[0:00] Extremely important to every community. They are certainly important to us. And then the city of Campbell, we do have a number of parks, but we're also surrounded by

[0:10] Fulascades Creek Trail, which allows residents to utilize property, which is to the south and to the north of us, as well as our own city.

[0:20] We also are benefited in the northern part of the city with Hammond Park, which technically

[0:25] is in the city of San Jose, but we have many residents in that area as well.

[0:30] And the community service classes and programs that we have at our community center are outstanding

[0:36] and excellent.

[0:38] And I'm always impressed when I see the catalog that is printed periodically with the

[0:42] number of offerings that you have for people of all ages from young toddlers all the

[0:47] way to senior citizens.

[0:48] So, it's my pleasure to recognize you and to recognize this month.

[1:01] While he's coming down, I'll just say we love Park and Rex.

[1:22] I just want to thank the council for your continued support of honoring July as

[1:26] Parks and Recreation Month. Parks and Recreation are vital to thriving communities

[1:31] and Campbell is known for all the wonderful parks that we provide as well as the services

[1:37] we provide to our communities. Thank you for your influence for.

[1:42] Do any comments from your members of the council members school I just want to say there are no favorite departments but you guys are the most fun for sure

[1:55] I want to thank you Natasha for your leadership of the of the department and the staff that you have

[2:01] It's always gracious and fun and willing that it's just the residents of Campbell and through the various programs that you offer and it's the best city in Santa Clara County as far as recreation program and services. Thank you.

[2:21] Absolutely. Just the scope of how much we do is incredible. I always get comments and Natasha special.

[2:28] I want to recognize the forward thinking nature of high-rolling the advocate for the Department

[2:37] and the interests of the city and bring that for us, but thank you all for it for your work.

[2:44] You know, as I said before, I love park and racks, and I especially like the upcoming

[2:50] concert series, and I'm going to be able to enjoy those.

[2:57] Thank you once again.

[2:59] we have no other communications and petitions and we now go to oral requests. This would be

[3:05] the time on tonight's agenda for any member of the public to address the council on any

[3:09] item that's not on tonight's agenda. So if you would like to address the council, I do have one

[3:17] request from Susan Landry and anyone else, I request that you consider filling out a card in advance

[3:24] providing it to the City Clerk, you're not required to do so, but at least,

[3:28] secondly, at the time, so that I might call on you. So Susan, thank you.

[3:34] Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council members, Susan Landrieg. I'm here to talk about home

[3:40] occupation, business placements, requirements, and one of the highlight that these requirements

[3:46] are so antiquated that is very difficult to comply with them and still run a successful

[3:51] business from home. The last major update was in 2006. Technology and business practices have changed

[3:59] dramatically since then. Currently, most changes to housing policies focus on the reduction

[4:06] of car usage. Home occupations do just that no more commuting. Similar to the recent update to the

[4:14] beekeeping ordinance, I would like to ask Council to add home occupation rules to staff's

[4:20] plan and may also suggest that the planning commission could help similar to what they did

[4:27] in making recommendations to the permit streamlining ordinance. Thank you for listening.

[4:36] Thank you. If you're the matter to staff for the follow up with your own

[4:41] Thank you.

[4:42] Would anyone else like to speak under a roll or the quest?

[4:47] Okay.

[4:48] Seeing none.

[4:49] We'll now move on to council announcements.

[4:53] So I have several announcements to share with you this evening.

[4:58] And they include the following.

[4:59] The city of Campbell invites you to the ribbon cutting ceremony for our new police building.

[5:04] At 100 North First Street, I'm sure most of you know that's the brand new building.

[5:08] just right outside the council chambers here. We have come to the point time. We're ready to cut the

[5:14] ribbon and complete the project on that building. That will complete the two major projects under

[5:21] measure O. And that will be this Friday, July the 10th at 9 o'clock from 9 to 11. This measure

[5:28] was funded, of course, by the voters, a bond measure through measure O. The facility is a direct result

[5:34] of the community's investment into public safety in the event. We'll feature brief remarks by several

[5:40] members of the city staff. The second announcement is that movie nights are continuing once again.

[5:50] You can join us under the stars at John D. Morgan Park. You can bring lawn chairs, blankets,

[5:56] jackets, snacks, and so on. It's free. And this coming Friday, July the 10th, the quote,

[6:04] the Incredibles will be the featured film. The feature film can be seen on at the, it takes place

[6:11] at the John De Morgan Park at the Pony Baseball Diamond area. The third announcement is that we invite

[6:18] you to join us on Thursday nights for the 34th Annual Summer Concert series. I'm starting

[6:24] against 630, it goes from 630 to 8 through August the 27th, the very first concert will

[6:31] actually happened this Thursday, July 9th, and it will feature the group called Sonic

[6:38] Addiction, and on July 16th it will be the floor shakers.

[6:45] The next announcement is the Chamber of Commerce of Seeking Volunteers to help to staff with its

[6:49] relay for life, hospitality tent, on January 11th, which is this Saturday, from 10am straight

[6:59] through Sunday, July 12th.

[7:03] This is an event that's been sponsored in Campbell for cancer research for many, many

[7:08] years,

[7:11] and there will be snacks that are offered refreshments and welcoming place for all

[7:17] like participants who can either choose to run or walk around the track.

[7:22] This is at the Community Center, of course, at the main track there.

[7:26] And if you'd like to volunteer for a shift, we ask that you please.

[7:30] You can do so at info at chamber.comblechamber.net.

[7:37] The history happy hour will occur, com-sip snacks and socialize and learn a little history.

[7:46] History happy hour is a lecture series at the Ainsley House, which you can learn about interesting topics, meet new people and tour the Ainsley House as well.

[7:55] The line up for these meetings will be on Friday, August 31st, August 28th, and September

[8:03] 18th, three different dates from 530 to 7, the admission is $25 per person.

[8:09] Registration is required.

[8:11] We request that you go to Campbell Museums.com for registration.

[8:17] And we also need to bring to your attention the fact that the Campbell Swimming Pool at the

[8:24] popular will remain open all until August the 31st Monday, at which time that evening it

[8:34] will close and starting September the September 1st following day will remain closed.

[8:42] That pool has been there for many many years. Ever since Campbell High School was an operating high

[8:46] school, the High School closed in 1980. The pool was there for many years before that.

[8:52] It has sort of completed its useful lifespan.

[8:56] We've had a number of leaks in the plumbing that we have repaired over the years.

[9:02] And finally, now it is at a point where it's just too much.

[9:06] And we have to undertake actually building an entire new pool and addressing it in a more significant manner.

[9:13] So we regret that the pool is going to be closed, but it will remain open through the balance of the summer.

[9:18] We will cover all the classes that we've already advertised as I mentioned through August 31st.

[9:24] And that concludes the Council announcements.

[9:28] We now move to the consent calendar.

[9:31] These are items 7.1 through 7.9 that the Council will take as a single item of business.

[9:38] Unless a member of the Council, a member of the staff or a member of the audience, or someone online,

[9:44] request that we pull an item for individual discussion. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the

[9:52] consent calendar?

[9:55] Seeing none. I don't see any one online either. So, I would request a motion then.

[10:03] I propose a motion to accept the consent calendar item 7.1 to 7.9.

[10:09] All second.

[10:10] Who the motion by council member Hein second by the vice mayor,

[10:14] by the, to approve the consent calendar.

[10:17] All those.

[10:18] Oh, we have a low fall, please.

[10:20] Council member Lopez.

[10:22] Council member Hein.

[10:23] I.

[10:23] Council member Skizola.

[10:24] Aye.

[10:25] Vice mayor, by the.

[10:26] Aye.

[10:26] Mayor for Cotto.

[10:29] Aye.

[10:29] And I do need to notice and ask for general consent of the council.

[10:34] There is a desk item that you saw there a correction of some dates and that was for

[10:38] and 7.3. If that's your concurrence, we'll include that in the motion. Yes, I concur.

[10:47] I see no objection,

[10:50] so.

[10:50] Okay.

[10:53] We now go to public hearings and the introduction of ordinances.

[10:59] We will begin with item 8.1.

[11:10] So item 8.1 is the lighting and landscaping district LLA-1 for fiscal year 2627, confirming assessments, and I need to read to you the following statement in that regard.

[11:24] This is the time in place set for the hearing on public comments on the engineering, pardon me, the engineers report for the city of Campbell's lighting and landscaping assessment district.

[11:35] and the levian collection of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 2627.

[11:42] These proceedings are conducted pursuant to lighting and landscaping to a V lighting and landscaping

[11:48] act of 1972.

[11:51] The engineers report prepared by the City Engineer consists of the boundaries of the assessment

[11:57] district, the proposed improvements and or maintenance and operation of the district.

[12:02] The estimate cost of those improvements and or the maintenance costs and the proposed assessments upon those lots and parcels of land within the proposed district.

[12:15] Any one of these items may be subject to protests or endorsements.

[12:20] Should anyone wish to speak on this item on any of these items under this agenda item you are asked to clearly identify yourself

[12:28] and the property owned by you so that your statement may be correctly recorded.

[12:34] The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing.

[12:42] And also to ask the City Clerk to report on written protests that may have been received, if any.

[12:49] And following the clerks report, the City Engineer is asked to provide a statement regarding the nature of the lighting and landscaping district,

[12:57] which will be followed by any public comments or testimony.

[13:02] So it's a regular procedure that we have to follow in order here,

[13:05] and so I will begin with the city clerk.

[13:08] Notices have been published as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972

[13:13] and Section 54954.6 of the California Government Code.

[13:19] Affidavits and certificates of publishing are on file in my office.

[13:23] The copy of the engineer's report prepared by the city engineer was filed in my office on May 29,

[13:29] 2026, and has been open to public inspection since that time.

[13:34] No written protests have been received by the city.

[13:39] Thank you.

[13:40] We will proceed now for the statement on behalf of the city engineer.

[13:45] Good evening, Mayor and Council, Roger Stores, a public worship burden.

[13:49] The city of Campbell lighting and landscaping district is established annually to support

[13:53] maintenance and operation of the city's parks, landscaping, public lighting, traffic

[13:58] signal systems, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The assessments proposed for fiscal year

[14:03] 2026-2027 are as shown in the engineer's report and total approximately $1.2 million.

[14:11] The proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 assessments are at the same rate as last fiscal year 2025-2026,

[14:19] No increases in the rate are being proposed.

[14:23] Thank you.

[14:24] Thank you.

[14:26] So the microphone is now open and available for public testimony.

[14:29] Should anyone wish to speak?

[14:31] You were asked to clearly, as I said before, identify yourself and the property owned by use

[14:36] so that your statement may be correctly recorded.

[14:39] Would anyone like to address the council on this matter?

[14:45] Ask the city.

[14:46] Work.

[14:47] If there is anyone online?

[14:49] There's not.

[14:54] We have no request for public.

[15:00] And would request a motion, and a second, and a roll call goes.

[15:09] I'll move to the City Council, doctor, as a motion, over-rolling protests, and there are none.

[15:15] Approving the engineers report ordering the improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments.

[15:22] I'll second. A motion by the Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor Videy, and a second by Council Member Fines.

[15:29] roll-cult pleased. Councilmember Lopez, Councilmember Heinz, Councilmember Skizola, Vice Mayor

[15:36] by V. I. Mayor Chotato. Hi.

[15:41] Thank you. We now move to item 8.2. This is a public hearing also

[15:48] to consider the adoption of an interim ordinance, superseding the prior interim ordinance implementing

[15:54] Senate Bill, 450 of 2024. As modified by Assembly Bill, 1061 of 2025, to revise historic

[16:07] resource eligibility provisions and the applicable two unit developments and urban

[16:20] to eliminate design standards for certain single-family residential zoning districts.

[16:27] In order to pass this measure, it would require a four-fifths positive vote of members

[16:33] of the city council.

[16:40] Okay, both council member Hines and myself have a potential conflict of interest in this matter,

[16:47] so I will start first with council member Hines for his statement of refusal.

[16:53] Yeah, I recuse this because I own a property or my these state that I manage owns a property within the Campbell Village.

[17:04] And I will recuse myself from this particular measure due to the fact that I have a house in the historical residential district covered by this particular law and ordinance.

[17:19] So, since two members of the City Council now have recused themselves and since the measure

[17:26] requires four members of the City Council in order to participate in the hearing, we now

[17:31] have the rule of necessity invoked and therefore both Council Member Hines and I will draw

[17:38] straws, whichever one of us gets the short straw will leave the Council Chamber for the purpose

[17:45] the discussion and the other member will remain present and participate in vote. So I'll

[17:51] pass the city clerk, please, to have us draw straws.

[18:12] In order to conduct this hearing, I will

[18:14] turn the gavel over to the vice mayor.

[18:27] I'd like to ask our senior planner, Daniel Fama, to

[18:32] come to the podium and present the staff report. Thank you. Good evening. Before you is an

[18:39] term ordinance to implement Senate Bill 450 as most recently modified by Assembly Bill 1061.

[18:46] So, a little bit of history here. This is a part of legislation that began with SB 9,

[18:53] which is adopted in 2021. That law aimed to functionally and single-family zoning in California,

[19:00] it allowed for two primary dwellings on the family logs. It also allowed for single-family

[19:05] parcels to be subdivided in a ministerial process under what's known as an urban

[19:10] loss split.

[19:11] Now, law was changed again in 2024 by Senate Bill 450, so that law effectively required

[19:18] the city's standardized and flattened standards for single-family projects and these urban

[19:24] loss splits.

[19:26] Prior to that time, Campbell, like many cities, had to have a separate development process for

[19:30] SB9 projects separately from traditional single-family developments.

[19:35] Now, so starting with that law, that practice effectively ended and we came much more streamlined

[19:40] and flat as was effectuated by an interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council

[19:46] in January 2025.

[19:49] Later, last year, the legislature and the governor adopted legislation, AB 1061, that made

[19:55] further revisions to the law.

[19:56] Specifically, this change was looking to target the applicability of SB 9 to historic resources.

[20:05] Prior to this, effectively, the city through its local police followers could adopt a list of historic properties

[20:13] that are entirely exempt from urban law splits into primary law units.

[20:17] On the new law, the exception is much more narrowed to individually designate landmarks

[20:22] marks, and then non-line mark properties within historic districts.

[20:27] That's actually meaning that properties that do not meet those.

