City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to get started in just a minute. the point hearing that I think you would have to say together.

Okay, we're we're gonna get started in a minute. Did we we get back to the dice?

Okay. I call to order this regular meeting of the city of Campbell City Council on Tuesday, November 18th. Cler, could we have the roll call, please? One one quick. Council member Vivebe, present. Council member Hines, present. Council member Skizola, here. Vice Mayor Fado here. Mayor Lopez here. Thank you so much. And we'll now do the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all

today we have no special proclamations and presentations and we have no communications and petitions. Next we have oral requests. Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? Do you have anyone online? We do not.

Okay. So, we go on to the mayor's announcements. First, I want to hear from you. Please join me for a community conversation office hours with the mayor on Tuesday, December 9th from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in these council chambers. This is your opportunity to share the issues that matter with you. Whether it's on neighborhood safety, local services, or ideas make our city even better. Together, we can build solutions that align with our community. Next, city offices will be closed on Thursday, November 27th and Friday, November 28th in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday. Police and emergency services will remain open for business. The city clerk's office is accepting applications for the parks and recreation commission through Friday, November 28th. Interested residents may apply on the city's website at kimbellca.gov or by contacting the clerk's office at 4088662117 or via email at clerk's officeca.gov. Next, the annual downtown Campbell Carroll Light Celebration will be held on Saturday, December 6th from 4 to 7:00 p.m. Calling All Ugly Sweaters. Show off your most outrageous holiday fashion. Fun for all ages. Face painting, petting zoo, arts and crafts, and bounce houses. This festive event is free and open to everyone. Don't miss the holiday cheer in downtown Campbell. Finally, the Angley House and Museum Holiday Boutique is open for public tours every Thursday through Sunday from 11 to 3 p.m. Tours are available until December 21st. For more information about this and other upcoming events, please visit campbell museums.com. Next, we have the consent calendar, which is items considered by the city council to be routine and enacted under one. Are there any council members, staff, or members of the public that would like to pull an item from the consent calendar? I

I don't need to pull the item, but I did want to publicly acknowledge the $5,000 donation once again from Gail Bowen Nelasco u one of the Aninsley house uh Aninsley family um members uh who has been very generous to the museum and acknowledge her donation which is a part of the um consent calendar. Thank you very much. No one's pulling an item. I'll move the approval of consent calendar. Council B. I'll second. Did you have a separate? No, I forgot to turn my Oh, okay. So, second from BBY. Thank you. Uh, city clerk, could you call the role? Council member By, hi. Council member Hines, I. Council member Skazola. Hi.

Vice Mayor Fado. Hi. Mayor Lopez. Hi.

Thank you. Next, we have public hearings and introduction of ordinances. And item 8.1 is a public hearing to consider recommendation of an ordinance amending chapter 21.24, our inclusionary housing ordinance in chapter 21.14 overlay combining districts to facilitate housing development and clarify related regulatory requirements and an ordinance amending chapter 21.20 20 density bonuses and other housing incentives to implement assembly bill 1287 and establish a local density bonus incentive and uh and furtherance of our 2023 to 2031 housing element. We'll hear from our um housing manager Elise.

Hi, good evening Mayor, council members, Eloisa Murio, housing manager. Uh yes, the item we have before you tonight um it's some amendments to various housing ordinances and also with me tonight uh this was a group a collaborative effort with the housing division if any provision. So we have Daniel Palma our one of our senior planners and we also have Steven Rose who is available uh virtually So this these amendments um they consist of two different parts. So the first part is the implementation of new housing policies to support housing production. Uh so earlier this year um there were two study sessions on housing policy um implementation with the planning commission and city council. And the second part is to um implement one of our housing available policies which is housing pricing M which is to establish a program that allows for increases in residential densities for projects that include smaller unit sizes as a means of providing for lower cost housing choices. So it for the first part as I mentioned um there were two study sessions for this year one in May planning commission and the second in August with city council. Um as part of the discussion, staff noted that um you you know we discussed our progress to date on the 2023 2031 housing element implementation.

Um based on the units that have been produced to date, the city is not on track to meet its assigned regional housing needs allocation or readab1, which is the the end period of the current housing [clears throat] cycle. Uh this city is anticipated to produce 690 units of its 2,977 reet allocation. Um so because of this you know the the study sessions were held to you know come up with potential ideas to stimulate warm housing development. So as part of the study session um council provided direction on four different areas. Uh the first is to extend the entitlement period for 100% affordable housing projects from three to five years. and that's part of our affordable housing overlay zone. Um, also as part of the affordable housing overlay zone is to wave the ground floor space requirements for 100% affordable housing projects outside of the downtown area. And third was to allow housing projects with five to nine units to satisfy their inclusionary housing obligations through the payment of an inlue fee. And the the last one was to standardize accessory dwelling unit requirements. Um I do want to note that the item before you tonight um covers the first three items. The fourth item um will be implemented separately. So it it's not part of the the item tonight. Uh [clears throat] so I'll just give you a a brief summary of the proposed amendments. So the first one is to chapter 21.14

