City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah, yeah.

What are you doing?

What are you doing? What are you doing? Thank you so much. Yeah, small town. Why is the emergency? Or since I hired a bunch of all over next week, I don't know. Oh, you're right. You're right. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

.

.

.

.

.

Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I see that you've all found this place. I'm going to have to sit down. I've got two microphones. Brian? Yeah, we're good. I need to mute the microphone on my computer.

or to do that, and this was determined to be the best time for that to happen.

So I'm still having a problem here. Yeah, go ahead.

That's fine.

You can mute this microphone again, sorry. Okay.

So our next meeting.

Here.

And to find out more, we invite you to contact the city clerk's office. You may call by phone 866-2117 or by...

Thank you. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. So the graphic here,

What's not changing is the macro size. So these are still limited to 1,000 square feet at a maximum height of 14 feet. to continue to apply design standards to new homes and additions and exterior remodels. The alternative option would apply those design standards only to that. I don't take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel. I really appreciate the initial presentation with the objective standards that are being proposed to the audience and the public with a better understanding of what is being recommended. That's very helpful. With that, I'll

entertaining questions of the council for yeah thank you again excellent excellent work there um just the the objective design standards what's the source of that information of how the design standards came up so these design standards were originally conceived as part of the city

stuck in administrative limbo in the first months because of a rigid definition that requires a flag lot to intersect at 90 degree angles. The last boundaries in

Bye, guys. and the despair.

Bye.

Hi. Hello. I've been unmuted. I just want to say that on Zoom, we can't hear any audio, so we don't have any knowledge as to what's happening in the meeting at the moment. Just wanted to give you a heads up. I don't know what agenda we're on, so I apologize for the interruption, but just wanted to let you all know. Thanks.

Yes, so state law does require that single family property likely to be subject to a setback no greater than four. So that's the standard the state has set. As I said, these properties, these projects are reviewed by the fire department.

at this point, or?

I mean, I would add, if we propose the wider ratio of loss coverage, I mean, those are defining features of how much you can build on a property, and looking at Phil, if I'm not incorrect, if we increase those down, we can never reduce them back down under the housing price. Wouldn't that be a type of down zoning under ATB transportation? Yes, that would be. So we have to be very careful about making any changes to the standards that we put in the first place.

So the current standards for new development is higher than what's existing?

No, no, no. The current standards for employer ratio and lot coverage. So some of the speakers have asked for those numbers to basically increase to allow more building on property. But that's something we do as an interim ordinance, even though the interim ordinance, it doesn't seem that we get I mean, it's probably also an area that should be discussed for area ratio and block coverage since it goes to how one calculates block coverage. Currently, it is true that basically any type of overhead structure that somebody could basically be underneath almost always counts as block coverage. So there's an argument that a certain openness could exempt you from that.

would his property, would the new regulations apply to that property and allow him to?

They would. So the idea here is that we are specifically exempting any of the existing perimeter lots from being considered as new lots, new lot lines, subject to the new standards. So we're solely regulating that new lot line that's creating the self-determination, not any of the perimeter lot lines. Thank you. And I would also just add, Just in terms of public notice, it is true that these are ministerial applications, so we don't do the official mail public notice, but we do have resources online. People can sign up to a mailing list with a weekly update for projects that have been submitted or resubmitted to the city. We also have an online permitting center that provides copies of all application materials that are entirely public record that are visible to view at any time. And you can certainly reach out to individual staff planners to be kept up to date of the status of any given application.

Thank you for that additional information. So I'll open it up now to the council for discussion.

Just one clarifying question. Thank you. On the fire and the open air in Lockyard, similar to my question before, is that a citywide point for single-family homes?

They do vary a little bit in the area of primary neighborhoods. So San Tomas has a lower lot coverage in some of the larger zoning districts where you have bigger lots historically. And then in the Campbell Village area, it's actually the opposite. The lot coverage equals priority ratio. I think at the time there was an argument you made that if you had the lot coverage lower than the FAR, you were basically encouraging people to do two-story homes.

A single family home outside of those historic or would not have a FAR requirement. No, they do have a FAR requirement.

So generally speaking, the baseline role in the city for single family development is 40% for a lot covered. That basically means the building footprint is 40% of the lot area. And then the Florida ratio is generally 45%, and that's just the aggregate square footage divided by the block size. But again, there is some deviation in the zoning district.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Lopez?

Yeah, I had a clarifying question as well. Just any response or thoughts to the gentleman who inquired about the stone facade and just how to have more flexibility It doesn't see, I appreciate the optional language, which I reported discussing around requiring this for remodels as opposed to new construction, but it doesn't seem like that would apply.

With regard to the stone veneer, the current standards limit the veneer to the kind of lower half of the building. The revised standards actually get rid of that requirement and provide a 25% limit to any elevation as an accent material. So there is some change in the ordinance from what was previously currently on books compared to what is being presented today.

I understand that definitely seems in the right direction, but I guess now it's just for the council to discuss. It seems like we're being asked to consider possibly more than the 25%. That's maybe something we should give correction on.

And I would also highlight, too, that the state legislature is, there are laws that are affecting this body a lot, so we likely will have to address another interim ordinance later this year or next year. This is not your last opportunity to discuss this. Thank you.

So to follow up on Council Member Lopez's comment or question on that existing property. So if the property owner is gonna do a complete rebuild, the alternative that you're recommending in the packet would not apply to that particular application?

It would apply because he wants to build a brand new house. So the alternative ordinance would basically remove people who are doing additions or exterior remodels to existing homes from the standards. But he's looking to do a brand new house.

But as far as the stone veneers, would he be limited to a certain amount, not the full base of the structure?

Correct, in the current draft. I mean, that is probably a change minor enough that the council could, in its motion, eliminate that standard.

So I'm still not clear. With the proposed, what's being proposed, that would allow that or not allow that?

So it would allow stone of up to 25% of any building wall.

remaining portion because the idea is that the stone is an accent material not a primary material to build and thank you any questions yeah i just uh i'm it sounds like the community's mostly for this however the creativity aspect i do want to encourage creativity but it seems like there is a lot of restrictions in a way like there is how much how many choices in a nutshell? I don't know if you really can describe this, but I'm just wondering if there's a way that we can implement this, but also allow for a bit more creativity. I'm already leaning towards the second option of if there's renovations that we don't put the standards in there, but I just want to know for those that, like this is kind of a warning, maybe not, I'm not sure, but knocking down this super ancient home and then building, but can't really build what he wants to build. Basically, that's what it sounds like. So, and I know we have to have standards before us, but when it comes to, like, actual looks and things of that nature, people have to, you know, just different tastes. And I also personally don't like seeing the ticky-tack kind of neighborhoods. I don't want us to turn into, like, very distinct but very similar-looking neighborhoods, you know. I mean, I feel like right now we have, neighborhoods with feelings, you know, there's a vibe to it, you know, and I like that, but I don't want bias implementing this, you know, taking away the creativity. So I guess I'm just trying to look for is the second alternative maybe the better option if you want to allow for more creativity, at least with remodels and such.