[20:30] Arturia are effectively no longer protected under local

[20:33] historic preservation protocols.

[20:37] Now, so therefore, the proposed interim ordinance before you would

[20:40] supersede the prior interim ordinance to 31 that had been adopted in 2025.

[20:46] It would also update the historic resource eligibility of the law and make other

[20:50] divisions pertaining to subdivision standards, objective design standards, and some more minor changes

[20:56] that we can quickly discuss here.

[20:59] So in terms of the law's effect to historic resources, functionally we are looking at 27 properties

[21:06] that are located in the single family zone in district that are currently protected by the

[21:10] city's historic preservation ordinance that functionally will no longer have such protection.

[21:15] So these properties may be demolished or altered in a manner that otherwise would have been

[21:19] dip it at the other.

[21:21] However, two of these properties are covered by mills at contracts and are still subject

[21:25] to the terms of those agreements which would protect their historic integrity.

[21:31] Further, as part of the overall update, staff is also making recommendations to other

[21:37] revisions of the law.

[21:38] So as part of the current interim ordinance, the city did adopt a fairly prescriptive subdivisions

[21:44] standards that require all need of laws to meet very specific shapes.

[21:48] And while that's fairly easy to do, if you have a rectangular lob, there are many

[21:52] lots that don't have a regular shape, and those particular properties can now function

[21:57] like be subdivided.

[21:59] So based on a lot of feedback, we've received staff as recommending a pivot to how the

[22:03] city regulates subdivisions going away from that type of prescriptive, a lot of type of requirement

[22:09] to a much more narrow mechanism that's going effectively require that properties be subdivided

[22:15] basically a straight line.

[22:18] Additionally, the origins would make various other revisions,

[22:23] two subdivisions standards,

[22:25] dealing with some ACT compliance requirements.

[22:30] And then, with regard to single-family standards, as part of the change last year, the ordinance that was adopted imposed objective design standards in the two neighborhoods the city has historically had design review.

[22:44] That would be the Santa Claus neighborhood and the Campbellville neighborhood. Those standards were very prescriptive because state law requires that standards be objective in nature.

[22:53] And so that has the effect of the city,

[22:55] functionally telling people you have to design your home

[22:58] in a very specific way with very specific materials.

[23:01] And sometimes there's a lot of pushback from neighbor

[23:04] from residents who really don't like the city

[23:06] effectively designing their home in that manner.

[23:09] And recognizing a lot of ways that because state law

[23:13] has put a lot of limitations on the city,

[23:16] what we're seeing is a higher density of projects

[23:18] are effectively subject to lesser standards

[23:21] than single-family homeowners.

[23:22] So it's creating a, have an equity situation.

[23:25] So staff is recommending, eliminating those objective design standards, putting

[23:30] Santa Masks and Campbell Village basically at the same level as the rest of the city,

[23:34] and historically has not had any design standards.

[23:37] So these same family homes would be regulated solely by development standards

[23:41] such as setbacks, height, and fire ratio, which would remain unchanged.

[23:48] As well as other revisions,

[23:50] easing standards for bringing to accessory structures,

[23:53] allowing homeowners who are have homes that were built

[23:56] under like-seet-pline development approvals

[23:58] to do additions and remodels

[24:00] to the exterior of their homes,

[24:02] which currently have been limited,

[24:03] as well as some other technical revisions

[24:05] and additional definitions for adequate clarity.

[24:09] So staff just recommend that the city council

[24:11] buy a fourth-fifth vote adopt the proposed interim wardens,

[24:14] which would go to effect immediately upon a doctor.

[24:18] With that, I'll take any questions

[24:19] the council may have. Thank you.

[24:22] Thank you, Daniel. Are there any questions of the council for Dan?

[24:28] I have one, Daniel. Could you repeat the information

[24:33] about the impact of this on historic structures?

[24:38] What that means?

[24:40] So there are basically three tiers of historic properties in city.

[24:44] You have a very top landmarks and then below that you have the Alice Avenue historic district which also includes landmarks, but there are properties within it that are not landmarks.

[24:56] And then the bulk of this work properties 89 are known as structures of merit.

[25:00] So the 89 structures of merit, 27 of those are located within the single family zone district.

[25:06] So those 27 properties now under the law are not subject to the city's historic preservation requirements.

[25:12] And so those properties could be simply demolished or altered in a manner that in the past would not be allowed.

[25:20] The exception of two properties are subject to Mills Act contracts, which are through a mutual agreement that would be preserved.

[25:29] And there's no way to protect those 27 properties.

[25:33] Not through this action, the only way would be to expand the city's Mills Act program to entice people to volunteer.

[25:40] there was those properties, things changed for tax savings, but again, it's a very different policy decision.

[25:47] Okay, thank you again.

[25:49] Thank you.

[25:50] Any other questions?

[25:52] If not, I will open the public hearing and ask if anyone in the audience wishes to speak on this item.

[25:57] Then you will have two minutes.

[25:59] And I have a speaker card from Doria Soroggi.

[26:03] We'd like to come to the podium and speak.

[26:12] Evening members of the City Council, my name is Dorias Serabji.

[26:16] I reside at 610 Craig Avenue, Campbell, California, in the Santa Marceria neighborhood

[26:22] plan.

[26:24] I spoke to you the last time the issue came up and brought up on to data from 30 years ago

[26:31] and that still hasn't resolved inequities within that area where a pandemic zone owners

[26:37] have 65% floor area ratios, whereas regular single family homeowners are only allowed 45 or

[26:47] briefly were allowed 50% from when we last tried to modify it in the stamp plan. Last time

[26:55] I came up here, gave you a bunch of documents. You didn't discuss anything. My hope this

[27:01] time is that you at least take a moment to discuss this or address it to city staff to look

[27:07] into it for the next time we do our interim approach on it. That's all I ask for. Thank you very much.

[27:14] Thank you.

[27:16] The next speaker is Richard Ward.

[27:23] Good evening council members. I'm Richard Ward. I live at 87 in the Well and Avenue.

[27:28] I'm given these rules and regulations and now be modified. I have a request that a drive way coding

[27:34] change. At the moment it's a five foot set back from the boundary with an eight foot drive

[27:39] waste space. I've done some views on my road. My neighbor doesn't follow this. Three houses

[27:46] to my right. Don't follow this and I could probably show you about 50 houses in the R1 sits.

[27:53] So, do not follow this. My background is I would like to have a driveway going along the boundary.

[28:00] So I can get a card into my back a lot but the rules don't allow it to the moment given the ordinances

[28:05] Open at the moment. I was wondering if that's under consideration or could be

[28:11] Thank you. Thank you.

[28:14] Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this item?

[28:19] Then do we have anyone on?

[28:30] Yes.

[28:30] We do have someone on one.

[28:33] Lauren King Rice. Would you like to speak?

[28:47] Lauren?

[28:49] today they are guests, can everybody hear me alright? Yes. Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much

[28:59] to the council. I will be brief. My comments specifically to this proposed interim ordinance

[29:07] are specific to section 10, which are the objective design standards for this and to moss

[29:14] area as well as Campbell Village.

[29:18] I'm the owner at 1440 Westmont,

[29:20] and I just recently actually went through this process

[29:23] of proving a new single family dueling in the city.

[29:29] And frankly, I found the architectural standards to be

[29:33] white understandable and quite flexible.

[29:36] I think it still allows very healthy differences

[29:40] for homes in the neighborhood and not the opinion that eliminating those would be quite unfortunate

[29:48] for a few reasons. I think the first of all is some of the design standards that are outlined

[29:55] currently are...

[30:00] Teruses, and deaths, things like no more than two paint colors per wall, no more than two roof materials.

[30:09] I find moves to be personally not, you know, boundary pushing whatsoever.

[30:16] I would not want to live near, you know, if I can help it, something with a rooftop terrace in a very open neighborhood, that is the Santa Rosa area.

[30:25] So, I just think it would be quite, um,

[30:30] kind of let down truly to get rid of these.

[30:32] You know, Los Gattas has their own design standards.

[30:37] Sarah Toga just adopted their village standards in April of this year.

[30:44] I think it would just be a loss, you know,

[30:48] is Campbell were to eliminate these in their entirety.

[30:52] The second part of this, as we all know, is, you know, Campbell is going to be building

[30:58] per the state's requirements, you know, well over a thousand housing units, and taking

[31:05] into consideration how this will be changing the landscape of the city, I just think is another

[31:11] reason to actually keep these. These are not massive neighborhoods that we're talking about,

[31:17] but they do have their unique character

[31:20] and I just would urge the council to consider keeping these

[31:24] and their unique addition to our city.

[31:28] Thank you for your comments, your time is up.

[31:31] Thank you.

[31:34] Great, and then we have a desk item that was.

[31:38] Yeah, it's just going to bring it up on your council comments.

[31:40] OK, thank you.

[31:42] Are there any other people on the line that we're supposed to speak?

[31:46] No.

[31:46] Okay, anyone else in the audience?

[31:49] Okay, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to city council for discussion.

[31:54] Before I do that, Daniel, would you be able to respond to the two speakers that questions that were raised regarding the items that they addressed?

[32:05] Sure.

[32:06] I mean, so there are components of how the city regulates single-family zoning that could be considered as part of the council action.

[32:13] likely would require the council to continue the hearing so that we could actually draft some

[32:18] specific language. So the gentleman regarding the driveway so currently single-family homes

[32:23] require that a driveway have a five-foot set back from the side property line. That standard has been

[32:30] in effect probably for about 20 years. There's many standards that I really do go back that far.

[32:36] The city's current zone of code was functionally adopted in its current form in 2004 and 2006.

[32:40] So, there are standards from that era.

[32:43] Similarly, the Florea ratio is arguably somewhat low.

[32:48] It's 45% and in consideration of how much development capacity now,

[32:53] you can see that the start of home project,

[32:55] or even seeing a family home with multiple ADUs,

[32:58] that 45% also does reflect the development approach

[33:02] from 20 years ago.

[33:03] I mean, if that's the council would like to increase,

[33:06] again, that could be under consideration.

[33:09] And with regard to design standards, if that really is a value judgment for the City Council

[33:16] to discuss, there is not a right answer to how these areas should be regulated.

[33:23] There are obviously different opinions, we have the standards that we currently have.

[33:29] We could look at pairing some of them back as opposed to the entirety of the standards.

[33:33] I mean, if there's a preference to preserve standards pertaining to privacy, and then we can look at just keeping those, or if there are requirements that the council believes are more important, such as

[33:45] Ruth material or building color, but that direction we can try to come back at a subsequent meeting.

[33:53] If I could, I could add one other question that I got from one of my constituents, Dr.

[33:59] Straussky, was commenting on the, on the, on the European Urban Lops Flitz, where,

[34:05] it would require a 1200 square feet and a, it's a 40% of the area, the original parcel.

[34:12] Her concern is that the vast majority of the houses are smacked down in the middle of the

[34:20] for a loud split if you take 40% of the area or the original parcel of. So it's just the

[34:27] consideration to be able to have flexibility in that as the point that this is making.

[34:32] The 60-40 split is actually requirements state law. So we actually could not allow for a sub-division

[34:38] to fall below that I believe.

[34:45] Daniel, sorry if I missed this just now, but I heard you address

[34:50] the objective design standards in the FOIA,

[34:53] every show, what about the comment,

[34:56] referring to the driveway along the property line?

[35:00] Yeah, so I mean, that setback requirement goes back 20 years.

[35:04] It's probably for aesthetics,

[35:06] and maybe somewhat stormwater drainage,

[35:08] but there's no particular requirement

[35:10] that says we have to have that setback standard.

[35:14] Jim and his crack, there are many, many, many,

[35:16] the fast majority of properties do not have,

[35:19] five let's step back from their driveway since those most of those driveways pre-date at standard.

[35:25] That's also one of those kind of dowry judgment questions for the council.

[35:33] Thank you. Thank you. Our comments from council. Council Member Christ.

[35:40] Yeah, thank you very much and excellent work on this. I have voiced just talking about the

[35:51] on the Kimmel Village area planned being in conflict with state laws. I think we must

[35:57] abide by state laws. You're mentioning one of them already with objective standards.

[36:04] Any neighborhood needs to be able to build on these state laws and to be able to build a housing

[36:10] and focus on the community to be able to support the community, but we have to abide within the

[36:16] laws. And it generates tremendous conflict when it's not objective. And many of the points in

[36:28] particularly in Campbell Village are quite subjective in their representation, which

[36:33] generates conflict within the community. So I encourage the staff to continue with the

[36:41] and our amendments being able to have consistency

[36:44] of across the city for objective standards to state laws.

[36:52] Potentially also addressing some of the,

[36:55] how's that?

[36:57] Potentially addressing some of the concerns

[37:01] that were brought up by other speakers.

[37:04] Thank you.

[37:10] Have you ever loved it?

[37:17] Daniel, do you mind coming back up this morning?

[37:24] a couple of the questions raised.

[37:26] You mentioned real.

[37:30] Can you walk us through what it would look like to bring that, you know, because presumably it's not a

[37:36] may not be able to make a final decision tonight, but what would it look like for us at more

[37:43] of discussion or not that?

[37:46] Well, with regard, I mean, I think the area is probably the most complicated would be the

[37:50] design standards.

[37:51] Yeah, and can you just dive in a little bit more, can you walk me through the thinking and

[37:55] recommending some simplifying that, just moving in that direction versus the different options

[38:01] that we have had.

[38:03] And some of this largely reflects what is you, you do have larger developers who are coming

[38:11] in, which are sizing various provisions of state law, including density bonus waivers that

[38:16] are effectively able to get projects approved by the city and disregard many, many of the

[38:21] local standards and that's their right understeel off.

[38:25] At the same time, we have objectives standard that are applying to single-family homeowners that,

[38:30] you know, some, I'm clearly not all, find somewhat challenging to adhere to.

[38:34] And so, on one hand, the homeowners having to really go through a very detailed list of requirements,

[38:40] while I develop or can to say here, my waiver request, I don't want to comply.

[38:45] And so, that seemed to be a great unfairness issue.

[38:48] So, the staff recommendation would be basically recognizing that and just rip off the band

[38:53] aid and simply say, maybe it's time for our deck of designs to Andrews to not really

[38:59] applying the way that historically they have.

[39:02] I guess just to take that one, for my perspective, I think it'd be a little mature for that.