which is the overlay combining districts. So there's two proposed amendments. One of them as I mentioned before is the extension of the approval period for um affordable housing projects. So it's currently three years. So the amendment would be to approve the period to five years. Uh the second one would be to um exempt the ground floor commercial space requirement for 100% affordable housing projects except in the downtown area. Um the inclusionary housing ordinance also has a proposed amendment and that's to allow housing projects from 5 to nine units to pay an in fee and this would be to satisfy any whole or fractional unit obligation. Um and this would be for an interim period. So it would apply for five years ending June 30, 2030 which is um kind of towards the end of the current um housing element cycle. The second part is uh is the implementation of housing element program H1M and under this amendment um it establishes a new local density bonus program. So this really incentivizes the construction of smaller affordable by design units. Um under this amendment um under this new program each small scale housing unit would be um up to 625 square ft and the bonus units would not be subject to the 15% visionary requirement. And I'll give an example in just a minute.

Uh so this is the eligibility criteria for projects. There's criteria around minimum density, average unit size, affordability and adherence to requirements. So this is a an example um of how this would work on a hypothetical 100 unit project. Um so in the first scenario you have 100 units. So your base density is 100 units. Uh some 75 standard units are provided. 25 of the small units are provided. So those 25 units would renew a local density bonus of 25. So then you could potentially um build 125 units. So that gives you uh a 25% increase. Likewise um if uh 50 small units are provided and 50 standard units are provided, the bonus units would be 50. So they're kind they're equivalent to um to what's to the small units that are provided as part of the base base density. So you could go up in the scenario up to um 100. So if a all 100 units were provided as part of your base density are small, you could get a a density bonus of 100 units. So uh could result in 200 units. Uh this uh amendment also um [clears throat] implements new state housing laws uh

referred to as the double density or AB 1287 on October 28th. The planning commission so these were presented to planning commission on October 28th. They voted to recommend that uh council adopt the following amendments without modifications uh which are again or chapter 21.14 the extension of the approval period. The ground floor commercial space exemption uh for the inclusionary housing ordinance is to allow 5 to9 housing units to pay an inland fee. And finally for chapter 21 20 um the incentives for smaller affordable housing by design. Uh so I just wanted to give you just a an estimate of potential increased revenues and this is specifically for the amendment to the inclusionary housing agreements which would allow projects of five to nine units to pay the new fee. Um so we're estimating um that um we could receive up to approximately 735,000 per year and 3.68 million over that fiveyear period and that the calculation is shown there. So, we're estimating a seven unit project. Uh, one, you know, with each unit being 1,750 square ft, which yields you 12,250 total square feet, which is then gets multiplied by 8 fee, which is currently $60 uh per square foot. So, that would be an

inland fee of 735,000. And then that's just multiplied over five years. Um, you know, this is kind of a conservative estimate. So, we're estimating one project per year that would um pay the fee. Next steps, uh, the second reading would be considered by council on December 2nd. And the staff recommendation um is here and it's slightly modified. Um we did provide a desk item earlier. Uh so it has been modified to take into account the language on the desk item. And that concludes Sorry, just adding in one thing. I was going to bring up there's probably questions from council on what projects this affects [clears throat] avoiding who have to ask the question just want to put that into the conversation. Part of the um proposals for you today were to help for Bousy projects. Hamilton currently has two entitled affordable housing projects. This is the VTA project, Charities Housing Project. Technically, this ordinance applies to projects going forward. Both those projects we can work with to come on and modify their approvals if they wish to take advantage of those. So in any instance when you have a new ordinance that benefits a project, you can modify approval to be subject to it. But I know might you might be thinking of and this came up in the policy study session. What does this affect going forward? So just want to disclose that to council in terms of at least the affordable housing projects and both housing projects in the future coming forward. any future projects this would apply to. Thanks.

Great. Thank you. Um, first let's have uh questions from the council. Do you have any council? Could you elaborate in terms of dollars what that means? Rob dollars. Uh, so getting to specifics for a Well, let's take the BTA project. if if they were to um be exempt from this, what what would what would be the what would be the amount that um would go into the the enli?

