there's some missing pieces or something like, you know, it doesn't seem like I'm the only one a little bit confused.

City Manager. Can I just clarify with the business license? Business license are non-transferable. So any new owner is going to get new business for whatever use he's intending to use there. The tobacco retailer permit has been revoked. The business license that's tied to that use is also being proposed to be revoked and recommended by staff. There's a new owner on the property and they want to exercise some new use on that property. They would obtain a new business license for them and there would be nothing that prohibits them from doing so.

by our actions this evening. So as the gentleman indicated that he apparently leased the business, leased the operation in April, I'm curious, was there any obligation or what was going on? Or I mean, is the police reporting that since this person acquired the business, there was nothing that was legal about operating anything, because there was no valid business license and there was no valid tobacco license. Am I correct with that?

This is simply a follow up to the revocation on the tobacco retailer permit. The business cannot operate and sell tobacco as it sits here today, and this is a formality to also revoke business license associated with that use. If a new owner wants to apply for a business license for a new use, they would be open to do that.

I have one more question for the attorney. Does the owner of the building have any responsibility in the matters before us tonight?

The owner would not be in have any involvement in the decision to revoke any of the permits, the owner could be held legally responsible for what was taking place on his premises in a prosecution for a criminal action.

Thank you.

I could ask a follow up, Brian, just to make sure I understand your question. to make sure I understand your comments. And in essence, any action we take is really tied to the previous operation of the business, not any new owners.

Okay. Well, I was inclined also to indicate the same thing you did, sort of continue this and discuss it further. However, it does seem clear that there is no tobacco license and there is a new business license. I would imagine then the current business license simply should be revoked and the whole matter be reconsidered. And it seems to me that the owner of the building has a certain level of responsibility of what kind of business is coming in there, who you're leasing it to, what the purpose is, or do they have the proper permits? Now, that's just my opinion. I am not an attorney. but I'm just offering that comment. Since you yourself commented to us, I'm offering another comment back to you with all due respect.

So, yes. And my perspective on this is also that the business license that we're reviewing you here is the business that had this psilocybin.

That is correct because we can't revoke the new business license because it's only an application. So if your motion is to remove that.

And I don't want to presume that the new business license would be doing anything like that. I'm just saying that the old business license, the current business license. So what I'd like to propose a motion is to revoke the business license for Dreamy Exotics located at 835 Union Avenue.

I'll second.

And if I could just make a very brief comment, I would support that for Mayor for the reasons that you said. I think now that I understand better from the city manager, that is helpful.

We have a motion and a second before the council to revoke the current business license. There is no tobacco license. If there's no other comments by the council, please call the roll.

Council Member Lopez.

Aye.

Council Member Hines.

Aye.

Council Member Skizula. Aye.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Bybee. Aye. Mayor Furtado.

Aye. Thank you. That concludes these five items. The council's going to take a brief break here. We'll come back and resume and consider the following items on our agenda.

That's it. But without breaking up. Yes. We will resume.

Agenda listed under new business actually should have been listed under public hearings because it met the qualification for that. So item 9.1 will now be considered item 8.8 And sir, I know you've been here waiting a long time. I apologize for the fact that this mix up. We should have heard this at the very beginning of these and it was an error and I offer my apologies. So this is the placing the cost of abating hazardous vegetation on the property tax rolls. Once again, Rob Eastwood will make the presentation. Thank you.

Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director. Every year you have three hearings on weed abatement. This is your third. The items for you tonight is simply to take action, put on tax rolls, the costs for the abatement of the properties that you've heard back in February, which is 75 properties to abate weeds. Just some note, you did take testimony in that meeting. You gave direction on how to address certain properties. Everything I've understood from our county weed abatement officer, those actions have been taken. Again, simply today is the measure to pay for the abatement of those. With that, I have nothing further to add. We do have the county weed abatement manager here, Garrett, who can answer any questions and of course has been waiting patiently. Thank you.

Any questions from council, first of all? No questions. I will open the public hearing and invite anyone to speak on item now called item 8.8, placing the cost of evading hazardous vegetation on property tax assessment role. Would anyone like to address the council on this matter?

No one's online, I presume.

Okay. Close the public hearing and... I'll bring it back to council for discussion or a motion. I will actually make the motion that the city council adopt a resolution placing the cost of abating hazardous vegetation on the property tax assessment role.

I'll second.

Motion by me, second by the vice mayor. If there's no further comment, roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez? Aye. Council Member Hines? Aye. Council Member Skuzula? Aye. Vice Mayor Bybee? Aye. Mayor Furtado?

Aye. That does conclude now the public hearings. Thanks for your attendance tonight once again. Also, so now we go to new business and The item we have here now is the authorization to submit a One Bay Area Grant, OBAG, OBAG application. And Matthew Jew will make the presentation. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Furtado, members of city council. The VTA has issued a call for projects for the One Bay Area Grant program. After considering a number of projects, staff is recommending submitting one grant application, and that is for the Campbell PDA enhancements phase three project. This project would reconfigure the intersection of Civic Center Drive and Harrison Avenue. It's the signalized intersection next to the Campbell Library. Current condition of the intersection is skewed. It has a large triangular island that splits Harrison Avenue and has high traffic speeds turning onto and off of Harrison Avenue. The proposed project would reshape the intersection to a normal T-intersection, eliminate the large island in the middle, and spur off the corners of the intersection to slow down traffic. The project cost estimate is $1.77 million.

over the next three years three things driving that number one we've learned having a deeper bench helps out on flexibility on the type of service you need versus a smaller bench so having