Well, yes, with remodels, it would be more, you could be more creative because you wouldn't be subject to any of these standards.

Well, Yeah, I guess I am also a little confused on the, I want to use the same example as, and that, you know, new construction, old house, knock it over, new construction, and we're supposed to have to set standards. But like, even to, like, I am kind of surprised at like the degree of the details of the standards, like only 25%, you know? So is there a lot of those? That's kind of what I'm getting to, like, I, you know, I don't know every little, new detail, but how many, I'm trying to phrase this in a way, but is it a myriad of options still available, or is it really limited? I don't really have the feel for it.

Let me, if I can jump in, just help with this answer. I'll start with the ordinance itself. This is an interim ordinance, so it's not permanent. And as this ordinance gets put into place, if it gets put into place, of an opportunity to understand additional tweaks and impact. And there's a lot of details we're talking about with individual circumstances and individual properties. And it's difficult at this level to start trying to create a zoning ordinance that meets every single one's individual needs. And I recognize that council certainly just wants to be responsive to the questions being asked. But to answer your question, This work does allow more flexibility. What we're doing doesn't make it more definitive. There is more flexibility than there ever was. And in those two neighborhoods, there is some design standards that perhaps are more restrictive, but this loosens them somewhat. in ways that staff thinks is recommended going forward. But this isn't the fate of complete. As if this gets adopted, there will be opportunity to go through the normal process where we would understand testimony from the residents. Planning Commission will have a hearing on the final ordinance. We can vet through at the Planning Commission level a lot of those levels of detail that you're discussing. tonight with the interim ordinance, we're trying to solve all of those. And I understand these people are here and they want answers to their questions and they should get them. But the interest of the interim ordinance is just interim, that there will be a final ordinance that hopefully addresses more of the minutia. Nothing's in stone. Is that what you're saying?

All right. Well, okay. So with that said, I think I am still kind of leaning towards alternative and I just want to get a temperature check on how you guys are feeling about it.

Councilman Hines, please.

Yeah, I just want to concur with Mr. Skisola that I don't want us to be making design decisions, because I'm not an architect, nor am I a particularly good artist at anything. So I want us to have an ability to have creativity in the design standards that are moving forward. at the same time that we can't kick this down the road. There's some aspects of this 8.1 that are very important for us to move forward with, particularly the lot size aspect that's been talked about. So I guess what I'm saying in this is I'd like us to move forward with 8.1 is kind of my feeling, but with significant feedback to planning development for looking at particular the far open lot and then lot covering, I use canopies. I use, my whole lot is covered with the back yard is covered with the umbrella, big umbrellas. And I do that because of the flexibility and the heat that's going on. So I think we wanna have some way to manage to that and have I don't want to be making the decision on stone veneers. So I want us to be able to have a way to give the flexibility. I like the way that it looks, but I don't want to be at the city council level making that distinction. I'd like us to move forward with it, whether it's for all new development or I'm a little nervous about making no restrictions on So I'm a little uncomfortable with that because there are advantages to having some restrictions, but if the council feels that it should be more of a, you know, just for new development, I'd go that way as well. But significantly being able to have future reviews along the lines of what Ms. Gazzola has said of taking those, they're still subjective whether it's stone or whether it's a variety of uh the front looks uh okay to take those away so kind of my sense of thank you and council member lopez

I'm generally in agreement where I was heading before with the question and suggesting we think about this some more is that no ordinance, especially an interim ordinance is going to cover every single situation. And we may have a well thought out flexible ordinance that still at the end ends up in a place where the variance process, which is still an option to i i i'm more comfortable with uh language around um making supply to new construction but um remain open to uh hearing thoughts but i appreciate the greater flexibility and and i do uh i remember sitting in some of those meetings and conversations so i appreciate that people reached out to us um maybe going back uh a year or two years uh or more because working on. So I think we'll get to a better place and still welcome feedback on how we can improve more to cover the range of needs that people have.

So I'm leaning towards allowing more flexibility and creativity and more to the point compatibility with existing neighborhoods. I did a walk in just my neighborhood and found numerous examples of a variety of brick veneers, stone, halfway up, all the way up. And that's what makes the neighborhood unique in our livable and property owners who care about their home. And this is their piece of the pie. And I just would rather be less restrictive than more restrictive. So I would be supporting the alternative ordinance allows for the San Tomas and the restrictions to be less restrictive in San Tomas and the Campo Village neighborhood. But I think they should apply to the new development. And again, it's an interim ordinance. It's kind of a work in progress and it can always be changed, but this is a starting point and you don't know until something gets in place and then an issue arrives. so that would be the time to reevaluate it. But for the most part, I'm supporting the creativity and the flexibility and the less restrictive. So any other further discussion? Council Member Hines, you look like you wanna say something.

Just, are we ready for motion? I'll make a motion, I guess, to accept the motion second option for new home only ordinance and other, all the other aspects and features of 8.1. So let me be a little more specific on that to, except that 8.1 continues to be the adoption of the interim ordinance as to preceding the prior ordinance relating to Senate Bill 450 and it may be and then to adopt that using the alternate secondary ordinance for new home development.

And is there a second?

I'll second. Test, test, test. . . . .

My direction was set. uh so we now move on to uh

I'm not I'm not in a new business so we have one of the 7, 9, 1, this is the approval of plans specifications and other. Solution to solicit bids. For the capital of those. Center relocation and renovation. Staff report will be presented by our director of public works in Florida. Thank you.

Here. Good evening, honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. So this item is 9.1, Campbell Adult Center Relocation and Renovation Project. So just to orient you for the site of this project, it is at the community center where we are today. The current adult center is located in building C, this wing of the community center. Just maybe before I start, I don't know if you can see, but Campbell Avenue, it's right, It's the east-west, and then with Arrow, that's Winchester, kind of just getting you oriented where we are. And so as I was saying, the Karine Adult Center is located here in Building C, and we're looking to relocate the center to be in Building E, so a couple of buildings to wings that away, so kind of like south. So if we look at this, it would be or this mouse is not really cooperating but somewhere around like to the laser um And so the current Ewing, the way it is constructed is that it contains five classrooms and an exterior access women's restroom. Three of the classrooms are used for city purposes and two are used to tenants. And what we're looking at with the use of the Ewing is that we really looked at this from a more holistic approach to working with the design team to come up with something, a design that would achieve a cohesive design that considers and addresses ADA deficiencies, as well as meet the needs of city staff for recreation programming purposes, while at the same time minimizing major change, I'm sorry, major changes and therefore cost change, trying to reduce those. So the objectives of the project are to relocate the entrance to face the north parking lot, to improve the interior layout to connect the classrooms, create office spaces for staff, Add three gender neutral restrooms within the space and remodel the exterior facing restroom as a single stall restroom. And so this is what, as you can see, this would be what the building would look like. And it's the front facing entry that faces the northern parking lot. It is much more visible and much more accessible. this wing, the community center, and we want to make it easy for the adults who come to participate in the programs. So kind of quickly going over the budget for fiscal year 27, the project has $3.4 million program, primarily consisting of parkland dedication funds with a supplement of federal funds that we have received through the community projects funding that was supported by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's office. And so as we completed the design of this project, the construction contract cost is $2.48 million, which includes the engineer's estimate plus a 10% construction contingency. So if we look at that, you definitely see a variance and that there's a shortfall. And that shortfall is a little over $345,000. So with this project and the recommendation from staff is that we ask council to approve an increase to close that gap by using parkland dedication funds. And just quickly going over the tentative schedule that we have together is that with council's approval of us going out and seeking bids and awarding the project, we would start construction sometime in September timeframe. And we're estimating that it will be about a nine month construction period. So with this, the recommendation is seeking council approval of the plans and specs for the project for the Campbell Adult Center relocation and renovation project, authorizing the solicitation of bids, awarding and approving the subsequent construction contract to the lowest responsive bidder in an amount not to exceed 2.26 million plus a 10% contingency. and authorizing the city manager to execute a construction contract, authorizing the finance director to perform a budget adjustment for the 345,000 to help close that gap and other associated actions. With that, I am happy to take any questions. I also have our senior project manager, Francisco Castellanos here to help with some of the questions as well, or answers to the questions.