Yeah, roughly and again I didn't come to discuss specific projects but we have used at least the BTA project as an example. So I mean currently the VAPA BTA project uh does not qualify because it's not providing ground for retail. uh we we've learned from them and others the provision of bound for retail is very difficult for affordable housing projects. So that's the proposal to accept that. Um if the orange goes forward and they qualify um under the program again you get [clears throat] excuse me half of your park fees discounted going forward. Uh for a project that size uh rough numbers it's roughly a million dollars uh with actually partly payment for a project like that.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Heights. Yeah, I just had a question. There was a uh review that we heard at the cities association uh from a um just a very recent case and I about an overlay and uh issue with double counting on the overlay. Just want to see if u if you're familiar with that or if it affects this at all. Um really just is it affecting this uh particular uh uh pro um ordinance?

Yeah, I I am familiar with the case. I have not studied it thoroughly. Uh it would not by its terms it would it does not address the ordinance that would be before the council today. Some of the reasoning in that case, however, could creep into something like speed that is being proposed as well as ordinance as we already have on boards. Okay. Thank you. I just No, I'll I'll leave my other comments to discussion. Thank you. You have any other questions? Vice Mayor?

Yes. My question relates to um the proposal to extend the entitlements from three years to five years. Do you have any evidence to indicate that in doing that if someone does not build in three years, do they actually build within five years?

I'll I'll start. Eloise knows 50 times more than I do about affordable housing. Challenge right now is the the amount of hard to give you a definitive answer. Uh the challenge right now is the availability of funding local, regional, state, federal for affordable housing has has dried up. And the thought is and if you're doing affordable housing, you need a funding stack of a variety of sources. Basically, this gives more time to the affordable housing projects, basically the ones entitled to to assemble that funding stack. If we were to not, they would expire out and and might not come back. So couldn't tell you definitely. it just just knowing the lack of the challenge in finding funding gives them more more time to put together that financial package.

The reason [clears throat] why I asked the question is because um to leave a piece of property undeveloped for that length of time can become an eyesore after a while. And it seems to me if the developer is interested in developing it, they they initially decide to to create the project or advance some funds or whatever and they would intend to do it within a time frame that's reasonable. And giving him two more years and then the property just sort of stays uh undeveloped uh is is kind of a mess. And I'm just wondering if they don't build in three, are they really going to build in five? And um I I have some serious questions about that. So

the only thing I'll add is is just to qualify the council. This is only on affordable housing projects. So the the ordinance before you today would not affect market rate projects, other projects only affects 100% affordable housing projects. Thank you. Do you have other question? Question. So what happens at the end of five years and they haven't built? Does does the clock uh start again? Do they I yeah, I'm gonna ask uh senior planner Stephen Rose to address that. I believe they have an opportunity to still apply for an extension, but if you give the details on that. And would it be um as I hope Stephen can hear, would it be three years or five years?

They would be availed a one-time 12-month extension uh returning. So that that would be the option for them. And then at at that point in time, they would need to seek a new entitlement. And the other question I had um can we um include language in this ordinance to um u so that it doesn't apply to the existing uh projects that that are that that are entitled so that we capture all of the um the 100% of the uh fees into the parking.

Yeah, I I can jump in first on that, Rob. Um I I would just add that there is no provision in this ordinance which would allow it to apply apply to previously entitled or approved projects. So those projects uh in order to take advantage of the new the changes in say the affordable housing overlay zone to get a reduction in park fees they would need to apply for a new entitlement no different than any other project that would now be coming in. But would the project be have to be substantially different or would it just be a re um application of this of the project that's been entitled?

It would need to go through our new permit process. It would it might have a distinct permit process, but it could be materially the identical application coming in. Okay. Thank you. Do you have more questions? Okay. Let's open the public hearing and see if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item. I don't see anyone in person. Do we have anyone online who wish to speak? We have John Pringle.

Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes.

All right. Uh Council, I'm John Pringle. I'm representing uh Barbano Enterprises, the owner of the Hickory Pit site. One of those nasty looking sites that's been sitting around for 7 years attempting to get developed. Uh the good news is the family has kept the service station operating in that time. Uh I will say on a quick comment, [clears throat] it is not unusual. I can tell you about 30 projects in the Bay Area of uh 100 units or larger that have been trying to get built for well more than five years. So that is not an unusual predicament today. So I I want to speak in support of course of the uh small unit uh density bonus plan. I'm not sure that's enough to swing uh our situation. We're analyzing building uh as many as 280 units. Um planning staff has been extremely helpful. Uh we we have issues in structurally in the fact that we're building uh 35% of the project smaller than we would if we built a conventional project which for example down the street you have a big project on Basam [clears throat] uh built by the same group that built the River and Campbell. uh they have a competitive advantage with larger studios and larger one-bedroom units. Studios kind of mix in, but basically all the new projects are building larger one-bedroom units in 625 square ft. So, as a consultant to the owners and a developer, I have to I I have to analyze that because that is a true

uh drag on our rents by having to build that many small one-bedrooms. Uh doesn't really affect the studio market. Um the concept is good. It simplifies things. I'm sorry. Do do you mind uh wrapping up your your comments? We have the two minutes are up. Okay, my two minutes is up. Well, that's all I want to say. The other issue I have is uh with the city's park fees for our large project, it would be a 6.5 million almost a $6.5 million hit and it's too much. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have anyone else online? Okay. Do we have someone in person who wishes to speak? Go ahead.