[39:09] I've originally positive feedback from people who have had to go through the process, both

[39:15] been formally up here on the DIS, through objective design standards, there's a lot of work

[39:20] to develop them, and I think it's a very thoughtful process that led to it, and I want to

[39:26] want to throw that out, I think, we could evaluate at a later date if it continues to be overly

[39:32] owners, but that's not what I've heard today. So, while I appreciate the fairness aspect and

[39:38] I think, staff is coming from the right place. I personally think we should keep some of that work,

[39:44] that really was intended to keep the characteristics

[39:49] or special about Kim will aesthetically

[39:51] while balancing the flexibility,

[39:54] the broad range of options and making it

[39:58] of Jacob for anyone to go through the process.

[40:01] So there's an equity component

[40:03] but then that already that we're trying to get out

[40:06] and so I don't want to lose that.

[40:09] Because I'd be cursing how other council members feel

[40:12] but I think it's something that we continue to,

[40:15] if we do hear concerns as I haven't heard,

[40:17] we can discuss it in future day.

[40:21] Councilmember Hyde?

[40:22] Yeah, I certainly concur with the Councilmember Lopez

[40:25] on having the objective standards.

[40:28] I feel though that from the specific of the Campbell village,

[40:34] land that those that's so outdated

[40:37] and in conflict with state and city ordinances

[40:40] that it should apply the objective standards that the city should apply across the city.

[40:48] Yeah, and to clarify, so the current intermordance, that was adopted last year.

[40:53] So that is the ordinance adopting the impact the current objective design standards.

[41:00] That replaced the prior subjective standards for the St. Moss area in Campbellville, Ontario.

[41:07] Now, the current object of standards were developed to try to take the spirit of what the

[41:15] subject of standards were trying to accomplish and put it into kind of an objective format.

[41:21] And so that's currently what's here.

[41:23] We are already pass a point of dealing with the subjective design standards of the past.

[41:29] But I would just also note, I mean, if it is council's pleasure to retain objective standards,

[41:34] It probably would also be worthwhile for the standards to be refined.

[41:40] Garlas of the value judgment of it, and practice one part that has been somewhat

[41:45] challenging.

[41:45] These standards were originally developed to deal with brand new single family homes.

[41:51] But they also technically apply to the additions, and that has created a little bit of

[41:54] a disconnect for a variety of technical reasons.

[41:58] So that is the council's direction.

[41:59] We probably should revisit that a little bit so that it's clear when the standards

[42:04] apply to additions and when it comes.

[42:11] I think I would I think I would encourage the staff and the council

[42:17] to continue to have the discussion around the objective standards on the points that you just

[42:21] made as well as the additional points that we heard from the speakers to refine and maintain

[42:29] the objective standards that are out, refine the ones that are outdated and utilize the ones that

[42:38] to make sense to continue it.

[42:40] Yeah, I think that would be reasonable.

[42:41] I don't think that was the primary intention

[42:44] when we were having those discussions

[42:45] around developing those standards.

[42:48] And I would welcome increasing flexibility

[42:50] without getting rid of that.

[42:53] We probably would also seek the direction on particular.

[42:56] I mean, the drive-ways standards fairly diminished.

[42:58] But the floor area ratio is probably,

[43:00] also probably a fair point of discussion

[43:02] for the council.

[43:03] So currently, the city regulates building area by what's known

[43:07] for your ratio. It's basically the value of a building's toll-forwardary divide by the

[43:13] launch size. Currently that's 45%. In the past, it was actually possible to go up to 50%

[43:22] through a subjective process. Because subjective processes were no longer allowed, that mechanism

[43:28] was actually removed with the prior ordinance. So right now, it is at a hard cap of 45%. Now,

[43:36] council would like to see that number increase that could be I can also incorporate it into

[43:40] for the for the revisions to the draft.

[43:46] Sounds like what I'm hearing is that we're not

[43:49] ready to ready to make a decision this evening on this but I want to ask Daniel is there a

[43:56] time component to this to to extend our to adopt the intermore concerns and for the other.

[44:04] No I mean there is no there is no time present time issue at the moment.

[44:08] I mean, there are a lot of property owners who are eager to move ahead with their particular

[44:12] projects, but the current interim ordinance is in effect for, believe, until January.

[44:19] So, we do have time to look at for the revisions.

[44:25] And I, I would just add, I would be very soon having the discussion around that higher

[44:30] Fourier issue, moving that out, I think for us to make an informed decision, we need a little

[44:37] more free from other trade-offs, but I think that would be a worthwhile discussion.

[44:41] I would agree on that.

[44:43] I remember talking about it, the Planning Commission, when I was on that it was the

[44:48] Wisconsin's discussion about more area ratio.

[44:51] You will have a definitive, objective approach would be quite effective.

[45:00] And as far as the driveway, it seems like we're not consistently applying what regulations are now.

[45:08] So, it just seems like we should have a little more flexibility on the driveway.

[45:13] Yes, I mean, it's not a standard that's found in every community and the higher-density projects you do have

[45:19] you do have driveways that are closer than five feet, again, kind of have the increasing disconnect between how we regulate higher-density projects and lower-density projects.

[45:28] And I just want to make sure that individuals that are looking to move forward with their

[45:33] projects.

[45:34] There's not an innovative plan.

[45:37] They're not an innovative plan without having this.

[45:40] The ordinances in place they can move forward with their projects.

[45:44] Well, no.

[45:44] So currently, particularly with individuals who are seeking to perform urban law splits.

[45:50] The current standards are limiting their ability to do that.

[45:53] So they have been waiting for an update to the ordinance.

[45:56] that would revisit the subdivisions standards.

[45:59] So if we continue to hearing and revisit the design standards,

[46:03] I mean, that will force causes a life.

[46:06] That's an argument.

[46:07] Thank you.

[46:07] I was just wondering if it was possible to do the reverse

[46:11] where we do fast this, and then revisit another time

[46:15] for the design standards soon.

[46:18] So that allowing for the people who are eagerly waiting

[46:22] to go move forward, so they can move forward,

[46:24] and then we revisit after the fact, do you know what I mean?

[46:27] Bill, wouldn't that be adopting to sequential and term ordinances?

[46:32] Yes, you could not do that on an interim basis.

[46:34] You could do that as part of the permanent ordinance

[46:37] when that comes back to you.

[46:39] OK, so there is another opportunity for us to...

[46:41] There will be another opportunity, eventually,

[46:45] the question would be one of time.

[46:48] OK.

[46:48] Well, I'm a little reluctant to hold up.

[46:51] I agree with your sentiments, guys.

[46:52] that I wouldn't want to hold up anyone in this meeting.

[46:56] This is an eager day to get their project done.

[46:58] I would concur with Miss Cecilola that I know that there's a property right in my district

[47:03] that is quite key and I'm going to be able to move forward with it.

[47:14] I guess what I'm hearing we'd like to do is move forward with, let's see if we could

[47:21] move forward with this ordinance knowing that when the final version that we could review the objective

[47:28] design standards in the final version. Is that feasible?

[47:33] Well, I did. It seems to me that staffing correct me if I'm wrong with that moving board

[47:37] with this would then get rid of the objective standards and recent flexibility. So, it seems

[47:47] like that's intentional, somewhat we discussed up here.

[47:52] Bill, can they read into the record or reference? We have a red line version of the current

[48:00] intermordance. That shows a strikeouts. Could they reference that

[48:04] part of their action to adopt the new ordinance?

[48:14] The council could reference just about anything, but I'm not sure what the purpose of that is.

[48:20] Well, to the extent that if they wanted to adopt the intermordance with the objective design standards

[48:26] being brought back into it,

[48:32] were you saying those are red light out right now?

[48:35] Well, yeah, because it's a new ordinance. They're not currently in the draft. So

[48:39] trying to see if there's a way we can move them into the draft through a motion.

[48:46] I don't know. I'm not sure without actually taking a look at that and seeing what gets

[48:53] put back in and whether there's a conflict with anything that was changed.

[48:59] It's sure. If not, we can return to your next council meeting with your intended direction

[49:07] So it would be August 6th meeting that we can 7th week continue to.

[49:15] I believe it's August 3rd.

[49:19] But between now and then we'd have to do the amendments and bring it back.

[49:22] Which one?

[49:23] So that would be the driveway and the objective standards.

[49:30] Yeah, the easiest left would be to basically maintain the objective design standards as they are.

[49:39] And then eliminate the driveway set back and just bring that back to the council and August.

[49:45] And then I guess do for a broader conversation on for area ratio and maybe further revisions to the objective design standards to another time.

[49:54] I mean, that makes sense to me, the government, just to call it, just a clarification that the ordinance, right now that we have in front of us does not include the objective design standards, Eric. Okay, so I would, I would concur that we want to defer to have an included back in per the conversations we have.

[50:20] And including the dragway.

[50:22] I'm going to move on to the problem.

[50:25] If there's no further discussion, could I get a motion to direct that?

[50:31] Do we need a motion bill?

[50:32] Yes.

[50:33] You would need first to reopen the public hearing and then continue this to August 30.

[50:40] Okay.

[50:42] So at this point, I'm going to reopen the public hearing on item.

[50:58] And then I would need a motion from the Council to continue the item too.

[51:06] Motion to continue an item 8.2.

[51:10] There's an up direction from our discussion to the motion was to continue with dog's third.

[51:17] To include the objective standards and the driveway revision.

[51:24] Wait with a four year ratio.

[51:27] To be discussed at a later date.

[51:31] Great.

[51:34] With that, I'll take a roll call.

[51:39] Council member Lopez.

[51:40] Council member Heinz.

[51:41] I want to remember Skizola by Samir Baidey.

[51:44] I thank you all.

[52:16] Okay.

[52:17] We'll continue here now.

[52:24] We will now.

[52:30] Move to hear the next five items under public hearings and the introduction of ordinances. I'd like to mention at the very beginning that each of these items, as public hearings, will be taken separately.

[52:44] And the council actually, in this case, enters a different roll for itself. This now becomes a judiciary proceeding.

[52:53] As such, every person who wishes to address the council on this matter must be sworn in.

[53:00] The City Clerk will administer the oath of office, I should say, the oath of the proper oath to be sworn in.

[53:09] If you wish to provide testimony on any one of the next five subjects, so we will now move to item 8.3.

[53:20] This is the public area to consider the adoption of a resolution revoking the business license

[53:25] and tobacco retailer permit for California's cigar and more number three.

[53:31] Located at 21-45 South Winchester Boulevard in Campbell, I will now ask for the staff

[53:41] report on this matter.

[53:42] I think Rob Eastwood, our community services director will get the staff report.

[53:50] And this service would need to be sworn in.

[53:57] Is your intent?

[53:59] Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[54:03] I do.

[54:05] Being a general mayor, council members, Rob Eastwood, community developer, well-presented mayor,

[54:12] on the interest of the time this is a bit different.

[54:14] you have five items before you that are very similar in nature, the circumstances on each

[54:19] are a bit different. I'll do a little bit more to TF the item, just prepare the council

[54:24] for the five, what to expect on five items. Again, broadly before you, tonight, you're a

[54:30] considering revocation of business licenses for five, I'll call them smoke shops, businesses

[54:36] there are license to sell tobacco products. Of those five, three of them also included in

[54:41] So under Campbell's municipal code, at the Administrative level, we've revoked our head

[54:49] and intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit for three of the businesses.

[54:53] I'm sorry, five of the businesses, three of those have issued a appeal.

[54:56] So tonight you'll consider five of businesses.

[54:59] The first three will be a combination of a business license,

[55:02] revocation, and an appeal of the tobacco retailer permit,

[55:06] revocation. The last two businesses did not appeal the revocation of the tobacco retail

[55:11] permit. It's solely the business license. As we get through each of those, I'll represent

[55:16] that, just to set the stage. On each of these cases, I'll as I'll present the documentation

[55:21] and further evidence and testimony can be provided by your police department. The revocation

[55:26] recommendations based on documented sales or presence of drugs or legal products.

[55:35] That

[55:37] Again, the first three that you'll be considered tonight, California's cigar in more

[55:42] number three, haze downtown smoke shop, haze smoke shop will be a combination of a

[55:48] revocational business license and an appeal hearing on the tobacco retailer permit.

[55:55] As mentioned, while I was wearing of any testimony you received tonight, for the California's

[56:01] of course you can receive any and all testimony in evidence presented by the business owners

[56:05] in their defense, so perhaps keeping the licenses. The appeal hearing before you on the

[56:10] tobacco retail permit is the no vote, the available means they're not held to evidence that

[56:15] was presented in the past before the appeal, any evidence presented tonight you can consider in

[56:20] your hearing. I will note you did receive some very late correspondence this afternoon from

[56:26] a the business owner of two of the smoke shops want to make sure you did receive that

[56:31] as part of my presentation. I will respond to some of the objections and issues that were

[56:35] brought up in that email. Again, I'll be presenting each of the items, as your community

[56:40] development director. Of course, I'm supported by our very capable police department, Chief

[56:46] Kerry Bird, Captain Ian White, and Detective Benjamin Palmer all here provide support and testimony.

[56:52] I just want to make sure, yes, no, we're only taking testimony in the first one tonight.

[56:57] So, you have to do these sequentially.

[57:00] We're doing one at a time.

[57:02] Each time you receive any testimony, though, the person providing testimony staff,

[57:06] or otherwise, would have to be this one.

[57:10] One last precursor before I go into each, as you'll see tonight,

[57:14] the evidence for Ben before you presented before you references the sale of drugs

[57:19] are illegal products from each of these businesses, just as a sort of glossary up front.

[57:26] When you see these terms, the first one is cyber-sciven, I think a pronoun to net right is

[57:32] a serotonin receptor, produces hallucinogenic effects, often called mushrooms or magic

[57:38] mushrooms.

[57:40] It's a schedule one substance, that's the most prohibited under federal law, and it's

[57:47] is both the violation of federal and stable.

[57:50] So, if you see that reference has been

[57:52] eligible for sale by the businesses.

[57:55] THC cannabis, you know the City Council is well aware of,

[57:58] is prohibited for sale in Campbell, retail sales,

[58:02] prohibited for sale in Campbell and her camps in this book code.