Thank you. And the members of the council, first of all, have questions. Yeah, I can.

Thank you, Amy. And so what's the work structure? Can you go back to the financial? So the project budget that you show there was $2.4 million. The construction contract is $2.4 million. Where's the budget adjustment? I see a 30, what is it, a 62K difference. Where's the 345K difference?

I think I did a typo here. The construction contract, isn't it 2.6?

It's an estimate, okay, but it's still, the difference between the budget and the construction estimate with the contingency, the difference is 62K.

That's a very good point, because I'm looking at this and I wonder if I just did a typo on this.

So is it, are you asking for a budget adjustment of 345K or 62K? It should be 345,000. Okay, then you gotta explain to me where the 345 days, because right now, it's 62 days. Sorry about that.

No problem. I don't have many more minutes.

So if I can maybe just help here with the, in the stat report, we show there's a table that's on page, packet page 234. And in that, we show the source of funds being 2.424495. And then the use of funds in the breakdown shows design at $251, $138, construction engineering at $32,680. And then the estimated construction contract and contingencies at $2.486,000. Yeah. So $2.4 million. So a total use of funds of $2.769,818. And that difference is your $345,000. It was page 245. Page 234.

Thank you, Brian. So yeah, it is, it's a total cumulative cost. So our... Our sources funding is 2.4 million. Construction contracts plus the design costs that we've already used, total of that is 2.76. And so the difference between that is 345,000. Very good, thank you. Sorry about that. I think that was just...

Yes, I understand how they didn't have the design and construction.

Yes, yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? I did have a question myself. With respect to the actual construction, will that impede anything going on in the Earth or City Business Hall or banquet hall in terms of pedestrian traffic in that area or traffic flow and parking? It's a little bit of a tight area. I'm just concerned what effect that might have on other activities at the community center, particularly with the banquet hall.

We're gonna try to minimize the impact to other wings, in particular to the Orchard City Banquet Hall. Most of the work is gonna be interior type of work. There will be some parking impacts, but Francisco will work with the construction contractor to minimize those to the extent possible, very similar to how we are renovating the council chambers. Right now, City Hall. So we try to minimize the impact to surrounding areas to the extent possible. During the demolition, there will be more impact, right? But once that phase of work is complete, then most of it will occur within the interior.

Okay, all right. Thank you. I would like to minimize those because I still would like to see reasonable traffic flow. And then there's a lot of pedestrian traffic in that area too. Yes. If there's no other questions by members of the Council, I will invite any members of the public that would like to speak on this matter. Yes, please.

Our elementary school uses the Banquet Hall once a year around January, and we have a fun dance for the little kids that we do there. And the parking lot has always been a problem. So will the Orchard City Banquet Hall events area know when your construction timeline will impact it so that it blocks that time from the calendar so we don't look for something for a school or an event that would cause disruption for that?

Thank you for that question. Our recreation department will be coordinating all the different changes in schedule, and so you will get advance notice.

Yes.

So let me just add, so we don't take multiple other comments. We will put notifications in our rec guide, in our reservation system for those buildings that are still out there. So there'll be some notifications so people are aware they choose to make reservations that would be possible.

Would anyone else like to speak? Okay, seeing none, thank you. I will now ask the council for deliberation on your comments.

Yeah, just my comment is the relocation of that is an excellent idea. Just to get it right in front of the handicap parking.

So that's just all and make it look very inviting. So excellent work for our senior. or other seniors.

Yeah, great work with us, particularly in scaling it appropriately compared to now that we have a better understanding of what the project could look like, but I think preserving the goal, which is to make wayfinding easier and just more convenient. Very fitting that we're having this meeting where we are today. But I think it's just going to be a great project and kind of in keeping with the public comment that we heard, but also thinking cbh i think the more communication over communication the better on social media as well whatever other venues uh we have i think as we saw recently with um the the closure of the pool just uh no such thing as getting it out uh too much in front of people with something with impacts like this

Yeah, I just wanted to thank the whole team, staff, everybody. Like, this is something that I'm certainly excited about. These are my favorite things that council does is actually bring physical things to the community that I thought I could utilize. once it's all said and done, much easier access. I love it. I'm not sure if that was official design, but it looks nice. So that was a little mock-up. So I hope they can be looking just as inviting on the day of arrival. Yeah, I just want to thank everyone involved and I'm looking forward to its completion. Thank you.

Yeah, I support this project also. I think it addresses some of the ADA deficiencies that we have. And it's going to make it easier access for our adult population, as well as it can be closer to parking and our nutrition side. So I'm in favor of the project.

Yes, I'm going to support the project myself. So can we have a motion? I'd be happy to make a motion. Do another staff member have questions?

I'll second.

A motion by Council Member Zola, seconded by Vice Mayor Biden. Roll call, please.

Council Member Lopez?

Aye.

Council Member Hines?

Aye.

Council Member Spadilla? Aye. Vice Mayor Biden? Aye.

Mayor Furtado? Aye.

Thank you. We now go to item number two, 9.2. This is the approval of the East Campbell Avenue And I'd like to call on our senior civil engineer, Art Storch, for the presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council, Rutgers Stores, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department. We're excited to be back here before you. We started this effort 11 months ago when you authorized us to hire HMH to begin work on the East Campbell Avenue plan line. I just kind of want to remind everybody what it's about. It's been a while. The East Campbell Avenue plan line is looking at East Campbell Avenue between downtown and Brunner. The city adopted the East Campbell Avenue master plan, which went from downtown slash Railway Avenue to Union Avenue. And a lot of the things that you see out on East Campbell Avenue that occurred over the last 15, 20 years are a result of that plan. You know, we have sections where we have the nice wide sidewalk. It's very easy to walk along there. The portals was a project that came out of the East Campbell Avenue plan line. A widening of the Los Gatos Creek Bridge. which allowed us to fit in a bike lane and widen the sidewalk just slightly. We've done some green bike lanes and a bike box down at the intersection of East Campbell Avenue Railway. But unfortunately, the East Campbell Avenue master plan was done back in a time before we had the concept of complete streets, multimodal transportation. So we struggle currently with the current setup for facilitating our bicycle riders. So there were a couple of things that are driving this project. One is we really want to make this section of East Campbell Avenue between Railway Avenue and Bastion Avenue, we want to make it multi-mode so that all users have a safe space to utilize the railroad. We also are dealing with state law. We've talked about a lot of housing law, a lot of requirements that have been placed on the city. One of the requirements that's being placed on the city now is if you're a residential developer, housing developer, you should be able to know upfront what is expected from you by the city in terms of additional right-of-way dedication, street improvements, et cetera. We need to document that better as we do have several parcels along this stretch of East Hamel Avenue that are ripe for redevelopment. We want to make sure we have a cohesive plan that we can enforce and have everyone participate in. So what I'd like to do is I would like to hand this presentation over to John Cacciotti. He's the president of H&H Ingeared. They're the consultant that you authorized us to hire to prepare the plans. And he'll give a brief presentation on where we're at. Thank you. Thank you, Roger.