Yes. Good evening. Do you mind pressing the microphone icon, the icon on the site?

There we go. Good evening, mayor, and good evening, council. My name is Jeremy. I represent Presley Homes. We are building the homes on Campbell Dylan Avenue near the park. Um, and I'm here to express support for the small unit density bonus. I believe this policy helps fill a gap in the housing spectrum. I think we all recognize that we have lots of different types of folks who who live in this community. Yes, there are more expensive single family homes and yes, there are also below market rate units being produced as part of any new housing development. The hard part is that missing middle um that portion of housing that uh sits above the low market rate but doesn't necessarily get those high prices in in in large homes. And I think this particular policy gives us a nudge to do that and certainly our project would include it should this bill go through or this amendment go through. Um I think this was mentioned previously but it also makes up for certain sites in this community that have deliberately chosen to under surely that's that's their right to do so. Um I think it would help us restore a bit of balance to the density that is contemplated in the general public. Lastly, I think most importantly, having more heads around downtown helps all of us. It helps create that pedestrian connection to downtown. It helps open up wallets for our merchants downtown. And so with that, I think this is a practical community centered approach uh the balances, growth, affordability, vibrancy. Thank you.

Thanks so much. So one last time if there's anyone else who wishes to make comment if not we'll close the public hearing and come back to council for any discussion once starts off counc um the support of this from um some of the developers uh the the the wastelands that I call them of the hickory pit and the PG area um are need to get developed and so really want to be able to to get that. It's um I guess what I'm hearing with this is it's 100% affordable. Uh this this is going to apply to um which is which is terrific. Uh but I um I also want to make sure that we are supportive to our um existing uh project plans. So it sounds like this is going to be for going forward on that. Uh but when those plans come back for renewal um we want to be able to preserve our um the funding that we have for the city. That's kind of my comment.

Thank you. Other comments, Vice Mayor F.

Um, first of all, I I did appreciate the comment from the developer regarding the three-year to fiveyear, although I still have some personal reservations about that because it just um seems [clears throat] to prolong things for a very long period of time, whereas, you know, if it were at the three-year, they could still apply for an extension for another three years or so. Um and uh I do appreciate the the way that you know we or others can provide incentives um to allow this to happen or for smaller units and those kind of things. I think that that's good. Um I do support the element with respect to um eliminating the requirement for ground floor commercial for 100% units. I think that's a wise move. Um there is uh currently as far as I know a number of areas that still you know the build the building is there but we're not filling them with businesses just yet. Um I am a little concerned about the proposal to allow uh builders of five uh less than nine units to fee out uh and pay a fee. We're trying to get affordable housing built and then you you say well okay you don't have to build it but you have to pay us money. So then what are we going to do with the money? when are we going to use it? U we'll we'll sort of like never get the units built uh of the especially very low income and so on. Um so you know building up a housing trust fund is helpful but I don't think this is the way we should do it by allowing people to wave their requirement to build the very affordable housing. Um so those are my comments at this time.

Thank you Council Member Scazalo. Thank you. Uh yeah, that's funny. Again, uh Vice Mayor Ferado basically uh took the words out of my mouth. I just want to reiterate what uh my colleague just said. Thank you. Thank you. Um do you have any other comments?

Um I'll I'll just say I think these are very thoughtful um proposals and I appreciate the discussion uh that the planning commission had also. So, I I read that closely and including some of the questions they asked and and um the feedback and they really um took took the staff um feedback and recommended the ordinance without modifications as as proposed. Um so I I think it's been well vetted. Um I I I do just want to I I think there's certainly room for fair discussion um around where the line is just in response to the the my last two colleagues where the line is between um getting that additional unit versus getting some some of the funds. Um I I will just reiterate it's my understanding this applies to that incremental um half a unit where it kind of falls in in between if that's correct for for staff not not the entire obligation or am I misunderstanding that

Rob director question was on the fiat provision correct? Yeah. What exactly it applies to?