[58:04] Last but not least, in each, but if not all of the cases,

[58:08] you'll see documented evidence of flavored nicotine,

[58:10] selling nicotine on site under California State Law,

[58:14] health and safety code section as shown on the screen, that is prohibited in California, and the

[58:20] intent of that is to keep flavor to back out of targeting youth teens with those favorite products.

[58:28] So all three of these products are illegal either at the federal state or local level.

[58:36] Starting with

[58:36] your first revocation here in, so this is item 8.3. Again, we'll go to country 8.3 to 8.7.

[58:43] Well, first item before you is California cigar and more. Number three, located at 2145

[58:49] South Winchester as operated under a business license and a tobacco retailer permit.

[58:55] On January 20th, 2026, earlier this year, there was an infection of the business by

[59:00] Campbell police officers. The officers were offered for sale products containing silo silo

[59:12] The officers did discover a hidden room behind the retail area and told they confiscated

[59:18] 2,274 flavored tobacco items and 120 silo-scibe in our and cannabis products on the site.

[59:28] Separately earlier that month the police found a documentary forced entry of burglary of the business.

[59:35] believe the suspects did get away, does prevent some evidence that if there is knowledge of illegal drugs and products on site,

[59:42] it could present hazardous nuisance.

[59:47] The administration, under my signature, sent a notice to revoke based on these violations,

[59:53] a notice to revoke the tobacco retailer permit to the business owner on June 3rd.

[1:00:00] They have the right to request an appeal in a hearing before you. We did receive that appeal on June 16.

[1:00:05] Again, your action tonight for California's cigar and more number three is both consider

[1:00:09] revocation of the business license and is a no-go hearing on appeal of the tobacco

[1:00:14] retailer permit. Again, based on the documented illegal drugs found on site by police

[1:00:22] officers, staff is recommending the Council to take two actions tonight,

[1:00:27] revoke the business license that at least four of the five findings as shown on the screen,

[1:00:33] including the operation of the business is contrary to the public health safety

[1:00:37] welfare and morals, the violation of the penal code, a misrepresentant of the material

[1:00:42] fact, in which they apply for the license, which was not to sell or have those illegal drugs

[1:00:47] on site, and that it does constitute a public nuisance, and an addition staff is recommending

[1:00:52] that you deny the appeal, uphold the revocation of the tap echo retailer permit, as there

[1:00:59] is evidence that there is a violation of local state or federal law applicable to back

[1:01:03] of products, specifically the over 2000 to flavored tobacco products that are confiscated on

[1:01:10] site.

[1:01:13] In summary, that is staff recommendation to revoke the business license into back of your

[1:01:18] and to an idea appeal. I'm available for questions, and again, our police forces here also.

[1:01:26] Thank you. First of all, ask if there are any questions by members of the council.

[1:01:34] We apparently,

[1:01:37] so the first step here is to invite the appellant or the applicant or their representative

[1:01:45] to present comments to the council if you wish, and if so you have five minutes to speak as the appellant.

[1:01:53] Does, yes, please come fully.

[1:02:02] Just sort of touch the microphone, the little microphone.

[1:02:06] There you go. Thank you.

[1:02:08] Thank you.

[1:02:08] Thank you very much.

[1:02:09] Yes.

[1:02:11] You've heard to tell the truth, the whole truth, and I think that's true.

[1:02:14] I do.

[1:02:18] First of all, I just want to take responsibility for what happened.

[1:02:22] This business was poorly managed.

[1:02:25] I can argue about what happened and how this happened,

[1:02:29] but I won't. I'm just going to take full responsibility and I'm just asking for another chance

[1:02:36] before you guys revoke my life, this is my livelihood, this is how I am so for my family.

[1:02:43] I just want another chance before you guys revoke my life since that's all.

[1:02:49] Okay, thank you. Okay. Any questions?

[1:02:56] I believe so. If someone else gives testimony you can come back

[1:03:00] charted initial moment of thinking of you like so I will for this particular matter 8.3

[1:03:10] open the public hearing and ask if anyone would like to speak on this matter so anyone

[1:03:18] know okay so I will close the public hearing so you can come back and make some additional

[1:03:25] comments if you wish but it's totally up to you okay so I will close the public hearing completely

[1:03:36] know and return the matter to the City Council for review and or action.

[1:03:46] I do have questions for either for staff or for PD as it may be relevant. This one stood out and then it did have

[1:03:56] silo-sciven products on-site. Does that add an additional as I believe one of the other businesses did but

[1:04:05] to that added additional level of seriousness to the findings

[1:04:10] given its federal status.

[1:04:20] Rob, you just need to volunteer, again.

[1:04:22] I would believe you'll see five cases

[1:04:24] with different evidence.

[1:04:26] I'd say, in this case, we have evidence

[1:04:28] of the sale of three illegal products,

[1:04:32] silaside in THC cannabis, and also

[1:04:35] flavored tobacco.

[1:04:36] So I'd say we'd assume that's

[1:04:39] much more serious offense than maybe just one of those items, but there's a more test

[1:04:44] no need by the Campbell police can ask them.

[1:04:50] Does it?

[1:04:51] Yeah.

[1:04:51] It's a possible get a staff report, PD report, yeah, that'd be great.

[1:04:56] I may have it in a different file first.

[1:04:59] I think.

[1:05:02] Do you affirm to tell the truth a whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[1:05:05] I do.

[1:05:07] I believe you're asking about this here since the fence in regards to the soliciting, that

[1:05:12] of felony in California, whereas the other fence is being the marijuana and THG products

[1:05:19] as a city ordinance, and the labor to back was a misdemeanor. So, it's answer to your question,

[1:05:24] yes, it is a much more serious fence, and it would carry a heavier sentence for people that are

[1:05:30] selling it. And, you know, city attorney can comment on this. This is outside the scope of what we

[1:05:39] to consider here, but I read throughout the documents, I read through the police report.

[1:05:43] I was concerned that in this case, it seems like the employees were being charged, you

[1:05:49] know, which may be appropriate, but not the people in charge of the business, I'm just wondering

[1:05:57] how that plays into this here.

[1:06:00] If at all.

[1:06:02] The answer for purposes of licensing ordinances in general and the ones before you, the owners

[1:06:09] of the business are as sensible for the actions of their employees.

[1:06:14] And that was your question.

[1:06:16] And yes, you can consider the violation.

[1:06:19] Other law violations determining whether or not to provoke the license.

[1:06:26] And was there an additional charge outside of what we read in the police report for the owners of the business under?

[1:06:36] We did not file criminal charges against the owner of the business that, in speaking with the District Attorney, they typically would not file on something like that because they weren't present.

[1:06:49] I think that's a like question.

[1:06:53] I have a question.

[1:06:55] And so the report says that there are complaints received, how many complaints

[1:07:05] who complain with it, just a random inspection of the property are?

[1:07:10] So I'm not personally aware of the direct complaints that we received.

[1:07:14] There was something I was informed about, my supervisor.

[1:07:17] I typically lead all of the tobacco enforcement for the city, and I was made aware

[1:07:22] that we had received at least one complaint.

[1:07:24] And there's that this is a profession code that allows us to

[1:07:30] Of these facilities, and that is what the authority we use to do the inspection was.

[1:07:36] Is the revocation permanent?

[1:07:42] Action?

[1:07:45] I mean, would they be open? Have the ability to open on their establishment?

[1:07:54] probably should be able to drive for again. Under camels, municipal code, the revocation of the tobacco retailer permit, the prohibit them from opening under another permit for at least one year.

[1:08:11] In that regard, though, we do have a moratorium on smoke shops, so I wondered if you might come in on that.

[1:08:16] We do. We do. Very suit, Mira Furtado. We do have a moratorium on smoke shops. If for him, it's new smoke shops coming in to Campbell.

[1:08:26] a smoke shop, and I clarify this through our staff and check on our city attorney.

[1:08:31] Under this instance, in the same location, technically, if it was revoked, could reopen

[1:08:37] in one year.

[1:08:38] Now, it is staff's intent.

[1:08:40] You currently have a moratorium on on new smoke shops, echo retail permits, between now,

[1:08:46] between now and at least a year from now, to bring back a permit ordinance that would

[1:08:51] dictate and regulate how many smoke shops are allowed to say.

[1:08:54] But they're on a further moratorium.

[1:08:56] If back of retail a permit was revoked and it was no further action, they could reopen potentially the same one year.

[1:09:04] In the same location?

[1:09:06] Not a different location.

[1:09:12] Any other questions?

[1:09:15] What is the pleasure of the council?

[1:09:25] I would propose a motion and in particular because of the solicitation to revoke the

[1:09:34] except the staff recommendation.

[1:09:42] I will second the motion.

[1:09:44] This civil servant is a scheduled one drug,

[1:09:46] scheduled one drugs, and the federal register are prohibited

[1:09:51] from possession by anyone, let alone sell it.

[1:09:55] So I'll second the motion.

[1:09:57] Is there further discussion on this motion?

[1:10:00] Yes.

[1:10:00] I would just like to say that I very much know the feeling of you know,

[1:10:06] unfortunately higher incompetent people and they do things outside of your vision so to me

[1:10:12] this is this is difficult because we all agreed to the moratorium and now we have these

[1:10:17] violations and I believe we did express that that we wanted more inspections this is what we

[1:10:23] wanted so we got the news now you know far more than I would have thought our out of

[1:10:28] compliance as we'll see in the next four so as well so we're going to be doing a lot of

[1:10:35] But I'm not exactly sure how to vote on this because to me, it sounds like it would be a year gap if we do this.

[1:10:43] And then, you know, I'm assuming he doesn't own the building, so then someone can move in there in the, in between the year.

[1:10:51] And then, since he has to open up in that exact location, that basically means he can't open it in.

[1:10:57] I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not sure how to vote on this matter myself. I might end up abstaining because I have deep sympathy for the business owner, however I do acknowledge that, you know, his employees were vabbling with illegal substances which we do not want in the community.

[1:11:19] So, yeah, I don't know what to say, I wish that it seems like I can just see where this is going

[1:11:26] and it seems like this means we're putting this in and out of business for good, at least in Campbell.

[1:11:30] That sort of sounds like to me, so just putting that thought out there, I'm not really don't know how to vote on any of these quite frankly.

[1:11:38] I just have to comment and I'm really trying to let myself to factual statements.

[1:11:43] Again, I read through every document and this very closely because I take it seriously.

[1:11:47] And I'm not going to get into specific names or details

[1:11:53] of individuals, even though these are private documents.

[1:11:57] But one, I want to commend the excellent work of our police

[1:12:02] that was cool exemplary and falling procedure going through this

[1:12:07] and carefully documenting multiple cases.

[1:12:11] I don't believe it's fair for an owner.

[1:12:15] and I'll just speak in broad terms generally as you're doing, but for an owner just put the blame

[1:12:21] on lower-level employees. In this case, these were very young individuals without a lot of power

[1:12:28] in the situation or in their situation in life. And I just don't believe it's fair to put that

[1:12:36] blame down on those who are at least positioned to do something about it. And I just personally

[1:12:41] in looking at the facts, do you believe that the order has to take responsibility in this case?

[1:12:50] The opinion, of course, is that it is the owner's responsibility. He has taken responsibility

[1:12:54] for it, and I think the proper action is, I'm sorry, but to revoke the permit.

[1:13:02] And so ask for any further comments, and then we'll need to go to the submitter.

[1:13:06] I do want to thank the order for taking accountability, the decision that I've just voiced

[1:13:13] are the decision, but I encourage the business owner to take another direction and work that

[1:13:23] through.

[1:13:28] If there's no other comments, go up please.

[1:13:31] Councilmember Lopez.

[1:13:33] Councilmember Heinz.

[1:13:34] Councilmember Skisolab.

[1:13:36] I'd stay.

[1:13:36] Vice Mayor, by the way.

[1:13:39] Mayor, Frittado.

[1:13:43] The matter is judged revocation.

[1:13:47] So, any further action I should ask the attorney on this matter, we need to take on this matter?

[1:13:52] No further action is necessary.

[1:13:54] Thank you.

[1:14:01] We now move to item 8.4.

[1:14:10] And 8.4 is a public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution

[1:14:13] revoking the business license and tobacco retailer permit for

[1:14:17] Hayes downtown Smokshop located at 469 East Campbell Avenue in

[1:14:24] afternoon.

[1:14:25] Mayor Furtado on local council members.

[1:14:26] Robby Sue with you again.

[1:14:27] The second of your five

[1:14:28] revocation hearings.

[1:14:30] As mentioned, this is Hayes downtown

[1:14:31] Smoke Shop, 469 East Campbell.

[1:14:34] Adam before you is both by business

[1:14:36] license revocation and the appeal of the

[1:14:38] decision to revoke the tobacco

[1:14:40] retailer permit.

[1:14:42] The evidence before you is on March 5th,

[1:14:46] 2025, an inspection of the

[1:14:48] property by Campbell police.

[1:14:49] identified a large amount of flavor tobacco products for sale.

[1:14:53] Campbell Police also identified a hidden room within the business.

[1:15:00] We're 4,900 tobacco flavored items on the property. As mentioned, tobacco flavored items are prohibited

[1:15:07] for state law, as they target youth and teens to use tobacco products.

[1:15:14] For history, we did send an

[1:15:15] intent to revoke tobacco retailer permit on June 3rd. We did receive an appeal on June 15th. That's

[1:15:21] the item before you tonight is both the appeal hearing and the business license. Revocation.

[1:15:29] Any questions?

[1:15:30] But I remember sort of the kind of thing.

[1:15:32] I just don't know.

[1:15:32] We're still finishing our mayor for toddler.

[1:15:33] I'm sorry about that.

[1:15:34] Pardon me.

[1:15:34] You've a pause.

[1:15:35] I thought you were done.

[1:15:38] I will recognize this is the item and the item behind that you do have a desk item.

[1:15:43] Same business owner on two properties.

[1:15:46] You did receive an email correspondence late in the day today.

[1:15:50] The email identifies a series of issues and objections related to the noticing,

[1:15:55] errors in the resolution.

[1:15:57] an insufficient timing to prepare for this hearing, requesting more timing, requests for more

[1:16:02] time to evaluate evidence, and the wanting to obtain counsel to defend and support

[1:16:08] the business owner.

[1:16:10] Staff's response, I verify with City Clerk, we did stand out all notices in accordance with

[1:16:15] requirements, some of the Campbell Municipal Code sent 10 and five days prior to this hearing.