Thank you for your time. So as Roger introduced, the project extends along East Campbell Avenue from Civic Center Drive Railway Avenue through Bascom Avenue to the east. Again, the intent was to update the 2007 East Campbell Avenue master plan that had been adopted previously to incorporate bike facilities and improve walking accommodations. We also sought to balance the right... with the new elements that we're proposing and ultimately prepare the corridor for future development and understanding for our development partners. The goal here tonight is to secure council approval of the preferred design I'll be presenting. Going backwards over the 11 months that we've been working on this project since it was authorized by city council, we've met numerous times with the community, several bicycle and pedestrian committee presentations. We've had individual meetings with property owners, including business owners along the corridor, and then general outreach meetings along multiple milestones throughout the project. On the design side, we worked through the existing conditions analysis, evaluated alternatives that we'll discuss here today, and then ultimately drafted and submitted the final plan line that's included in your board memo. In the first round of outreach back in November and December of last year, we met again with those various stakeholder groups. We presented the initial 2007 plan as well as kind of a refresh, looking at ways that we could include either buffered bike lanes and potentially removing the left turn lanes that exist in the existing condition alone. on East Campbell Avenue. Generally, the bicycle and pedestrian group identified a concern for adverse effects to traffic with whatever it is we propose and a desire to keep the left turn lanes that exist on the corridor in that western segment nearest downtown. similar interests, support for continuous pipelines, but concerns about traffic operations and the property owners, again, concerned about existing traffic operations along the corridor, which, as many of you know, is congested in its existing condition. In the second round of outreach in the spring of this year, we presented the three alternatives that were considered. We secured positive support from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Community input was also supportive of the preferred alternative we'll be discussing here today, including the signalization of Page Street and continuous pipelines throughout the corridor. And property owners have been generally supportive of the plan, understanding the nuanced impacts along their various frontages. We presented the Planning Commission on May 26th, presented the three analyzed alternatives. We've highlighted the benefits of the various alternatives and secured positive support for the alternative we'll be describing here today. Similarly, at your June 18th meeting, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission recommended approval of the plan line that we'll be discussing. There were three alternatives that were evaluated. Moving down the list here, you'll see the kind of name of the alternative, the description, some details of it, and then some major pros and cons of that configuration. And I'll try to set back for our public members here that didn't see the screen. That first alternative is what will recommend the preservation of the left turn lanes along the corridor. In the configuration, we are providing continuous bike lanes through the corridor along East Cable Avenue that don't exist today. We are maintaining left turn lanes through the corridor on the western segment. We'll zoom in on that in a moment. And then we propose widened sidewalks trying to match that business frontage and pedestrian access along the corridor to and from downtown. The preferred alternative preservation of those left turn lanes was preferred for its consistency with the feedback that we received from the community, both bicycle, pedestrian groups, as well as business owners and the general community at large. And it did require some future right of way widening that will impact future development. The second alternative considered was removal of the left turn lanes along the corridor nearest downtown. So this is through railway to the Los Gatos Creek along that corridor, potentially removing the left turn lanes. That would allow us more space for bicycle accommodations on street. We could implement buffered bike lanes that may be more comfortable to cyclists as well as maintain better on street parking. Ultimately, that alternative was not recommended because of the potential safety impacts associated with removing those left turn lanes. When you remove those left turn lanes, I think left turning vehicles are now queuing in the through traffic. It creates additional congestion, stress, and generally is a less safe condition, particularly for bicycles and pedestrians that may be on the opposite side of the roadway, where your left turning vehicles may not be looking across the street for a pedestrian entering into that sidewalk. Ultimately, due to those safety considerations, we did not recommend that for further study. And finally, we did evaluate a road diet. This would be removing a lane in each direction on East Campbell Avenue. Currently operates as two through lanes in each direction. Again, due to traffic operations concerns voiced by the community and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, We did not study that any further. We had concerns about essentially the existing congestion on East Campbell Avenue being routed onto the adjacent neighborhood streets. That traffic was going to go somewhere and really saw that as exacerbating the problem rather than solving the problem. So we did quickly look at that and ultimately recommended discontinuation of that alternative. Spend a quick moment here just going into the details of the recommended alternative that's included in your packet. There's three distinct segments on the corridor. Much of the analysis that I've been describing today is in the segment one from Poplar to Railway Avenue, but the project does extend underneath Highway 17 and then through to Bascom Avenue fronting the Prune Yard Shopping Center. Zooming in on segment one, proposed configuration generally has continuous bike lanes. There are parking in some locations where viable. And again, we're maintaining two directions of travel in each way and maintaining the existing left turn pockets. In segment two, we'll go into more detail in just a moment, but in segment two under Highway 17, generally the existing facilities that you have in place serve the needs well, particularly given the Campbell Portals project that recently opened up that corridor. We are recommending maintaining the existing cross section over the Creek Bridge and under Highway 17. And then on the easternmost portion of the segment, segment three, we are recommending to improve the existing facilities to Botford bike lanes, providing that next level of comfort for our all ages and abilities riders. The next couple of slides have additional detail really zooming in on what that configuration would look like. There is about the eight parking spots that would be lost in the proposed configuration to try to create or to create the space for those bike lanes continuous along this segment one. I will note that the Presley development is adding seven parking spots on the south side. So generally we're close to net zero there on the Delta there with parking impacts. There is additional widening proposed from Page Street to Poplar that would require a developer Dedication. Thank you. Along that frontage. And that may take a while to implement. And I'll talk about in just a moment an interim solution we have in the near term. In this configuration, we have narrowed the lanes on East Campbell Avenue to 11 foot through this corridor to be able to create the space for those continuous... by facilities we did explore going narrower but because of existing transit use and the congestion here we really recommended the cross section that you see here i talked a little bit about the um the developer frontage a page to poplar needing a developer, uh, needing the, um, the dedication there along that frontage in the, it's roughly a 15 foot dedication. Uh, and as we understand, there's not an active development underway. Um, so in the interim, we have proposed sharrows, which are, uh, essentially on street shared lanes between bicycles and pedestrians. We had a, uh, a good conversation with the bicycle and pedestrian committee about how to balance this and generally felt that it was the best solution for an interim condition. So this interim condition could be implemented when a more continuous facility is built, even if the development

hasn't been applied or going forward with any redevelopment through this.