Our uh camels existing ordinance which was passed last year um allows units of five and six in size because they're small to to fee out. If you do a 15% times five or six, it's actually less than one whole unit. That principle allows those units to pay a fee instead of providing a unit. [clears throat] today if you're se over seven units because 7 time 15 is one one whole unit or over you're obliged to require when we had the policy discussion back in August we relayed feedback from the development community especially these smaller projects in the 789 category uh they've provided us feedback that the obligation to build an affordable housing unit on site um [clears throat] because there's less economy of scale is very difficult to make projects pencil this missing middle 789 and uh council had given feedback and we had proposed uh for 789 to allow a fee out instead of the unit. So effectively the ordinance before you today if you're between five and nine units you could pay a fee once you're over 10 you're required to have a unit. There's still a provision that's not being requested by staff be touched if there's a fraction that's calculated that's below 0.5. Let's say it calculates out making that up to 3.3 units. You have to provide three units. You can pay a fee for the.3. That's on the books today. There's no request to change that. What's before you is should we allow projects of seven, eight, nine in size to [clears throat] pay a fee instead of requiring the unit to be built outside.

Thank you so much. Um so really helpful to walk through that. So to me the the difference is not are we choosing between that extra affordable unit or or a fee. It's are we choosing between a project of seven, eight or nine or no projects in in which case you don't have any of those units being built. And um I I think we have a housing crisis at all levels including at that missing middle and we really do have to make sure that that those projects pencil out. Uh let's go back to Council Member Scazilla. Thank you. So, uh, what I fear is, you know, Campbell, obviously, we're pretty landlocked. We don't have much room to spread out. Usually have to knock things over to rebuild or there's very limited space. So, you know, if we keep giving these, oh yeah, next time we'll get more affordable housing next time, next project, next one will pencil out that I fear that, you know, ultimately we're going to run out of room and just, oh, we just never do it, you know. So, I I just wanted to make that statement. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments?

Maybe um can I ask a question to staff? Sorry, Rob. The So maybe you can explain to me uh the we heard from two two developers. One felt it was a good step, one felt it wasn't going to work. Maybe if you are you able to kind of explain why it works for one, why it doesn't work for another? I don't know. I know that it's a a lot of other factors, but just uh if you could try and take a shot,

you'd qualify be extremely hazardous for me to 100% portray the the developers feedback. You might want to ask them, but you know, from working with them and we talk to them weekly, monthly on these projects to see what makes them work and questions will they pencil. These are two market rate projects. Um [clears throat] so from what we know the the new provision this is the density bon bonus provision. This is the last part that allows you to if you put smaller units you actually get a density bonus at a one to one ratio. The premise of this is that smaller units by design should be more affordable. We're more and more getting into a world where you have market rate units that either cost or rent a lot and you have below market rate which is substantially below that. I'll just observe in general it's hard to have uh let's say the missing middle rent and this is intended just because the units are smaller they have affordable live design units so it's a special program if they put in units they're smaller they can add more units to the project allows them to have economies of scale and pencil I think what we've heard from the Cresley developer and who's more enabled to add more to this is this will help their project pencil they've been struggling for some years now because of the the market as it is with [clears throat] the Hickory Pit developer. We're continuing to work with them. I know he's looking at that and and looking at calculations. I know part of that is the the park fees. That would have to be a separate discussion in the future if we want to look at park fees on principle. And this this is a separate discussion. We don't charge park fees for certain types of ADUs. So, it could be a future discussion if these smaller units, which are kind of the same size as an ADU and separate units, the council should consider in the future some sort of reduction in park fees. That's not on the table today. [clears throat] But I I'd say what I've heard from both developers, it's helping them pencil and it's very difficult market.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Just one other comment that I haven't made is sorry. Thank you. um is the uh taking away the commercial ground for requirement I think is a good very good step. Thank you. Do you have any other comments? If we don't, I'd like to propose a motion um that council take the staff recommendation first reading reading introducing an ordinance amending chapter 21.24 24 the inclusionary housing ordinance in chapter 21.14 overlay combining districts and take first reading introducing an ordinance amending chapter 21.20 density bonuses and other housing incentives and including the desk item.

I'll second second by Hines say cler could we have the role please? Council member by hi. Council member Hines. Hi. Council member Skazola abstain. Vice Mayor Fado. Hi, Mayor Lopez. Hi. Thank you. And could you please read the title of the ordinance

being an ordinance of the city council of the city of Campbell amending chapter 21.20 20 density bonuses and other housing incentities incentives of the Campbell Municipal Code to implement Assembly Bill 1287 2023 and establish a local density bonus incentive to encourage the production of smallcale housing units in furtherance of program H-1M of the 2023 2031 housing element file number PLN 2025-135. Thank you. Do we have a a motion and a second to wave further reading? I'll wait further reading. I'll second.