[1:16:20] There is a very minor clerical error in the resolution in the header.

[1:16:24] It does list a different business, and if you go forward with staff recommendation to

[1:16:30] revoke the business license, I'd request you to read in to the resolution in minor

[1:16:35] minor amendments to the business name in the header of that resolution.

[1:16:39] I will say with respond to requests for more time for evidence.

[1:16:46] The visits to the property by Campbell Plays occurred on March 5, 2025.

[1:16:53] There were a business owner was aware of this visit and the confiscation of evidence.

[1:16:58] It's been well over one year since that happened.

[1:17:00] The business owner could have requested information evidence and anything from Campbell Plays

[1:17:05] with respect to that.

[1:17:06] Again, it's been over a year since that inspection.

[1:17:08] We did send a notice of intent to revoke the tobacco retailer permit over a month ago and put a received request for more information.

[1:17:18] And again, in your administrative record and in your agenda, you've had since last week, the full police documents available to you.

[1:17:26] With that, staff does believe based on the presence of over 4,900 items seized.

[1:17:34] It will illegal flavor tobacco items that the Council can make at least three of the

[1:17:39] five findings to revoke the business license based on public nuisance, contrary to

[1:17:44] public health safety welfare and a violation of the penal code.

[1:17:49] In addition, as flavor tobacco is illegal to sell under California State Law, you can

[1:17:55] revoke the tobacco retell it.

[1:17:57] With this staff recommendations before you, if you are willing to go forward with adoption

[1:18:03] of the resolution revoking the business license to back a retail permit. We'd recommend you do a very

[1:18:09] minor amendment to the resolution acknowledging the business name in the resolution. But that I'm

[1:18:14] available for questions. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:18:18] Yes. That's a question. Rob, on the email that we're sued from the honor item number 7.

[1:18:26] Replication has not authorized for a first violation under the city's own code. Is that?

[1:18:31] I think you're talking about, it's titled under item 8.5.

[1:18:36] You're entitled at the top.

[1:18:38] Go down.

[1:18:38] Let me email, but we're received from this person.

[1:18:42] Item number seven.

[1:18:44] Yes, I know what you're saying, but the,

[1:18:46] Oh, it's a second though, because they refer to both 8.4 and 8.5.

[1:18:51] They just let's say 8.5.

[1:18:54] But because it's relevant to the bottom.

[1:18:57] Based on the business owner and the reference business,

[1:18:59] It's relevant to this item and this is quite a four six and 90s.

[1:19:03] Okay.

[1:19:04] So number seven in this email.

[1:19:07] We talked.

[1:19:08] Talks about representation and then there's steps that could be taken.

[1:19:16] To

[1:19:18] acknowledge that not to not to resolve the permit, but that we could suspend it.

[1:19:25] Is that accurate?

[1:19:26] Is that what our code says?

[1:19:29] So, but that would be an option for a temporary suspension, would be one option.

[1:19:37] Also, there are monetary fines that can be opposed, which is an additional option.

[1:19:45] Or, I mean, the fines can be opposed on top of a replication or a suspension as well.

[1:19:52] Is that something that the staff would recommend?

[1:19:54] I would staff recognition is before you.

[1:19:58] I would note in the code under that section, it does reference another part of the code

[1:20:05] that speaks to the selling of tobacco to underage, you do have those options.

[1:20:09] But it speaks to selling of tobacco to those who are underage, broadly as there is violations

[1:20:15] of state law by selling flavor tobacco, I think it gives you broader options.

[1:20:20] but as Attorney Salaclan mentioned, you do have those options before you also.

[1:20:24] Thank you.

[1:20:29] Yeah, I just had a question on the desk item we have here would be page 3 items 7, so on the final page.

[1:20:36] But there's the claim here, I just want to know, you know, the veracity of this claim if it's true or not,

[1:20:41] but that apparently the permit was issued in 2020, October 6, 2020,

[1:20:46] And then the claim here is that this was before California's flavor to back Obamac took effect,

[1:20:54] which was, I guess, December 21st, 22 according to this.

[1:20:59] And so this person feels that there was nothing to disclose,

[1:21:02] and I understand it was a huge amount of product.

[1:21:06] And so I'm kind of trying to understand if that's accurate and all first of all,

[1:21:09] if there's any truth to that, I'll start with that.

[1:21:14] But he's sworn in, or, again, I'm already been, I think you're killed.

[1:21:21] So, sorry, could you repeat, you said that was the initial claim?

[1:21:26] In this desk, I don't know if we have here,

[1:21:29] there's a claim that the flavored tobacco ban took effect on this certain day,

[1:21:35] and then that his permit or something allowed him,

[1:21:39] him or her, I'm not sure, whoever, to have those items,

[1:21:43] like almost like it was grandfathered in kind of a thing. So I want to know if that's accurate.

[1:21:47] I think what the business owners were referring to in this is that there was some sort of

[1:21:51] ambiguity between whether a, is this as a wholesale license could still possess, to back,

[1:22:02] over to back of products, to be sold, like out of state, online. Interesting. That's been clarified

[1:22:10] now that they cannot. However, I would just like to point out in this case, when I spoke

[1:22:17] to the business owner on site, he made a comment to me that the only way that his business

[1:22:23] would stay in business in the city is if he was to retell these favorite-

[1:22:30] Any selling legitimate items? And that's why you've been doing it. Also, when we looked at the areas that he claimed to be wholesale,

[1:22:39] there was a bunch of boxes that had been opened with like the individual packs of like five or ten items that have items one or two missing, that's clearly not wholesale.

[1:22:48] And furthermore, for this location, in particular, the display floor, primarily had legitimate items displayed,

[1:22:57] however, they had a small corner of items that were technically flavored to backwitons, but they were labeled ambiguously,

[1:23:04] so that it's like, as it conceal the fact that they're flavored.

[1:23:07] However, people that use these products can come in, they see that, and they know that this name, you know, blueberry cloud or whatever,

[1:23:13] blue cloud is blueberry flavored and then that is kind of the signal for them to ask for the

[1:23:18] old items that were then being accessed in the back of the shop. And amongst the debris and

[1:23:25] everything, the garbage that he had back there, that was outside of the room that was hidden.

[1:23:30] And it was actually a pretty clever hidden room. It was very, very well set up to disguise

[1:23:35] this identity. But in that packaging, you can see there were flavored tobacco packages that had been

[1:23:40] been discarded, so they were actively selling them and using them on the premises.

[1:23:46] So I believe that it was the owner's intent to try and skirt this by using his wholesale

[1:23:53] license and get away with selling these items.

[1:23:57] I really appreciate you painting that picture for us.

[1:23:59] Thank you so much.

[1:24:00] I just have a brief follow up through your remark.

[1:24:02] My understanding is that the possession alone, even if you were, is illegal and to

[1:24:10] sell it outside into a legal state or legal area is itself illegal because if the point

[1:24:18] of sale is from a place where it's already illegal to possess it and sell it.

[1:24:23] So, did you clarify the possession of a person, like for a person to possess one of these

[1:24:28] favorite dark items, is not illegal?

[1:24:30] The possession to sell them at one of these sites is illegal and he was claiming that the

[1:24:35] wholesale location was separate being in the back of the business versus the front of

[1:24:39] is being a storefront and at the time of this violation, it was technically illegal but there

[1:24:47] was some ambiguity that was trying to be clarified to have to do with the favor to back

[1:24:52] list being published. And essentially it was not being enforced by the state because the state

[1:24:59] had not published the favor to back a list. All of these items that we're using are clearly

[1:25:04] flavored, whether a determination had been made or not on if they're flavored by the state for that list.

[1:25:13] Thank you.

[1:25:26] Yeah, I have a procedure, I need to follow on this matter.

[1:25:30] So I will invite the appellant to speak first if you wish or the owner or the representative.

[1:25:38] And as such as the appellant, you can actually speak for five minutes.

[1:25:41] So if you'd like to speak, if you are the appellant or the owner, you may do so.

[1:25:52] Therefore, we need to administer the oath.

[1:25:58] Do you respond to the truth?

[1:26:00] I'm going to start over.

[1:26:02] Do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth?

[1:26:04] And nothing but the truth?

[1:26:05] I don't.

[1:26:07] So I have.

[1:26:08] Good evening, everyone.

[1:26:12] My name is Theresewina.

[1:26:13] I hold the permit for both shops.

[1:26:17] I think it's 8.48.

[1:26:19] 5.

[1:26:19] I don't think it's that.

[1:26:21] So I emailed my full reinstatement to the clerk today.

[1:26:24] And asked that it be entered into the record.

[1:26:28] I ask you to continue this hearing. I got noticed that we can go over the holiday weekend

[1:26:34] to answer a case that city worked for 15 months. That's not a fair chance to get a lawyer.

[1:26:41] If you proceed, please follow your own code section 5.580.120, make a first violation of

[1:26:49] suspension at least 30 days. Revocation only comes on a third violation. This is a first

[1:26:55] violation and 5.58, 0.1300, the only first offense revocation route does not apply because

[1:27:05] my permit issue in 2020 before the flavor tobacco ban exists. So the lawful penalty here

[1:27:12] is a suspension notification. I reserve all the right and the code of civil producer 109415.

[1:27:22] thank you. Also, you know, I just want to say something, most of the flavor to back over

[1:27:30] seas, it's 50 approved. Literally, there's a lot of flavor to back over seas, it's if they

[1:27:35] are approved. And I've never sold any THC, any drugs, anything like that, it's a flavor to

[1:27:40] back over. And I received a big violation from the state and I'm paying it. So I don't think

[1:27:47] it's fair to get my license suspended,

[1:27:51] sorry, revoked, because of a one-time violation

[1:27:54] within six years, I've been a good shop,

[1:27:59] check, we never sold to anybody under 21 or over,

[1:28:05] who check IDs, and this to that clever tobacco product,

[1:28:09] everybody will confuse the bottom,

[1:28:10] and for the wholesale business they were talking about.

[1:28:13] Yes, I didn't have a wholesale business back before

[1:28:17] the flavor to backbone and we do, I do have invoices, I have everything that actually

[1:28:21] it's coming from that location. I have invoices for other people not to the public for people

[1:28:28] they actually hold license, legit license that I have invoices I sold it to them. So if the

[1:28:35] officer saying this product was used for the public, that's not true.

[1:28:42] So all I'm asking is

[1:28:43] I need an extension more time for that because I think this is unfair to just

[1:28:50] reflect on my life things and get it on my employees, get it on my store,

[1:28:54] I don't think this is fair.

[1:28:57] That's all I've got to say thank you guys.

[1:28:59] Thank you.

[1:29:01] Before there's any further comment from staff for the attorney,

[1:29:05] I'm going to open the public hearing and take additional testimony.

[1:29:08] So is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this matter?

[1:29:12] Yes, please come forward.

[1:29:18] Good evening, Council members.

[1:29:20] Celebrate members of the public.

[1:29:21] You'll need to be sworn and also.

[1:29:27] Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,

[1:29:29] and nothing but the truth?

[1:29:31] I swear.

[1:29:33] Good evening.

[1:29:34] My name is Marta Champ.

[1:29:36] I am a family.

[1:29:38] My sister is married to Ted.

[1:29:40] He is my brother-in-law.

[1:29:42] I'm here speaking on behalf of myself,

[1:29:45] not in a said turning, not as his attorney.

[1:29:49] I'm asking you to do two things.

[1:29:51] continue this hearing if you don't follow your own ordinance and it's up.

[1:30:00] Was just talking about, because a few of those points don't really hold up. First, notice. Staff pointed to the notice of intent from a month ago. That is not the notice that matters. Your own code section 5.581.150 of Campbell code municipal code requires that the notice of tonight's hearing be mailed at least ten days before the hearing.

[1:30:25] It arrived June 30th for July 7th hearing, while it was also during a Fourth of July

[1:30:32] Weekend.

[1:30:33] That still has not pulled you the date that the hearing was actually mailed, I'd ask them

[1:30:38] to state it on the record right now.

[1:30:42] You'll need to complete your testimony.

[1:30:45] Before Second.

[1:30:46] Second.

[1:30:47] Second.

[1:30:48] Staff set that full police record has been available to the Council since last week that actually

[1:30:53] proves their point.

[1:30:54] if the council itself only received the complete record last week when the owner who got it

[1:30:59] days over a holiday did not have a fair chance to review it and respond. That is the fairness

[1:31:05] problems. Not the answer to it. The city worked to skates for over a year. The owner got a few

[1:31:11] business days notice. Third, staff said the owner could have more information. Respectfully,

[1:31:17] This is a denovo hearing. What that means is that the burden is on the city.

[1:31:23] Not on him who is the petitioner.

[1:31:29] Here, the owner hears the city has to prove their rounds.

[1:31:36] It can't shift the burden on to him.

[1:31:39] Fourth and most important, please look out the provision.

[1:31:42] Staff put on your screen for the tobacco permit.

[1:31:45] The city is relying on Section 5.5, 8.1, 0, read its own penalty, a civil fine of $251,000 per

[1:31:55] violation or new sons of eight minutes does not authorize revoking a permit, revocation

[1:32:00] lists in Section 5.5, 8.1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, and 5.5, 8.1, 3, 0, and those applied to sales

[1:32:09] to minors violation, or a permit that was wrongfully issued.

[1:32:13] This is neither. This permit was issued in 2020 more than two years before the flavored

[1:32:18] ballot to back of ban existed. So it was valid. The issued and the application was

[1:32:23] not false. So the city's on record does not support the revocation at most. It supports

[1:32:28] a fine. I'm asking you to continue this hearing session to be heard fairly. Thank you and I'm

[1:32:35] asking the city out to look. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter?

[1:32:44] So I will invite the appellant to come back if you like for some additional comments.

[1:33:06] Yeah, I have more comments. So again, my business been established for over six years now.

[1:33:12] We'll move on with a code.

[1:33:15] No other 21 of age is allowed to enter the store. We have a big sign.

[1:33:21] I have my employees. Everything we do is legit.

[1:33:26] We never had any violation, we never had any problems with that story.

[1:33:30] It's only one time.

[1:33:32] This happened.

[1:33:33] Everybody was confused about the flavor ban.

[1:33:37] It's just a one time violation.

[1:33:41] And most of the flavor that they took is FDA approved.

[1:33:44] They're saying it's illegal because it's not if they approved.

[1:33:48] No.