Traffic operations of the new Page Street-Gilman Avenue intersection. So we did study the intersection there. This would be essentially designed and built as a single entity. So Page Street-Gilman would have, first of all, sufficient queuing space for the signal cycles that would be anticipated through there, but it wouldn't be a single operating signal as opposed to two distinct ones. With that, we would have a left turn phase provided, and we'd be able to prohibit pedestrians from crossing during that left turning phase, a key safety consideration that was not available in the second alternative. And then finally, providing the most overlapping green time for East Campbell Avenue in both the eastbound and westbound directions, while pedestrians are able to use those eastbound and westbound crosswalks as well. Under Highway 17, again, the preferred alternative generally maintains the same cross section, although we do have a minor sidewalk widening nearest Poplar Avenue where we are not on the existing structure, where you can get most bang for your buck, and then additional green paint in your conflict areas where you've got conflicts between cyclists and transit facilities. And finally, in the easternmost corridor, the easternmost segment of the corridor, again, enhanced street paint at conflict zones consistent with best practices and buffered bike lanes. And then at Bascom Avenue, we've got a zoom in here where we're proposing to remove what they call pork chop. Islands, the high-speed slip ramps that can be difficult to see or yield to pedestrians, squaring up those corners that you have better line of sight to pedestrians that may be looking to cross the intersection. I'll note that the Bascom Avenue corridor is identified for a significant bicycle facility by VTA. They're currently working on phase one to the north of here. It is projected to extend south to this intersection and connect to the improvements that we're describing here today. And then I'll also note that future Barbano development is out here in that southeast corner. And whatever happens at the prune yard, if there's additional development, could be flagged for these improvements there. Finally, as we look at implementation of the corridor, there's several different ways that these improvements could be implemented. So again, developer frontage improvements if they're on or fronting a development that's proposed in the future. The city traffic signal project at Page-Gilman could build out the improvements right in that area. And then there is the opportunity to go forward with either a capital improvement program funding or most likely seek external grant funding to deliver these corridor improvements. So the next steps for the study would be, first of all, counsel the approval of the plan line report if you saw fit. If that approval was secured, we would utilize the plan line report included in your packet and the preferred alternative described here today to formalize the proposed roadway improvements along the corridor to define the right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements that would be required of new development. And then ultimately, we would return to Council at a future date to adopt an ordinance approving the plan line. Thank you so much for your time. We welcome any questions.

Thank you for your presentation. So first I'll ask if members of the council have questions. Yes, Councilman.

I was just curious about the bike lane buffer areas. Do you know what type it's being thought of in small numbers? It's still early.

Yeah, great question. So the roadway cross section allows a certain amount of space for those roadway buffers, two to three feet, depending on the location of the corridor. We do not have a need at this time to specify if any buffer or any materials were to be used. BPAC asked the same question. We said the plan line needs to define the footprint, what goes in could be and should be decided at a later date. The spacing that is provided would allow for plastic delineators if you should choose.

Those are the ones I hate, but yes.

Or should you not choose? Yes, exactly. But that decision is not necessary, yes.

What is the status of the page Gorman, sitting off.

Sure, good question. So unfortunately, in order for the city to kind of, because the city hasn't programmed as a capital improvement project, in order for us to kind of do that construction, we really need Crestly Homes to complete their frontage improvements. um we do we understand that they are they got approval for a um for our upsize project um and we understand they're currently um preparing construction products so we're hoping that they will start construction let's say maybe spring summer of next year uh project probably would take a couple years we'd like to get the timing such so that once they're winding down we could come to you for approval to get the and put it out to bid, because we really don't want our contractor and their contractor in the same area at the same time.

Essentially, it's going to happen out of the Kresling.

That's correct.

Thank you. Yeah, my question, and I think I got it, but I just want to make sure I understand. Could you go back to the map showing the detail of with and past with the whole stream? Yeah, what segment? Would you like the westernmost segment? Well, my question is about the segment in front of the Greenland's property.

There we go. This is the interim condition. I can go back to the permanent if you desire.

Yeah, whichever one you think is most helpful. I just want to understand exactly what the current condition is. And I understand the interim. I'm clear on that. If the permanent solution, what the change would be.

Yeah, so in the permanent configuration, I'll pop back up page, through that gate gray lance frontage there, you can see we've got, it's difficult to see, but we've got wide side lofts that are proposed through that frontage there that would extend onto private property in the proposed configuration. We have a side loft.

would be expanded.

The sidewalks would be wider. We would also be moving the curb two feet to the north to be able to get those continuous pipelines through there. And that's the reason that the interim condition could not establish those continuous pipelines and still maintain minimum lane width requirements.

So consistent with the original vision of the example, when you look at these wider sidewalks that we already have in these areas, The idea is to continue that. So, like the Cressley subdivision, their approved street improvement plan, show wider sidewalks that are consistent with this. So, along the granular strategy, it would be consistent with what you see in front of the waste center.

Yeah, it's one of the things I'm most excited for, for the Great Lakes side. And my concern was that you would be reducing the sidewalk space to get that additional roadway. So that's great that we are. We'll be asking for an additional two feet to move. Fantastic. OK, thank you. That answers my question.

Thank you. Yeah, just a couple of questions. Can you clarify what you mean that you're going to do on the bridge? Because I quite like that and it's just, you know, The driveway is about that big right now.

Yeah. So this is the section, what you see in here, Highway 17 is shown to the right, and then the Los Gatos Creek Bridge is right at the left edge of your page. We are not proposing any widening of the existing bridge. While it's narrow, the value and the cost associated with widening that structure is significant. So in this study, we did not recommend any modifications to the cross-section on the bridge due to the substantial cost associated with it.

Yeah, I understand. I understand that. And it just makes a choke point for the bike pedestrian committee.

Any feedback on that? Probably. I can't represent that it was discussed in depth, but we certainly presented this and I think the understanding of the value proposition was accepted because of the other other options.

Yeah, the comment about the the plastic cones are all over Fremont and I'm constantly trying to dodge them. So hopefully there's some better answers to those, more than just green paint, because I think green paint is scary for everybody.

So I know that you might have more options.

Well, I guess you're saying...

what technology is used in that space is to be determined later.

That is correct. What we currently show, especially on the easternmost segment of the corridor, is two-foot buffered bikeways with a six-foot bike lane. You could potentially reallocate that space to be a narrower bike lane with a wider buffer. The width of that buffer does start to govern what materials you may be able to use in there. So, you know, a concrete median would be difficult to achieve in a two-foot buffer. But there are kind of plastic features that are hold on that aren't the ballers that are three feet tall, but are like the armadillos and other features that you see.

Yeah. maybe in the city of San Jose, that have proven to be a little bit more robust.

They're rough buffers. What's this buffer then?

So when we describe a buffer, it would be essentially a crosshatch paint that could have physical obstructions in it or could simply be a crosshatch of paint. So a six-foot bike lane, okay, I follow that. So a six-foot bike lane plus two foot fall. Correct. Eight feet from the edge of the roadway to the curb. The edge of the vehicular travel way to the curb.