Thank you. That's by Hines. Could we get the role, please? Council member By. Hi. Council member Hines. Hi. Council member Skazola. Hi. Vice Mayor Fado. Hi. Mayor Lopez. Hi. Uh, and so just to keep us straight for those um online and in the audience, that was the title of the inclusionary housing ordinance. I will now have the city clerk read the title of the ordinance regarding the overline combining districts ordinance

being an ordinance of the city council of the city of Campbell amending chapter 21.24 24 inclusionary housing ordinance and chapter 21.14 overlay combining districts of the Campbell Municipal Code to facilitate approval of housing development projects and to clarify related regulatory requirements file number PLN 2025-135. Thank you. Do I have a motion to second to wave further reading? I'll move further reading. Wave further reading of the ordinance. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you by and hines. Could we have the roll? Council member Vivey. Hi. Council member Hines. Hi. Council member Skazola. Hi. Vice Mayor Fado. Hi. Mayor Lopez.

Hi. Thanks so much.

And uh thanks everyone for bearing with us through all those uh readings. Uh that brings us to new business 9.1. This is updates to Campbell Administrative Policy 2.8, our insurance claims procedures. We'll hear from our finance director, Wolf Fentes. All right. Uh uh uh hello uh council. Um, I'm uh I'm I'm I'm here um I'm here tonight um to to go through and detail um some poor some proposed uh changes uh to our insurance claims procedures. Um under aum agenda a agenda agenda a board item. Um and under uh attachment uh B um you um you healthy um each um uh change uh detailed um I I haven't um go through each change um but uh

but I will um go through uh two key changes um in fact um Um that that how acquire a council approval. Um the um changes of being the changes are proposed. Um the being uh propose um to uh take into account um uh that um since some since the uh policy since the policy was first put into a place um the um the claims um a balance um that a um and also a cost um increased um over time. Um it's it's it's it's it's also um uh to um address um just um the overall a speed of of our process um to in in ensure that to ensure that we are if it's efficient and also effective. Um also um uh to uh take in into um account

to take into account best practice. Um the fact um a see in other in other Bay Area agencies as well. Um a sol changes um R2 um a a just a point F uh two uh attach um uh details um who was able um settle a claim also for a what um amount either um me um a um council um the attorney or um as well. Um so up closing is is is is to is to double almost HML. um to uh take out um to take out the to take out the sub committee from process in a in a in a in a favor of the full council. Um and also um to include the uh to include the uh attorney in the process. Um if the um

attorney does um outplay a a hel in the overall process of our claims. Um but there there's not a a a piece on to a date in in in this uh session. Um that um that that will also give them both the power and also the uh input. Um I don't go to a subtle place. Um and and and and then also the other um uh change um is um to a highly uh detail um uh who in pitching to the council um is able to uh deny a claim. um in uh in in in this um case um I I suppose it be me um it's it's it's also um it's also consider it it would also align um to a to a a best practice um the fact we see in other uh in other in other uh Bay Area agencies as well. Um,

but there are um again there are again also other other changes um that are that are detailed in a technique. Um and also um I I I I have also a note um that um um how a co go through the the apology again um to to conf to confirm um that all of the all the all the all the the languages can assisted um and if if if there are any um a small um adjustments to awards um it's a it's a a thing that we will also correct um in fact um I I need um extra a council action. Um, so with that I will uh turn over to a council for a question.

Thanks so much. Do we have questions from the council? Start with council. I have one question will on settlement authority. Um I'm assuming so the police chief and you as the risk manager have authority to settle claims [clears throat] within a certain range. I'm assuming that that's in conjunction with city manager and city attorney that that they're aware of that's happening.

They are. I mean um but they um a the typical claims that they um that get in say um the um tend to the tend to arrange um um uh uh leaf of or say a tree claims um or also a a a car claim as well. Um they aren't anything that is um say like a again ex expense of a a a training case or um I think that's um a case and that could take time to go through the whole process. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have other questions? Not. Let's see if we have public comment in person or online and I'll bring it back to the council for any discussion. You have some comments. Yes, vice mayor for [clears throat]

I I don't object to increasing the settlement authority. I think that's fine. However, I I do think that we on the council should be made aware of these claims of periodic summaries and not just numbers, but actually knowing something about what the claims are. I mean, that's part of our responsibility and our right to know. And the unfortunate thing is that when things don't require approval of the city council, they often don't come before the council or we don't don't get a report on that. And I think it is important that we have a little more detailed reports on these so that we have an idea. So, I mean, if necessary, I'd like to insert that into the um uh into the authority um or some, you know, assurance that we're going to get more information on that.

Thank you. Yeah, but council member, I was going to point out that there is um something in the policy that does um refer to that and it's a quarterly reporting to the city council of pending claims. So, I don't know if that's sufficient for you, Dan, but um that is in there. I'm trying to find it. Okay.