[1:33:48] Most of it was FDA approved.

[1:33:50] I have, I can show you proofs, I can show you everything that it's FDA approved.

[1:33:56] If you go online, look at dual, for example, it's the FDA approved, then it's the FDA approved.

[1:34:01] Some malarasigar, flavored cigar, are if the FDA approved.

[1:34:05] So, and again, I've never sold any TSC product,

[1:34:09] they'll take product, shrumes, anything like this, never, and will never do.

[1:34:14] And also, all those things that they use for the heavy drugs,

[1:34:18] It's not allowed to be in my store.

[1:34:21] We literally people come in and ask for it, we said,

[1:34:23] we'll have it starting, please don't come back and get from it.

[1:34:25] So, literally we follow the law, we're good, good store,

[1:34:29] and I have a lot of customers that come in by cigars.

[1:34:34] Cigars, cigars, cigars.

[1:34:35] I have a lot of, from 40 years old to 70 years old,

[1:34:40] they come in and they're really regular.

[1:34:42] They've been coming to my shop for a long time.

[1:34:44] They buy cigars.

[1:34:44] I can't just, not sell cigars because I don't have a tobacco license, and this is my regularers, cigarette cigars, tobacco product, it doesn't have to be flavor tobacco.

[1:34:55] Okay, no flavor tobacco, but I have other tobacco items that I can sell.

[1:34:58] I have Shisha, Shisha is 100% legal and California, even flavored Shisha is legal and California to sell because it's traditional.

[1:35:07] I have too many people they come in and buy Shisha tobacco.

[1:35:10] I just didn't know I don't have it. Please go to the next store.

[1:35:13] I can't just lose my business like that.

[1:35:15] I have to have a tobacco permit to sell these kind of items.

[1:35:19] It doesn't have to be just flavor to that.

[1:35:21] Okay, if I sold THC, if I sold stuff like this,

[1:35:23] okay, I'll tell you as I'm sorry, I was wrong,

[1:35:25] but I've never done anything like that.

[1:35:28] All of this is a flavor to that.

[1:35:29] Okay, we're not selling it anymore.

[1:35:31] It's done.

[1:35:33] Do you come and get me a year and a half later,

[1:35:35] or do you work my license?

[1:35:39] Yeah, that's it.

[1:35:40] So please just, I don't think revoking my license is an option.

[1:35:46] Yeah, maybe you can, I already have a big violation. I'm paying it.

[1:35:49] I have a big violation from this state. I'm going to be paying it.

[1:35:53] So revoking my license and paying my violation and have another five years least with my landlord,

[1:35:59] pay him another my five five because I have to get on my store just because of one violation.

[1:36:04] Everybody was confused about it.

[1:36:06] Well, it's pretty much it. Thank you guys.

[1:36:08] Thank you, so I will close the public here on this matter, bring it back, I would like our city attorney to comment on the legal matters brought up and where we stand and what your opinion is on this matter.

[1:36:27] It's a fairly broad question.

[1:36:32] The city council is charged with determining whether there is sufficient evidence to

[1:36:40] revoke the business license as well as the retail tobacco sale license.

[1:36:48] If you find that there was a violation of the law in the operation of this business,

[1:36:55] you can revoke the license. There was a comment that we had to wait until I believe the third violation,

[1:37:03] there is a provision in the statute that makes revocation mandatory after that number of violations.

[1:37:10] It does not prescribe imposing a revocation for one violation in order to violate.

[1:37:21] So what you're saying is that we're not prevented from revoking the

[1:37:30] After the third time, it's mandatory. Correct. Okay.

[1:37:37] Okay. So thank you. All asked for any further comments right now by the council.

[1:37:45] Yeah, so, again, about these specific ones that are coming up right now, you know, I ask where's the victim, you know, that's one thing like, as far as I know, you know, we got to take these by case by case basis, but is there any information in anyone to answer if there was an actual victim or like, you know, somehow like a mom was upset that her kid, you know, there's been no violations with when it comes to the other league.

[1:38:12] like, you know, he was talking about, he always makes sure to ID, et cetera, et cetera, and that's all the state standards other than, you know, this flavored tobacco.

[1:38:24] So again, I'm very conflicted. I see someone who's learned a hard lesson, you know, a business member of our community, you know, and if he flies right from now on, if he learned a really hard lesson and he flies right from now on,

[1:38:37] And we continue our random inspections.

[1:38:40] I think that, you know, our smokestops, all of them, well, let's hope that they'll get into compliance.

[1:38:46] So that's kind of where I feel about this, and I'll just curious if anyone can see what I'm saying there.

[1:38:53] No. Like I believe in forgiveness, basically, you know.

[1:38:56] When it's not like straight up illegal, you know, like he has not, I mean, well, I guess we're

[1:39:02] back with a little bit. But the information that's in front of us right now,

[1:39:06] I feel like we are lacking some information because of what I'm reading here and

[1:39:10] you know that was a good picture like I understand you know both perspectives I truly do.

[1:39:16] So I'm again at a loss but I don't like the idea of eliminating businesses in Campbell

[1:39:22] which is the lifewood and also it's their family's lifewood you know. So I heard a couple

[1:39:29] pretty compelling testimonies right now from owners and people care about the owners in their shop.

[1:39:35] So I just like to see if there's any, you know, any agreements with my sentiments here, that may be forgiveness, you know, if it wasn't like to me, you know,

[1:39:46] it was, we're taking these by a case by case basis, and I right. So in this case, I, I'm not leaning towards revocation.

[1:39:56] Well, that's much more about it.

[1:39:59] Could a member of staff respond on the adequacy of the notice?

[1:40:06] I can speak to that.

[1:40:08] Can you speak to that?

[1:40:10] Oh, you want to do that?

[1:40:12] You know the words.

[1:40:15] Thank you.

[1:40:16] You affirm the testimony that you're about to give.

[1:40:19] I'll leave the truth the whole trip is nothing but the truth.

[1:40:22] I do.

[1:40:24] So, notices were sent to the property owners as well as the store of via certified mail on June 26th, and then again on July 7th.

[1:40:40] So I,

[1:40:45] me as sort of five now, and did we request a return receipt?

[1:40:50] We did request a return receipt.

[1:40:53] So I pulled the tracking information for the notices that were sent on June 26.

[1:41:02] Those were all received.

[1:41:05] It shows that it does show that they were delivered both on June 29th and June 30th.

[1:41:15] They were picked up from the post office on June 27th.

[1:41:19] They were postmarked June 26th.

[1:41:23] Is that was in the legal requirement of our code?

[1:41:29] Yes.

[1:41:29] we have a 10 day or 15 day or something?

[1:41:33] Yes, with regard to the business license,

[1:41:36] the notice has to be mailed only five days prior to the hearing date

[1:41:44] with regard to the tobacco retail permit revocation hearing.

[1:41:49] It needs to be within 10 days prior to the hearing

[1:41:54] and both of those meet those times range.

[1:41:57] And then the owner referenced a couple of state violations, or he's paying on the state violation, is that he received some kind of penalties in the state.

[1:42:15] So the CDKFA, the California Department of Tax and the Administration, they do tobacco enforcement,

[1:42:23] federal tobacco enforcement. And this case was referred to them instead of to the district attorney for

[1:42:28] prosecution. So instead of requesting criminal charges against the owner in this case,

[1:42:33] we provided them with all of the flavor tobacco products, which they destroyed,

[1:42:37] free of cost to the city. And they do go after the business owner,

[1:42:40] I don't know the extent of that.

[1:42:44] So that was part of what he was referring to to them.

[1:42:46] I would assume so.

[1:42:47] Thank you.

[1:42:48] Well, you're still there.

[1:42:49] I'm just going to ask you to.

[1:42:50] Could you just kind of repeat once again the violations that you actually found yourself?

[1:42:55] It was.

[1:42:56] The violation was a first selling.

[1:42:59] Flavor tobacco products.

[1:43:01] Retail and tobacco facility.

[1:43:06] I don't recall the long coat off the top of my head, but I can provide it to you if you need it.

[1:43:10] And the date that you had that, did you saw the violation?

[1:43:18] Will you assume March of 2025 as a current?

[1:43:22] Okay, thank you.

[1:43:28] Can I ask for staff to respond on a suspension versus a revocation?

[1:43:40] Is that an option?

[1:43:42] Yes indeed suspension.

[1:43:44] is an option. In fact, it's mandatory, a mandatory for the first violation is a 30 day

[1:43:54] suspension.

[1:43:59] And what does that exactly mean? That means they cannot operate the business

[1:44:06] No other, I mean, they can't sell, they can't sell to back old products.

[1:44:22] I got that answer, that question answered the second question on the response on the FDA approved.

[1:44:31] Can I get the clarification on the meaningfulness of it being FDA approved?

[1:44:40] So, I'm not expert in FDA approval of these kind of products, but you know, the FDA is a federal body who approves the child products and keeps it for federal approval, but it has nothing to do with the state down it.

[1:45:02] May

[1:45:05] be I can clarify a little bit of what the gentleman was speaking about earlier, is that it is legal to sell certain.

[1:45:14] Oh, well, well, for let the public record notice that what the gentleman, the business owner was talking about was that we do allow the state does allow for certain

[1:45:23] flavored tobacco products that somehow be so legally even there's a lot of

[1:45:29] against it you can go to your local 7-11 and get yourself some zins which is

[1:45:33] tobacco pouches with flavor in it. 7-11 you can't buy you can trust me like if you want to

[1:45:43] look into it you you can totally buy those products trust me and jewels which are

[1:45:49] technically. Anyways, it's a whole thing and it is confusing. He's not

[1:45:53] wrong about that because certain places are able to sell certain things that

[1:45:59] are technically flavored tobacco products, but for whatever reason they're okay.

[1:46:03] And so there's massive confusion. I agree 100% with that. Just shop owner

[1:46:07] about that.

[1:46:09] Well, that's the city attorney for opinion. I thought flavored tobacco and

[1:46:13] California was illegal to sell in the state of California to any one of

[1:46:18] in the age.

[1:46:21] That is my understanding. I can't say I specifically research the issue now.

[1:46:27] So as in, even though it is literally tobacco with flavoring that you put in a pouch

[1:46:32] in your mouth, that is not considered I, that's, I'm just saying that that is sold at 7

[1:46:37] 11's and gas stations all over the place. And so that doesn't qualify, I'm just not aware of.

[1:46:44] So there are unflavered tobacco products that are legal for sale.

[1:46:49] You can buy unflavered Zinn at any gas station, 711, those are the specific products that

[1:46:56] do not fall on any of the flavored tobacco, because they don't have a character's favorite

[1:47:01] characteristic profile, which is defined by the state, and that's where the flavored tobacco

[1:47:04] retell this came from, is to establish which items are flavored and which ones are not.

[1:47:11] However, you cannot, by legally, by any flavor tobacco from 7-11, I think that, I wonder,

[1:47:18] did make a reference to Shisha, which is a flavor tobacco product that is one exemption

[1:47:23] to the law.

[1:47:24] It is a product that's made specifically, be smoked out of a traditional hookah smoking pipe

[1:47:31] where you have a big bowl and a thing on top and it's done at a table top, it's not something

[1:47:35] that is readily available for kids to run around and be using that.

[1:47:40] Thank you.

[1:47:45] I'm sorry.

[1:47:45] I cannot call anyone from the public.

[1:47:47] It goes to the public hearing in the matters for the City Council.

[1:47:52] Other comments by members of the Council?

[1:47:58] Zero motion.

[1:48:07] I'll propose a motion just to spend the license.

[1:48:12] Is it what carried it time for 30 days?

[1:48:16] Is there a shorter?

[1:48:17] That thought.

[1:48:18] The 30 days is the mandatory amount of time.

[1:48:20] 30 days.

[1:48:25] I'll second.

[1:48:28] We have a motion in a second.

[1:48:30] I will not support this motion.

[1:48:32] I'm sorry, but flavor tobacco is illegal in the state of California and I don't see a way around that and so I will not support only as a suspension, but we'll take a vote of course, so we'll call please.

[1:48:48] Council member Lopez.

[1:48:50] Council member Heinz.

[1:48:51] I'm sorry, but this would be like kind of the minimal penalty that we're invoking here.

[1:49:00] I thought yesterday the motion on the floor is to suspend the license for 30 days, 30 days, okay, and that just that did seem like kind of this, like minimum, okay, I'm just going to say, I think that's

[1:49:14] I know, yes, vote.

[1:49:16] I'm fear of I meet no.

[1:49:17] And your photo?

[1:49:19] No.

[1:49:21] The motion fails.

[1:49:30] is there another motion? I will offer a motion to revoke the license.

[1:49:38] I'll second. We have a motion in a second to revoke the license. If there are no other comments, I'll take a vote on this matter.

[1:49:51] Did you want to comment? No, sorry.

[1:49:54] Okay, I'll ask the clerk to call roll.

[1:49:56] That part made.

[1:49:57] I'll ask the clerk to call call on this mayor.

[1:50:00] Council member Lopez.

[1:50:02] Council member Heinz.

[1:50:04] Council member Skizola.

[1:50:06] Vice Mayor Bibi.

[1:50:07] Mayor Fattado.

[1:50:13] So, for I am 8.4 of our license three.

[1:50:16] Go home.

[1:50:16] Do we not move to item 8.5?

[1:50:18] This is the public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution

[1:50:20] revolving into business license and tobacco retail

[1:50:23] I'll permit for hate, smoke, shot, look at it at 20-50 South Baskin Avenue in Campbell.

[1:50:30] I'm sorry, I had my microphone off, but I think you've heard me. So once again, I'll ask Mr.

[1:50:36] Eastwood to provide the comment from the staff.

[1:50:43] I have a panel of council members, back with you again, this would be very similar to your prior item.

[1:50:49] Facts are similar, but distinctive of this case, and before you today is,

[1:50:55] I'm sharing it with you, bring up the item.

[1:51:02] Is proposed business license for a vacation of Hayes Smokshop?

[1:51:06] We was the same property owner.

[1:51:07] This business is located at 2050 South Baskham.

[1:51:10] The evidence before you today is a March 5th, 2025 inspection by Campbell Police.

[1:51:16] Large amount of flavor tobacco products were found for sale.

[1:51:18] In this instance, also a hidden room was found on site.

[1:51:22] There were receipts of labor tobacco sales also found on site.