Final question is, what about with the narrowing of the lanes? What about restrictions?

Great question. The narrowing that's proposed is consistent with federal guidelines through the MUTCD, so we would require no exceptions. This is just really honestly best practice for complete streets at 11-foot lanes. If we wanted to go narrower, we would start to run into issues with buses, most notably 10-foot lanes, your mirrors start to overhang into outside lanes. Everything that's proposed here is consistent with federal guidelines and would not require any special restrictions. Very good, so 11-foot lanes and six-foot bike lanes.

Correct. Okay, wait a second.

Yeah, the western portion of the corridor is narrower.

Bike lanes are proposed at five feet to fit within that section. Better than two feet on Union Avenue. Okay, all right, thank you.

Thank you. um we've been wanting to um sort of improve this whole area for quite some time and we've had multiple studies so it's kind of nice to see it come to this point uh from the point of view that we've always wanted to provide kind of a better connection between that downtown as well as the pruner area and of course the highway 17 overpass kind of prevented that for a long time but the portals were a big improvement and uh and So we are looking at another sort of related project there where Harrison Avenue comes in and it sort of scoots into Orchard City, Civic Center Drive and so on. Will there be any issues? I mean, I'm assuming, of course, you've sort of planned for that small project as well, along with this project that's going to be developed.

So, Mayor, the project you're referencing is the PDA project, and that's actually Phase 3, which has been designed. Because right now, when it comes into Civic Center Drive, it makes for some awkward situations. This will be bringing Harrison directly into Civic Center at night. degree angle, new traffic signal. It'll definitely be a much better experience for pedestrians and vehicles at that intersection. When it comes to the bike lane, Civic Center going that direction, it's one way westbound, so there should be a connection to whatever we do on that street. But right now, the scope of this project pretty

Even I always sort of refer back to the heavy traffic times, you know, the commute times, because that road does get impacted quite a bit on both directions, since it's one of the few roads that goes in that direction. Obviously, you have to cross over the creek, and there's only Hamel Avenue there, as well as the Hamilton Avenue, so... hoping that all of this, when it's all done, will still promote good traffic flow, so that, you know, cut down on traffic pollution and air pollution as well as the traffic congestion.

So, yeah, as John mentioned, one of the challenges has been to balance the needs of all the users, right? We recognize that, you know, vehicular traffic, especially here at the city, as you mentioned, we only have three east-west corridors that cross Highway 17, right? So we have to be protective of them. That is primarily the reason the whole idea of a road diet, kind of diet quick now, because one lane in each direction, it would still traffic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, Mayor, I forgot one question. Just one question with the Cressley and Barbano properties going in. Barbano is going to be at 324 housing units. Cressley is going to have 120 new housing units. Those are significant additions that are power pouring right into it.

this area what's the consideration from the traffic management aspect yeah so um as we noted we're generally maintaining the existing condition along the corridor uh we are preserving essentially the the lane configuration the the corridor does not provide a lot of opportunity to enhance the vehicular capacity uh for the traffic operations analysis at the new signal at page gilman we did use future year conditions so your general plan build out was assumed it does model

so the departmental project is currently going through a traffic analysis as part of the project application okay so if there's no other council comments at this point i'd like to invite any members of the public that might like to speak on this matter would anyone like to speak for this issue yes

in Sue Saunders and whatever, on meeting Mr. Mayor, council members. I really just want to understand better what's kind of the whole timeline or the method we get to on that segment between Poplar and Page.

Because if you walk there, the sidewalk seems too narrow down.

And if you're riding a bike through there, you're pretty gung-ho because it doesn't look very safe to me while I'm on the narrow sidewalk. And it's always looked like moving those buildings back is what needs to happen. It sounds like there was some talk about that, but I'd really like to understand how we get to the end goal in that particular area, because putting more lines on the road isn't going to make it any safer. Thank you.

Maybe I can answer that question, Mr. Mayor. This is really, for these plans, it's really there as a roadmap for future development.

We're trying to find some objective standards so when developers we can apply these standards.

So we try to do best with what we have until we get that extra right-of-way dedication. But it is a case in that where we do the dedication for the property owner in order to complete that. So this is really just a roadmap, no pun intended, for where we'd like to be and try to leverage that with development as it occurs.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, what is the... I'll bring it back to the council for further discussion and or motion.

I'll just start the comments. I really appreciate the work. I think this is very proposal that is pragmatic. I don't think any of us would be interested in just another study that sits on a shelf. It isn't very practical, so I appreciate that. foremost in what you looked at was not just the benefit and the improvement, but the feasibility and the pragmatism. I'm not a fan of Sheryl's at all. And as some folks have said, you know, just green paint doesn't make it safer. And there's data that even suggests that it can increase risk. Yet I appreciate that it is an interim solution. I was to my previous question, the real fix just will take some time. I cannot be more supportive of that direction, but also understand that that won't happen overnight. I would, outside the scope of this project, I will continue to be just as strong a voice as I can be for traffic calming, traffic safety, and through our different discussions and different processes that we have. So if there are things outside of the work and in this comments for the rest of the staff too that we can do to increase safety, I think that's absolutely essential to recognize that within the scope of this and the timeline and what is pragmatic, that that's a component of how it's facing. So strong support for the staff. I would move the staff recommendation for the second. Second.

I have a motion by Councilmember Lopez, second by Councilmember Scazzola. And we'll call, please.

Councilmember Lopez?

Aye.

Councilmember Hines?

Aye.

Councilmember Scazzola? Aye. Vice Mayor Biden? Aye. Mayor Patado?

Aye. Thank you both very much. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Now I'm going to go on to item number 10.1. This is the Cambria Climate Action Plan and adoption. And I'm going to have to call on our community development director, Rodney Sweet, for the presentation.