It's uh section uh F or section H reporting requirements on a quarterly basis. City manager will meet with designated risk manager review status of all general liability claims. In addition, the manager and designated risk manager will keep the city council appraised of significant activity. Um we're going to revise that. take out the word significant so it reflects you'll see all activity based on council comments um related to liability suits as a matter of so that's good if you remove the word significant because that is subject to interpretation so that would be good [clears throat]

any other com and I I just want to repeat for those online that was Vice Mayor Ferado um expressing support for removing the word significant is that Correct. Any others? Yeah, I'll just make the comments. I I fully I really appreciate the comments. I support the change in wording as as well. And I think it's a good just common sense update. And this doesn't need to be part of the motion, but we should just be thinking about this periodically. I don't know what the right period is, but as you have inflation and costs go up to make sure that that we bring it back, I think it's a little out of date. So, I'm glad that we're doing it. If we don't have further discussion, do we have a motion?

I'll propose a motion to uh accept the updates to the Campbell Administrative Policy 2.8, insurance claims procedures as recommended by staff. I'll second. Great. Uh could we have the role, please? Council member Vivey. Hi. Council member Hines. Hi. Council member Skazola. I Vice Mayor Fado. Hi. Mayor Lopez. Hi. Thanks so much that Adam and Baza. Thank you um Will for the presentation. You're welcome. That brings us to 9.2 which is modifications to city council policy section 10. We will hear from recreation community services director Natasha Bissell.

Good evening honorable mayor, members of council. So tonight we have before you proposed modifications to city council policy section 10 miscellaneous. Um, this section has become a catchall of random policies that city council has um used over the years u dating back to the late 1990s u of some of the information as the report outlined. Um it kind of accumulated over time just kind of putting things in there. The catalyst for bringing this forward tonight was our department needed to make updates to the building use policy for the facilities at the community center and it's embedded inside of this section. So, I took it on as a project to kind of get this cleaned up um and worked with all the departments that had any type of weigh in on on the subsections. Um so, there were 17 subsections in the report. Uh we are recommending that seven of them be deleted um because they're outdated or they're superseded by another ordinance, municipal code or policy. Um, four of them contain red lines um with updates and there's two that have no changes and we have four that are recommended to be re relocated um with two of them creating new policy sections. Um so we have one section um subsection which was the special event fee waiver which was se subsection 10.14 u which was already previously moved to section 22 city council policy fee but wasn't taken out of this section. Um and then also um the remaining information that was not redlined in in reference to the museum and house was moved to section 21. Um so that was there. Um, we're looking to create two new sections of city council policies. There would be section 24, which would be the Edith Marley community garden rules and regulations, and then section 25, which would be a building use policy for the

uses at the community center. Um, our hope is to kind of streamline how the policies look. A lot of the use policies have their own section, so it would be in line with other city council policies. Um, it eliminates the outdated information that was kind of accumulating in this section. Um, and it kind of creates kind of some dedicated space for policies that we use regularly to bring back to council for updating to make it clear. Um, so for the reason for us bringing this here was for the building use policy and in that we do have some updates to our room descriptions and event amenities. um clarifying our priority use system, updating our reservation procedures and timelines and tour guidelines and some stronger rules around alcohol restrictions and clearer regulations for layout changes and staffing needs. Um just making it easier for our staff to enforce policies out of the community center. Um so these rep these uh revisions represent a comprehensive multi- department effort um where we kind of worked together to kind of create a more streamlined you can see in the clean copy it's down to four pages with four subsections. So that'll be nice. Um and it modernizes section 10 to kind of clean it up um to be more in line with other policy sections. Um so we are here tonight to propose those modifications and also recommend the adoption of the revised um or the new se section section 24 and section 25. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks so much. Do you have questions from the council? Council Heights. Uh I just want to make sure I I don't think this affects any of the labor contracts. I know the labor uh contracts are are um dependent lab are dependent on the use of this. I want to make sure none of the modifications would affect those uh labor contracts that are that are currently in place. These would be this section 10 does not include any labor contract information in there. So there was no information in regards to that in this this section. Very good. Thank you.

And thank you so much. Any other question? I have one question on the Aninsley house. Um I that's going to come back to council for for the for some cleanup for sure. So um a lot of the information that was in this was outdated and how we utilize the space and we brought the use policy back. So we're going to bring um that section back for some updating. I did include what we're keeping in there and just kind of meshed them together. But that policy is one we're looking to update early in the new year.

Okay. And then the other com it's a comment really but I wanted to get it on the record um and I talked to the city manager about it is that um the city hall parking is being stricken from this policy but I really think that there should be a policy it should be included in this policy and I realize that parking right now is in flux with the PD and um it hasn't been determined [clears throat] what is unclear what call them all right now until they're all finalized. I think after that's finished that will be something else that's brought back. Okay. Thank you. Thanks much. Any other comments? And if not, I'll entertain a motion in a second.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for the reminder uh public comment uh on this item if any. No, we'll close public comment and then bring it back. First, is there any discussion? I just want to thank staff for taking this on. I it's um a lot of this is old old policy and it's quite an undertaking to try and coordinate it all and work with other departments. So I appreciate the effort. Thank you. Any other comments?