[1:51:27] A camel police officer sees over 630 labor tobacco items.

[1:51:33] Similar with the prior case, a notice of intent to revoke that tobacco retailer permit was sent on June 3rd.

[1:51:38] We did receive the appeal, which is proper for you today, that the Novo hearing on tobacco retailer permit on June 15th.

[1:51:44] the bottom for you today is to consider both the business license and the tobacco retailer permit.

[1:51:51] Similar to the last case, the same business owners made the same email, objecting, and

[1:51:57] providing issues with perspective noticing the errors in the resolution, evidence for the hearing.

[1:52:02] Saff has the same responses with the prior one, verifying that the notices were sent out in

[1:52:07] the proper time, 10 and 5 days prior to the hearing. Again, if you do move forward with the resolution,

[1:52:12] There is a very minor clerical error that we would ask you, a men in the resolution, and, again,

[1:52:19] as mentioned, the police documentation could be available if requested, has the police investigation

[1:52:25] started on March 5th at last.

[1:52:30] The Council revoked the business license as at least three of the five findings can be made, revoked in the business license, and that also you uphold a revocation of the tobacco retail requirement in the opinion.

[1:52:43] I'm a bill for questions as are very soft.

[1:52:45] Thank you.

[1:52:50] Any questions from members of the Council at this point?

[1:52:58] Okay,

[1:53:03] so now I will invite the appellant on this matter 8.5 to address the council and if you'd like to do so you have five minutes to speak.

[1:53:30] Yeah, I mean, I don't think again, it's fair to revoke the license. Again, he said

[1:53:39] the only fancy 130 items. Again, it's most of it, or whatever, it's if they approved.

[1:53:49] Also, I asked you guys

[1:53:51] to continue this hearing, because I need more time to consider a lawyer for this matter.

[1:54:03] But I just, I mean, again, Section 5.58.120 makes, doesn't make the first violation

[1:54:13] a revocation. It should be suspension. And again, when you said as suspension for 30 days,

[1:54:18] I think that's very fair. You can see it's fitting me for 30 days, but none of my last

[1:54:23] days for one year, losing two stores just like that. It really, really hurts.

[1:54:30] So, I got a violation. I already learned my lesson not to self-level tobacco again.

[1:54:36] And again, who not selling drugs, not saying THC, not selling any of the other stuff they were

[1:54:41] talking about. It's a flavor tobacco. Even if you read the law, it says, if you self-level

[1:54:46] to back was not a crime. You will be into a penalty's divisive level to back or start a crime,

[1:54:56] but you will be fined this much for each item, which is I got fined this much for this

[1:55:01] item. I'm being a lot of money right now for my violations, but to just revolve my

[1:55:08] license, I don't think it's fair, I think it's unfair.

[1:55:14] I mean, I can manage that, but just to lose my whole license for one year, I don't think that's fair.

[1:55:23] It just gives me more time, let me fight that, let me just do something.

[1:55:29] But just to lose my license, to lose my source, to lose both locations.

[1:55:33] Again, I don't think it's fair.

[1:55:35] Maybe you guys don't know a lot about flavor tobacco ban in California, but about a year ago,

[1:55:41] two years ago, everybody was confused about it, the whole, like every each store in California

[1:55:47] was confused about it. Okay, I got a violation, I cannot sell flavor to back on him. Yes,

[1:55:52] I'm not going to sell flavor to back on him, but I have other tobacco items, I have to sell

[1:55:57] to survive. Like we have other tobacco items to sell to survive, they're not flavoring,

[1:56:03] they're unflavered to back, as the officer says, there's a lot of unflavered to back,

[1:56:06] yes, there's a lot of unflavered to back, this is what we're sending going out.

[1:56:10] So, okay, no flavor tobacco, no flavor tobacco, but there's other tobacco items we have to sell to survive.

[1:56:18] Just close my store and to do what we should do.

[1:56:22] Just get rid of my employees, I have a lot of employees.

[1:56:25] Just get rid of them, get rid of myself, I'm gonna take care of my family, I'm gonna take care of everything else.

[1:56:31] You know, I'm surviving right now with that's an incredible tobacco.

[1:56:36] So that's the case, I'm surviving with that's an incredible tobacco.

[1:56:40] Yeah, just please, just because sort of that not to revoke the license for that store,

[1:56:46] specifically that store, I don't want to give it that tobacco license to revoke.

[1:56:50] This store has been open for six years, it has been established.

[1:56:53] For one violation, just revoking license, yeah, just follow your code, follow your code,

[1:56:59] and give me a 30-day suspension.

[1:57:02] That's a pretty much it.

[1:57:04] Thank you.

[1:57:05] Thank you.

[1:57:07] Is there, does anyone else who's just speaking?

[1:57:13] I

[1:57:16] just want to ask, should I get sworn in again?

[1:57:21] I just want to speak to the legality of the re-vocation.

[1:57:26] The slide that was presented was pointing out to Section Code 5.581.10 that authorizes the fine, not a revocation.

[1:57:36] The only section that authorizes revocations are 5.58.120, which requires a third sales

[1:57:45] to minor's violation and 5.58.130, a wrongly issued permit, neither one applies here.

[1:57:54] There's no sales to minor's allegations, and the permit was validly issued before the

[1:58:00] of labor ban exists.

[1:58:02] If the council revokes anyways, it's acting

[1:58:04] without authority under its own ordinance.

[1:58:08] The other reasons that matter is that a revocation

[1:58:11] has to be supported by findings at TIV evidence

[1:58:14] to the section that actually authorizes the revocation.

[1:58:17] There are none here, because no such section fits.

[1:58:22] Second review, if it is challenged by a red undercoat

[1:58:25] of civil procedure of 194.5, the court asked whether the city proceeded in the matter required

[1:58:32] by law and whether the findings were supported by the decision revoking on 5.5, 8.110,

[1:58:39] which only allows a fine would not survive this review.

[1:58:44] Also, on the matter of the published list of the flavored lists that came out,

[1:58:55] that list

[1:58:55] The inspection was done months before in March,

[1:58:59] nine months before the even list of approved,

[1:59:03] what was approved, not approved,

[1:59:06] from what was flavored and not flavored,

[1:59:09] that wasn't even out yet when they went through and ramaging.

[1:59:13] And this was still figured out being figured out.

[1:59:15] This just got into play last just very,

[1:59:19] it was December.

[1:59:21] So that's another huge point.

[1:59:24] So the list didn't come out till December 31st, 2025 in this inspection.

[1:59:30] Thank you.

[1:59:31] Thank you.

[1:59:33] Would anyone else like to speak on this matter?

[1:59:36] Yes, sir.

[1:59:43] How are you guys?

[1:59:45] I'm speak up.

[1:59:47] Fayaz Ahmed.

[1:59:49] Do you affirm to tell the whole truth?

[1:59:52] Do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth?

[1:59:55] Yes, I do.

[2:00:00] The California cigar, number three, my friend, just about business, like in Europe, I mean, this

[2:00:08] is his first relations. And this business has been, has been a winchester for almost more

[2:00:14] than 10 years. And he just bought it. He just young, young guy just started free his family.

[2:00:21] And this is one of the evaluation. You have a flavor product. He's, he's sorry, and he's ready

[2:00:27] to, you can't give them another chance just by the business of that community.

[2:00:32] I'm sorry.

[2:00:34] I'm sorry.

[2:00:35] I'm sorry.

[2:00:38] I'm sorry.

[2:00:40] You're speaking on three?

[2:00:43] Yeah.

[2:00:44] For kind of a pretty cigar.

[2:00:46] We've already heard the, we've already taken action at 8.3.

[2:00:52] We're on 8.5 now.

[2:00:53] Yeah.

[2:00:53] But we thought he had to add something to that too.

[2:00:57] But we've already taken action every point three.

[2:00:59] You can always speak on 8.5.

[2:01:03] I'm sorry, I mean, I thought you were talking about this particular.

[2:01:07] No, but also for him, as well, too,

[2:01:11] like he mentioned tobacco product, it's been a chaos for everyone.

[2:01:16] Everybody tried to make a living.

[2:01:18] That's only businesses they have.

[2:01:20] So what else they're going to do?

[2:01:21] I mean, besides.

[2:01:22] but I'll use like mentioned fine 30 days suspension. I think that's fair enough, you know, but

[2:01:28] just put them out of business, I don't think that's fair. Thank you.

[2:01:34] Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter?

[2:01:41] Well, I can, the appellet can actually come back if you like

[2:01:45] for three additional minutes, there's no other public testimony.

[2:02:00] It has to be 8.5. We've already

[2:02:02] to make an option on the 8.3.

[2:02:06] Yeah, again, I'm sure a lot of you guys don't really know about the flavor to back or one.

[2:02:13] You probably can fuse about it.

[2:02:16] What's right to sale, what's not right to sale, it's the whole thing is confusing.

[2:02:21] That's what I actually mentioned in December of 2025, they came up to the list.

[2:02:26] California came up with a list.

[2:02:29] It's called the tobacco list or something.

[2:02:32] So what you can sell, and whatever is not in that list, you cannot sell.

[2:02:38] So California said we're going to provide the list and nothing in that list,

[2:02:42] then you cannot sell it pretty much.

[2:02:44] So this is what I'm coming from.

[2:02:46] This is what I'm telling you.

[2:02:47] All the flavor tobacco is confusing to everyone.

[2:02:50] I got a violation.

[2:02:52] I'm paying the violation from the state.

[2:02:54] It's a huge violation.

[2:02:55] By the way, it's not a small number.

[2:02:57] And I accepted, I'm paying it, so now losing my store is another thing, you know, it just,

[2:03:05] please, just, I think this suspension is fair enough, to revolve my license is unfair,

[2:03:13] you know, unfair, from one violation, revolve my license, I've never had any violations,

[2:03:18] never had any violations, it's been open for six years, never had any violations, never, never.

[2:03:23] Okay, we had, sometimes we had under covers come to the store and they check like, because

[2:03:28] we, you know, they send decoys and under cover, that's under age.

[2:03:32] We have to see there are ideas if there are under 21, we tell them, please do not come to

[2:03:36] the store again.

[2:03:37] Like, we follow the law, one violation revoking license, I think that's unfair.

[2:03:42] So please consider just suspension, suspension I'm happy with, I'm okay, I can live 30 days

[2:03:49] with a suspension but live one year with it with a revoking license and I think that that hurts

[2:03:54] is still much. So yeah please miss thank you. Thank you. So I will close the public hearing on

[2:04:04] this matter bring it back to council and I'll just make a initial comment myself since this is

[2:04:10] the second store of this person you already taken action one store and I'm willing on this particular

[2:04:18] motion to propose a 30-day suspension to allow him to remain in business to sell back home.

[2:04:28] That's just my opinion. I'm open to other comments.

[2:04:31] I agree. Oh, hardly with that. I think it's a good compromise to lose both stores. It's

[2:04:36] totally brutal. You know, that's just potentially life-ending for any business man, you know.

[2:04:42] So yeah, I would agree with the mayor.

[2:04:46] I concur as well because I have two comments on this

[2:04:50] is that the event that had the issue

[2:04:54] was back almost over a year ago, March 2025.

[2:05:00] And I'm aware of any subsequent investigation in there.

[2:05:06] So that consideration of time experience,

[2:05:10] I think is the consideration absolutely there should not be any selling of flavor tobacco that's absolutely the case, but I just want to make those comments because I do agree with the suspension as I said before.

[2:05:27] Other comments?

[2:05:28] I just have a question. What's different with this one, as opposed to the previous one?

[2:05:35] Yes, I think. The same situation where they're selling illegal product.

[2:05:43] I would say...

[2:05:44] I'm sorry. I'm asking the mayor.

[2:05:46] Oh, I didn't know that. I thought I was a general. Sorry.

[2:05:48] Why?

[2:05:50] What difference is it with this one, suspending it rather than revoking?

[2:05:54] And well, my only thought was this was the second business by the same owner.

[2:06:01] He apparently has no other means of support.

[2:06:04] And I was willing to consider that in this situation only.

[2:06:08] I will ask the city attorney once again to comment on the law.

[2:06:12] Several comments have made about, you know, when lists were published, when they weren't published,

[2:06:18] Whether the law was clear or not, and I have to rely on your opinion as to your understanding

[2:06:26] as to what and when, and I wonder if you could comment further on this whole matter.

[2:06:39] is my understanding that at the time that the inspection was made, that the list of

[2:06:52] flavored tobacco items had not been published. So there could have been some confusion

[2:07:00] during, at that period of time, was to the products eye,

[2:07:08] officer,

[2:07:11] may know differently with that regard, but it's my understanding that the list did not impublish, whether that it was clear or not that what was being sold at this point.

[2:07:32] The officer may have a better handle on that than I do with regard to the ordinance that we're using.

[2:07:49] This is a model ordinance that was developed by, well, I don't know the non-profit.

[2:07:57] developed it, it is not the most precise ordinance that we have on our books, I'll say that.

[2:08:10] To clarify about the flavor tobacco list, I believe the flavor tobacco was prohibited back in

[2:08:16] 2022 sometime. In January 1st of 2025, the Health and Safety Code 1045595A1 defines

[2:08:27] which is the term that they use in the prohibition of flavor to back home.

[2:08:32] It says,

[2:08:37] It says,

[2:08:38] It says,

[2:08:46] It says,

[2:08:47] It says,

[2:08:55] It says,

[2:08:56] or a cooling sensation, distinguishable by an orary consumer during the consumption of a tobacco

[2:09:01] product.

[2:09:03] So as of January of 2025 prior to this case, they defined a flavor tobacco and what it

[2:09:10] is and it's pretty apparent to anyone that if you're buying a flavor tobacco that is labeled as a

[2:09:17] fruit or a berry or some sort of dessert flavor which is many of the items we found that that is a

[2:09:26] list, it's actually an unflavered tobacco list and it's to clarify for certain things.

[2:09:31] For example, a camel crush is kind of a vague item. If you smoke a camel crush cigarette,

[2:09:38] it is a normal tobacco flavored cigarette where you're smoking it. Unless you crush the ball

[2:09:43] in the filter, which releases a mental or cooling sensation. So in order to distinguish between

[2:09:49] these products that are vague or unclear, they started to create the unflavered tobacco list,

[2:09:54] which would allow items that are maybe uncertain

[2:09:58] to be justified as being awful for sale.