Thank you. Mayor Pagano, along with council members, Robbie Sturigan, the development director. This is I am very familiar with. You saw it two months back, the short presentation, but of course, the available machines. So of course, before you tonight is the final action in what's been a two-year process to prepare Campbell's first climate action and adaptation plan. Tonight, I want to walk through two things. One is just to note some changes that were made to the cap based on council direction last time you saw it, and of course, providing you the final version of the plan, if you so wish, for your adoption. A quick background, you will be familiar with our 2014 general plan did highlight as a priority policy the adoption of a climate action plan. The city formally started this process in 2024, so roughly a two-plus process. We came to you with the draft climate action and adaptation plan on May 19th. We did receive substantial public feedback on that and gave direction to staff on some final changes to the plan. A reminder to the council and the audience, the cap is a roadmap. It's aspirational. It sets out a north star of where the city wants to go on two fronts, both doing everything we can to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that come out of the city and the operations in the city, And also the community for the future of climate change that impacts from heat, drought, air quality, or flooding. So it tries to address all aspects of the future of climate action. Again, it is a guidance document. It's intended to be a living document, and it is subject to the resources and budget applications on an annual basis to hit those goals. Going back to your question, Last meeting in May, Council provided direction for some final changes to the plan. I want to walk through those very quickly. Council consensus was to make sure it was very clear in the plan that it is a roadmap, it's an aspirational document. Staff have gone into the document, made some additions in the the introduction and throughout the document to make sure that's very clear. There was a substantial amount of public feedback on one measure, that's BLD3, that speaks to reach codes. Council provided direction to make clear that that measure seeks for voluntary measures. There are no mandates associated with that measure. We provided some additional updates as seen on the screen through underlying highlighting that the city is focusing on education incentives. The council did give feedback to do a biannual review, so we will look forward to every two years a check-in on the climate plan. And we'll run an implementation. And in addition, I provided some feedback on modifications with language respect to tree canopy, state programs and actions that the city could take in those actions. Uh, just know that Council receives an email comment from the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors last week asking for a modification with respect to characterizing feedback. Um, it's discretion to Council would provide that additional feedback from staff standpoint. My staff believes how that area is presented in the plan is actually correct. characterizing the feedback we received from the community. However, just noting you have received that correspondence. I do want to note that the resolution was not initially included in your packet. It is a desk item. With that, staff does recommend that the council adopt a resolution as included as a desk item, adopting Campbell's first climate action and adaptation plan. A bit on the steps. It doesn't matter. This is the beginning. City staff will continue to coordinate and meet at least quarterly to discuss how we implement the plan. You, of course, will review this in your annual work plans and on a formal, biannual basis, you can have a formal review. With that, I do just want to thank at least our consulting team. We do have Brian Gardner available online for questions. I do want to thank members of the audience, especially those who participated in the Climate Action Plan. We had a community advisory council, and I think there's members here tonight, dedicated their own time to come in and provide feedback to this process. With that, I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ron and Nicholas. Ms. and to members of your staff. This project has been a long time coming. There's been a number of study sessions, community meetings, and things of that nature. It's all been very helpful. And the input that we've appreciated over that time to kind of bring us to this point. Within our area, it still remains that transportation provides the biggest source of pollution in terms of greenhouse gases by buildings and so on. It certainly, as you said, is a good start for us to move ahead and encourage more and more members of our community to address this matter and provide additional suggestions and comments as time goes and continues. Thank you. So first, I'll ask if there's any questions from members of the council. Okay, so now I will also ask for members of the public, if you'd care to comment on the climate action plan on the 4th. Yes, please come forward.

Thank you so much for allowing me to comment on the Campbell. Thanks again. My name is Stephanie Morris. I'm a Campbell homeowner. I've been living in Campbell for over 23 years. I'm also a parent and I was also on the community advisory committee. So I have been with this process for the last two years. Very much excited to be part of that process and really enjoy hearing what the community had to say and attending the various outreach events. Seeing that this plan really does represent a broad spectrum of the community was really helpful for me. And hearing just dissenting voices and how the plan responded to those over time. So I feel that the plan is very balanced. The plan very much takes into account lots of people's opinions in the city of Campbell. I love it that it's very action-oriented. It incentivizes but doesn't mandate. So I think that was a point of clarification that was really good to make tonight, that there is really no mandate. No one's being forced to do anything saying we're really educating and incentivizing. And I appreciate the explanation of the plan, especially about how homeowners and businesses can take further action. There's a lot of great educational information in there for us as a community to use. And that's not something that every plan does. I've also researched a lot of different plans from different cities, and having done that, I feel that this is a really great, solid plan. I'm very impressed with its organization and its content. And I would urge the Council to approve and support the plan as it stands tonight. I would also furthermore urge the City of Campbell to help provide cost-sharing incentives to businesses and residents. who wish to enact some of these measures for themselves. And I think that those really, everything that's mentioned in the plan, as well as what we do as homeowners and business people, really does help all of us. So it boosts the quality of life for everybody. When we do things like protect our air quality, we all benefit. When we improve bicycle lanes or add more tree canopy, habitat benefits and all of us benefit. So there's a lot of multiple different things that maybe have one goal that reflects on lots of different goals combined together. That's all I had to say and thank you very much.

Thank you for your very comprehensive comments and for your presentation. What I wanted to also say, for volunteering your time to look into this and participate in the process as it develops. Thank you. Other members would probably like to speak? Yes, sir. There he is.

I read the plan. I was pretty impressed with it. Then I read it a little more and I found it lacking a few things. Simple little things. I work in Mountain View. Once in a while, I go out to have lunch or have takeout. I prefer sushi. It shows up, comes in a nice cardboard packaging, stuff that's biodegradable, et cetera. I reach back to staff. I said, hey, I get my sushi over here at one of my restaurants. I get plastic containers. I get a little creakly piece of plastic to make the thing look pretty. That has absolutely no purpose being there. And in addition, we throw away the little pieces of lettuce that are, again, to make that box look pretty. That ends up, it's a small thing. It's not a big building. It's not a big car. But that little piece of lettuce that nobody ever eats, that has wilted because the hot salmon was on it, or whatever, is just waste. So I'd like... the direction it's going in, but staff said we would have to come up with an ordinance like the City Council to consider sometime in the future taking away that little crinkly piece of plastic.

Thank you. Maybe we could continue to work with some of the business proprietors as well and encourage them to kind of change some of their habits as a source of problems. Other comments? Okay, thank you.

I would thank you. Hello, my name is Dasha leads. I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter.

Our chapter supports the Okay, can can you hear me?

I don't think you can hear me. Okay.

How about now?

Yes, we can hear you now.

Okay, you can. Great. Thank you. Hello, my name is Dasha Leeds. I'm conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Luma Prieta chapter. We strongly support the adoption of the draft climate action and adaptation plan presented before you tonight. We're really glad to see the inclusion of language regarding native plants. So thank you so much for including that. This draft could be stronger, true. There are cities with caps that have more aggressive targets and more stringent measures, but this draft represents a valid compromise and it accurately reflects the direction that staff received from council on May 19th. It's still a workable, effective document, and we hope you adopt it as it is. Mitigating greenhouse gases and protecting Campbell residents from the negative impacts of climate change. These are necessary long-term goals. Putting in place this aspirational roadmap to approach these goals is a really important first step, and that's what this plan does. Thank you to Tiffany, Rob, and the other Campbell staff and community advisory committee members who worked hard on this plan. Thank you to the students and community advocates who have urged Campbell to take strong climate action. We hope you vote to move forward with this document so that Campbell can begin the work required to protect residents and the environment while reducing emissions. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Thank you, likewise, for your comments. Any other comments?

Yes, Tanya, would you like to speak? Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Perfect. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Tanya Bayabili. I'm the CEO of Breathe California of the Bay Area, Golden Gate and Central Coast. I'm sorry I was supposed to be there in person, but I've come down with a cold and some virus, so I'm here at home. But I'm speaking tonight to strongly urge you to adopt the Campbell Climate Action Adaptation Plan. Having had the privilege of working on this plan and directly engaging with the Campbell residents throughout that process, I can share firsthand how thoughtful and community-centered this effort has been. And we've carefully reviewed the final plan to ensure it is not only ambitious, but It's realistic, actionable, and tailored specifically to the needs of the city. So the residents made it clear that they want a clean, healthy, and resilient Campbell. So this plan directly incorporates that feedback. Secondly, beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the plan invests in cleaner air, cooler neighborhoods, lowering energy costs for households and better infrastructure for walking and biking. This positions Campbell as a leader and taking action now is important due to the constantly changing severe weather conditions that we face. So in short, this has been thoroughly vetted, backed by community input, and it's ready for implementation. So I strongly encourage you to adopt the plan tonight. Thank you so much for your leadership and service.