I also just want to express my appreciation and thank you Natasha for taking this on. I'm sure it became a much larger project. Um it did was initially in your scope. So thank you for for your leadership. I know it's complex. Uh now I'll entertain a motion in a second. I'll move the staff recommendation. Second. Do I need to be more specific or it's a resolution, I believe? Right. I I I I think that that's good. And uh Vice Mayor Fado beat you to the punch. Sorry. My guess I spoke too soon. [laughter]

Be counselor Hines to the um Go ahead. Uh could you roll, please? Clarify. Um, by and by. Okay. Council member Bible. Hi. Council member Hines. Hi. Council member Scazola. Hi. Vice Mayor Fado. Hi. Mayor Lopez. Hi. Thank you. That item passes. And we have no unfinished business today. So that brings us to uh number 11, council committee reports. Who wants so vice mayor?

Just a very brief comment. Um uh I have no real updates, but um the storm water management authority has sent an article for publication in the Campbell Press about adopt a storm uh drain. And uh the Campbell Press has agreed to uh run it free without any charge. And so it just sort of makes the public aware of storm water and its management and things that people can do to help um keep it clean and keep things that shouldn't be going into the creek into the creek. So I think that's very great. Thank you. Thank you. Who wants to go next? Council member By. [clears throat] So, um I attended the cities associate cities association meeting last Thursday and I just wanted to bring the council up to speed on an issue that's brewing there. um that was raised by the city of Certino regarding the bylaws and um which um has to do with the appointment of the executive committee members and it allows for two um non board members who are elected members or mayor of of the um association cities to serve on the executive committee and the city of Cupcino has asked that or has formally asked that the bylaws be reviewed and updated. Um, unfortunately we ran out of time and the item was continued to the January meeting, but there is a possibility that it's going to come back to the cities for review of the of the bylaws regarding that particular um uh clause and the bylaws. So, I wanted to let everybody know and I can provide um further details when it if and when it comes to the council. Thank you. [clears throat] He

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to uh go over I had a couple of uh excellent reviews. I visited with the Silicon Valley at home round table. Um and uh it was for elected officials and they have excellent uh understanding as to what they're participating and what their ideas are. Cities association led board. I attended that. did a tour of the Angley House and the XM decor and I thought it'd be a great idea to sign up my whole family to go to the uh to go to the tea and uh got the last ticket uh there. I only got one. So, I got the last ticket. Amazing to have that attendance and and an amazing decor in the house. Uh I did the uh Santa Clara County preventing homelessness webinar. um excellent webinar that they put on to uh be able to raise awareness on uh preventing homelessness. Uh then the Campbell Veterans Memorial Association Veterans Day celebration was excellent um excellent speeches that were provided there as well. I attended the storm water board and solid waste recycling uh as uh as the alternate with and provided a write up to Dan uh and Dan Fertado was the primary. And I want to do a shout out to Nash Market right downtown. I encourage you to go there and have the Vener Schnitzel and Spetszel. It's really outstanding. Thank you. That's all.

Thank you. Council member Skazola, would you like to share? No report at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. And um I'll just share a few brief highlights from my chair's report from the last uh VTA meeting, which was the Thursday following um our our council meeting. Uh first off, I I shared about an antihuman trafficking conference which VTA recently hosted in conjunction with the South Bay Coalition and human trafficking and the Santa Clair County District Attorney's Office. And this was really in preparation for the mega events and sports events in 2026, uh Super Bowl and FIFA and the associated rise um that we sometimes see with those kind of events with human trafficking. Um and VTA pioneered about 10 years ago a policy to provide um training that was in collaboration with uh workforce and and and labor um that now has become a statewide policy thanks to I believe Senator Dave Cortezi um that has been very successful. So we we shared a bit about that in addition to the ongoing work that we are conducting. Um I I another highlight that I shared was that um previously um we had uh VTA had its first uh meeting of what we're calling the culture and climate ad hoc committee and this is a body that was formed with representatives from labor to provide regular ongoing uh venue to uh talk through issues at the first main we reviewed survey results uh and to really focus on how to improve exactly what it says the culture and the climate of the workforce at VTA and make it an excellent workforce. And so, uh, had labor representatives, three board members, including myself, and executive and management staff with, um, with with VTA. So, I'll end with those two highlights uh, for for now. Always happy to share more if there are any questions. And, uh, that concludes our meeting. We are now adjourned. Thank you.