Thank you for your comments. Likewise. Thank you. Okay. The proposed resolution for adoption, if that is the choice of the council, was presented to us as a yes item. uh, this item 10.1, um, go right to

I'll make a motion after just thanking the community for putting this together and the personal dedication of the committee and being able to make this happen. The environmental community I've talked about before has been a long part of my love and personal dedication. Really, I'm appreciative of it. I'll make a comment about the EV and the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Project Hearing Committee report. But with that, I'd like to propose a motion to accept the desk item presented for the... the resolution of the City Council of the Committee of the City of Campbell, adopting the City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Second. Board vote, I have a question.

Yes. have had to phrase this.

I also received a number of emails. So let me start with saying, as I said, thank you to staff for the work. I just cannot be more supportive of this. The fact that we will finally have this is such a major milestone and I have deep gratitude for each and every person who weighed in as part of this I'm wondering if the makers of the motion would be open to it. It doesn't make a difference for the ultimate impact, but Rob, perhaps to try to incorporate the feedback and the questions that we see that you referenced at the end of your presentation. Can we add a few words about the additional feedback that was received at the meeting? Again, if the makers of the motion are open on the question of the whichever topic that was about the characterization of the community feedback.

I'm not sure. I'm trying to understand what you're asking exactly.

Rob, maybe if you could recall that slide, it would be better. has some questions about the characterization. I want to reinforce the comment that you made that the staff language was accurate. And I support that. Just perhaps we could acknowledge that there is additional feedback received at the meeting, which we listened to as we did to all the feedback. And that is really a question for the council.

Staff's perspective, I'll just say this. How language is in the plan, I believe, is actually correct based on my conversations with the staff that worked on this and the technical consultants. And we have a technical team.

So I'm not suggesting you're moving that, but just adding additional language also involves the additional feedback that we received out of the fact.

You could. Now, today is a final adoption of the plan. I mean, always there's an option to have some errata and miscellaneous things come in. I know you would have to give clear direction staff on some wording and you would not see it back. So you've got to be very clear on some minor language to add because again, either a you can continue the item out to bring it back with some wrong direction and staff amendment plan and then adopted as is or just I'd say from staff standpoint, there's some specific direction on some very minor language to add. post-adoption that's clear coming out of this meeting.

Well, let me, what I suggest maybe doing with the temperature check of the council, this is not a thing that should hold up by any means moving forward. What the plan is not going to have an impact either way. It's just tempting to assure residents who came out of that meeting that they were heard as were all, as were the comments that were made prior to the meeting that were received by staff. So I would just ask the makers of the motion.

I just want to make sure I understand what we're getting at here. My apologies also. You're proposing to add to the language reflecting the fact of participation by the public in this process?

Let me try one time, and if it's not clear, let's just move on because commenters who expressed their that there was not widespread support for some of the proposed components of the plan. Rob has characterized, and I support the staff in this, that what was there was accurate. But rather than changing that, I'm asking if we could acknowledge the additional feedback that we heard at the meeting to make sure that all residents feel that their voices were heard throughout this process. including that last minute.

And you don't think it's sufficient enough that it's already kind of part of the minutes of the record, or I mean the proceedings? I just, I'm not sure.

If you feel that way, I'm happy to move on. I don't want to hold us up. I just wanted to see what the

May I please respond? So I think as far as the definitive points that I heard in that, the staff report has been changed. This is the main point that was made. The other point of the robustness of the survey was also brought up, but having done many statistical surveys, what is in the report is accurately reflected as to the survey that was done. So I'm not of the note to deviate from that position that's been taken. I think the feedback that could be given in the biannual review is to do a more robust survey to route our own efforts.

Mayor, I appreciate you noting the point, which should be noted here in public record, that all those are part of the public record and the minutes. So I'm happy to support the motion.

Any further discussion? So we have a motion and a second on the floor. If there's any further discussion on the motion, we'll go ahead with a roll call.

Council Member Lopez? Aye. Council Member Hines? Aye.

Council Member Cuzzola?

After two years, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,

I just attended one meeting and that was at the museum for breakfast.

Thank you, your council member.

Yeah, I just wanted to highlight again the July 10th PD building ribbon cutting, great accomplishment by the City Works, Public Works, late for the gentleman with the suit and tie. So all of that was just a fantastic accomplishment. Just along with the climate action, there was just a release from Silicon Valley Clean Energy. I'm on the board and the finance committee that they, I'm a big proponent of EV. I drive an EV. They just put out a charging, a funding availability for EV charging projects for business and public locations. And it's an expanded option that they've done. As the mayor commented, that's the greatest contributor to climate change. And I'd like us to be able to support that and broadcast it and make it visible. Also, I'm on the California city's housing Community Education Development Committee, and there are bills and positions. There's been great progress that have been amending those in support of the cities, but there are still 11 bills that are in fiscal review at this time that do put a significant impact, I'll share that, with community development. And the last comment that I'm an alternate for, I wanted to make sure that a couple of people that are involved, I'm an alternate for the BTA PAC. I'll attend the VGA PAC as public, as an alternate, as I want to establish an understanding and visibility on August 13th in case I'm asked to attend.

Thank you, Councilmember Lopez. My committees, chief among them, have been out on summer recess. It doesn't mean that I got a vacation, but I have no report.

Thank you. I just wanted to mention, in addition to what was already mentioned, I did attend the Relay for Life, another successful year for the Relay for Life. Campbell's been sponsoring that for 20 years now or so. helping to raise a lot of money for cancer research and so on. So that was another successful program. Our own Chamber of Commerce did a private work there in coordinating a lot of this and supporting it. Also, Councilmember Lopez and I had the opportunity to attend the grand opening of Sutter Health, their new pediatric clinic that they opened here in Canada. This is a pediatric-specific clinic. It's really a very outstanding clinic, specialists in gastroenterology, cardiology, and a variety of areas in pediatrics. I was really impressed by the fact that the staff themselves, the professional staff, they were very excited to open up here in Campbell, this specialty clinic. So we are very fortunate in this area within the community distance to have so many great health facilities. of the significant rebuild and remodel of their facility, which used to be known as Los Gatos Community Hospital on Palmer Grove. There's a new hospital that's going to be built there. It's not inside our city limits, but it's close enough. We have O'Connor Health and Valley Medical Center, a variety of clinics, Stanford, Good Samaritan Hospital, and clinics. So we're very fortunate in this area to have so many areas of specialty that provide outstanding services to our residents, but also the surrounding neighborhood. So that's all I have. With that, I thank you all for sticking with us here tonight, and I will adjourn with the City Council meeting.

Thank you.