[2:10:01] It's not a list that completely lists all the things

[2:10:03] that are prohibited.

[2:10:05] And the ones that are broadly apparent to people

[2:10:08] should already be well-known that you cannot sell them.

[2:10:12] No, at the very beginning, you said January, 22 bit.

[2:10:15] Then it didn't generate 25.

[2:10:17] So I just wondered if you might.

[2:10:20] Yeah, so I don't know if it was in January,

[2:10:22] But back in 2022, when the flavored tobacco provision started, in 2025, the health and safety code defined the term terrorizing flavor to clarify, probably to do to issues of uncertainty in the past.

[2:10:38] And so at the time that this case happened, that law had already been in fact for several months and it pretty blatantly explains what is flavored.

[2:10:53] Okay, thank you, that helps.

[2:10:55] I have an additional question from the incident report, comparing this one in 8.4.

[2:11:03] It was clear in the previous report from the previous one that there had been an intent

[2:11:09] to conceal this hidden room. Was that the case in this one?

[2:11:15] The story was quite a bit larger footprint than the last.

[2:11:19] When we spoke about, there was a decent sized footprint of the store that sold mostly non-prohibited

[2:11:28] items.

[2:11:29] However, we did find some prohibit items on that display floor, and then there was a small room

[2:11:33] that was adjacent to the cash register where the employees could easily run back and grab

[2:11:38] the flavored items and they were set up on shelves outside of boxes ready to go for someone

[2:11:42] to grab one with items missing from certain packages, and something of note for this location

[2:11:47] is there was a much larger room probably double the size of the one from the last one that was found

[2:11:54] that is in the same building. It was behind closed door on either under the shop there was

[2:11:59] two doors of light into it and the owner had posted his wholesale tobacco license on the door

[2:12:05] under a different name and it was my intention that or my belief that his intention was to

[2:12:10] try and protect that product and that was back there from seizure and at the time the CDTFA was

[2:12:15] gave guidance not to seize the wholesale items as it was a separate store. However,

[2:12:21] when we did inspect that area, there was a lot of open packages. We had single items missing,

[2:12:27] and it's my personal belief that he was restocking that small room that the cashier was selling items

[2:12:33] from with items that were if you will protected by this wholesale license. It was adjacent to it.

[2:12:40] I would estimate that items in that room that were not seized in addition to this 600 or so that

[2:12:46] were seized was probably an excess of 5,000 items,

[2:12:55] and that warehouse license of the same address

[2:12:57] as the retail location.

[2:12:58] It had the same address, but I believe it had a different name, it was like Bluffis Under,

[2:13:02] like Black Wolf will sail or something along that line.

[2:13:12] Sorry.

[2:13:16] Officer, this was in March, March 20, 25, investigation, the district.

[2:13:22] Okay.

[2:13:22] Thank you.

[2:13:27] That's an entire different spin on this whole thing here in any other comments.

[2:13:35] Well, I am curious about a little bit more detail on the wholesale aspect and what was

[2:13:42] found there.

[2:13:43] So the majority of it was on pictureing kind of like big box shipping boxes filled with

[2:13:48] product or something of that nature, or how is it arranged because what I'm wondering

[2:13:53] is anyone could go like even me, you know, I sell kettle corn.

[2:13:57] I'll sample a bag of calicoorn from time to time, so I'm just saying, just because you have a box open, it doesn't necessarily mean guilt of selling those, right?

[2:14:05] You know what I mean? So I just want to please paint me a picture of like the exact same, are there pictures of, you know, that evidence?

[2:14:13] Yes, there are, and there's body temperature of this walking through the room.

[2:14:19] The vast majority of the boxes that were in there were open, I mean it was common to see, like if there were two boxes of the same item,

[2:14:25] The only one would be open, but the large shipping box would be open and then the smaller box is inside of that, and even like the, if you will then comes in with the collar roll, it's five packages in a plastic wrap thing, those rolls were individually broken open, whereas if you are selling wholesale to a buyer, like another retailer, you would not break open a roll, you would sell it by the entire roll, or like as a carton of cigarettes would be sold.

[2:14:52] You know, retailers don't buy single packs of cigarettes, they buy cartons, and buy.

[2:15:00] And again, so was the amount, what I'm asking, and thank you for paying that picture. But like when you see the item that you said, you'd see like two packages of like maybe these five rolls or whatever together. And one might be open, you said, like you'd see that pretty commonly that one package might be open versus another, like so half or more, where still sealed or I don't, I wouldn't say half or more were sealed or answered. I don't recall specifically, but you know, if you had one case,

[2:15:30] of these individual roles, you know, half of the roles would be missing out of the case,

[2:15:35] and several of them would be broken open as it's been, like someone tried just one item out

[2:15:39] of an entire case. It's like it had been being depleted over time.

[2:15:44] But technically he could have sold half of the box at whole sale.

[2:15:49] By if so long as they were in those like five pods as you're describing, like if he was selling

[2:15:54] those one at a time out of the big box like that could be, that could account for a

[2:16:00] disappearance of.

[2:16:01] I understand where you're coming from, I mean, I don't think that it's typical to sell a

[2:16:06] roll at a time as a wholesaler, a wholesaler would normally be selling a whole

[2:16:09] carton or a crate of them at a time, however, I mean that is a legitimate, argument like

[2:16:16] suppose.

[2:16:17] And like, I'm just trying to picture, because, you know, I could picture a small business

[2:16:21] the small business transaction, you know, where, you know, you might not be shipping, like,

[2:16:26] oh, I don't need a whole crate, they will take me here to sell those, right? But like, you know,

[2:16:30] selling like one or two of whatever at a time to another small business, I could see that happening.

[2:16:35] So at the time, the CTFA was giving guidance to the business owners, and the owner, I spoke about it

[2:16:41] as well, that they were only to be selling wholesale out of state for flavored tobacco items,

[2:16:48] And so I mean I suppose that some small retailer may order two or five roll zins to be mailed all the way out of state, but I don't think that's this typical or practical business model.

[2:17:10] Okay.

[2:17:10] The pleasure of the council.

[2:17:13] I want to talk about that in terms of.

[2:17:15] Go ahead.

[2:17:16] Go ahead.

[2:17:17] Go ahead.

[2:17:19] I'm going to propose a motion.

[2:17:21] Okay.

[2:17:21] I hope it's the one that I was wanted.

[2:17:23] I proposed the motion to suspend the license for a 0.5 the his shop at 2050 Southwest.

[2:17:34] And if I may.

[2:17:36] For clarification that would include changing the name on the title of the resolution to the.

[2:17:46] Hays down, it's a case which has, are we talking about here?

[2:17:53] A smoke shop and revising the last line of the resolution to stay,

[2:18:23] instead of stating,

[2:18:24] revokes the business license and tobacco retail permit to state suspends the

[2:18:34] business license and tobacco retail permit for a smoke shop located at

[2:18:42] 2050 South basketball in New California for 30 days.

[2:18:50] So I will repeat that

[2:18:55] I propose a motion to really vote.

[2:18:58] I'm sorry, to suspend the tobacco retill

[2:19:00] a permit and it's less sense for a haste boat shop.

[2:19:03] Look at it at 2050 South Baskum for 30 days.

[2:19:10] OK, so we have a motion for the second.

[2:19:12] Any further discussion?

[2:19:14] Do you have a comment, myself?

[2:19:16] I mean, I know what I had said earlier.

[2:19:19] I'm a little concerned about the volume of material

[2:19:22] that was stored there, and it's purpose,

[2:19:28] and that I find that troubling quite frankly.

[2:19:36] You know, just any business you often have a huge volume of product, you know, and so I personally feel that these expressions themselves very well, and it really truly, you know, asking for us to do this,

[2:19:48] We already, he already based the loss, the other shop, you know, and that I do generally feel

[2:19:54] he's not in this lesson and I do not think that he'll be doing this ever again.

[2:19:59] And even if he does, it's our due diligence and thank you, Camel PD for doing these random

[2:20:05] checks to ensure that our community is safe and that everyone is selling the legal product.

[2:20:10] So I, I just would respectfully ask that you don't think about the volume, you know, it's

[2:20:15] Now, it's just going to be your place, the volume of, you know, legally assault tobacco.

[2:20:21] Yeah, the volume is significant, because I mean, the flavor tobacco was actually illegal.

[2:20:25] So it's 2022.

[2:20:26] It's the owner's responsibility to know that if I'm correct.

[2:20:33] I mean, the owner is responsible for knowing state law, whether they know it or not.

[2:20:37] They're responsible to know it and they know it.

[2:20:40] I'm sorry, but I've closed the public hearing.

[2:20:42] The matter is only before the council and where the only ones that can talk about it now.

[2:20:47] I've had your opportunity and I'm following what the law is and what I'm required to do so.

[2:20:55] Yeah.

[2:20:55] You are correct.

[2:20:58] Mayor Fretado that all persons are charged with.

[2:21:04] Presumptively knowing the law.

[2:21:12] I'll just reiterate my comments that I said before.

[2:21:15] This was, this violation was March 2025, and it was a first violation in March 2025.

[2:21:24] I also reiterated, again, that I'm absolutely adamant about following state law and not

[2:21:31] selling any flavor tobacco, but because of the duration of time, since then, and the CVTV

[2:21:45] C-D-T-F-A, and find that they're paying a support

[2:21:50] as suspension,

[2:21:54] and so that was my most sure.

[2:21:56] Yes.

[2:22:00] Just one last comment.

[2:22:02] I also, and this hasn't been brought up yet, but I would think about the possible time

[2:22:08] that would be tied up and the cost to the city, if any, you know, I don't know if any legal

[2:22:13] things might happen.

[2:22:14] I personally feel like I know we put in ordinances, and there is the state law, of course,

[2:22:19] But I don't ever want us to overreach,

[2:22:22] you know, potentially I don't know for doing that right now,

[2:22:25] but for me it feels kind of shaky.

[2:22:30] Seconded that motion. Thank you.

[2:22:37] Okay, so we'll call for the vote at this time.

[2:22:40] We can ask the clerk to call for the vote on whether the motion on the floor is to suspend the license for 30 days.

[2:22:48] Councilmember Lopez, councilmember Heinz. Councilmember Shkizola, aye.

[2:22:54] Vice Mayor Bibi. No. Mayor Furtado.

[2:22:58] Aye.

[2:23:01] So, the license has been at 30 days, I will say. I'm troubled by this full matter, but I'm going to give you a chance to be free this matter.

[2:23:11] For those who just haven't been into that, I'm proud of that.

[2:23:22] So, now we go to item 8.6.

[2:23:28] And this is a public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution to revoke the business license for a sage,

[2:23:34] Smoke Shop, located at 484 West Hamilton Avenue, Campbell.

[2:23:37] There were a total of council members,

[2:23:40] Robert Eastwood, with you again.

[2:23:43] A acknowledgement on the next two items,

[2:23:44] they're a little different.

[2:23:45] Both of these items, you do not have an appeal

[2:23:48] of the tobacco retailer permit.

[2:23:50] So, solely before you, for these two items,

[2:23:52] is a revocation of the business license.

[2:23:54] In both instances, at the administrative level,

[2:23:57] staff issued a notice of intent to evoke

[2:23:59] the tobacco retailer permit.

[2:24:01] They were afforded a 15-day appeal period

[2:24:03] that they did not see an appeal.

[2:24:05] So, in effect, for both of these businesses,

[2:24:07] And we'll go one at a time back, a retailer permit has been rescinded.

[2:24:11] You are solely reviewing and deciding if you should revoke the business license.

[2:24:17] As mentioned, the business license replication I'm for you is said, so it's a Sage Smoke

[2:24:21] Shop 404 West Hamilton.

[2:24:24] The evidence was presented for you as grounds to revoke.

[2:24:26] The business license is two inspections by Campbell Police.

[2:24:30] First was on March 5th, 2025.

[2:24:32] A large amount of flavored tobacco products were displayed for sale at the business in question,

[2:24:39] and Camel Police did seize a 959 tobacco flavored items.

[2:24:44] There was a second inspection on January 20th of this year during that inspection plain

[2:24:48] closed officers that visited the site were offered flavored tobacco products for sale.

[2:24:56] Again, no appeal rose was received of the revoked tobacco retailer permit thus before

[2:25:01] tonight is only revocation of the business license, but in effect they do not have a license

[2:25:05] to sell tobacco.

[2:25:07] Safely based on the violations presented of selling flavor tobacco, they're not one, but twice

[2:25:13] two instances, that there is grounds and staff recommends to revoke the business license

[2:25:19] based on the three grounds highlight on the screen before you.

[2:25:24] With that, I'm available for questions as is Kamib Wies.

[2:25:27] Thank you.

[2:25:30] questions?

[2:25:32] Yes. The business license that was issued for this business, was it for tobacco?

[2:25:43] Sales or are there other things going on there?

[2:25:49] Yeah, that's a great question council member, but I don't have all the information before me

[2:25:53] If they have, I mean, effective today, they cannot sell tobacco.

[2:25:58] Do they, as typically, it's a small shop sells retail items.

[2:26:03] Related to paraphernal, there might be some prohibitions on selling some of those.

[2:26:08] If they're that close, they're ready to tobacco.

[2:26:11] But there might be availability of just to do some retail sales in this instance.

[2:26:17] And so, they didn't renew their license.

[2:26:22] Do we know why they didn't renew their license?

[2:26:25] Or was that prior to the revocation of the tobacco permit?

[2:26:32] We did get that information from finance.

[2:26:35] I don't have any information why they did not renew their license.

[2:26:39] Thank you.

[2:26:40] I'm sorry, just a clear of my question.

[2:26:42] I met those.

[2:26:42] They did not review their tobacco license.

[2:26:45] to not read in a license. I know that generally there's two licenses, which licensed in there.

[2:26:53] I'd have to look it up. I believe they might not have renewed both off the open the case.

[2:26:59] Typically there's a stain period the Campbell has once your expiration has come up that you can

[2:27:06] come in with in a certain period to renew and that stain period is still open. But in the

[2:27:15] has to revoke the tobacco retailer permit as of right now.

[2:27:22] Thank you.

[2:27:23] Did you want to make some comments?

[2:27:35] So when we are to this case, I'd just like to comment on the two inspections we did here.

[2:27:41] The first one was a normal inspection we walked in and we,

[2:27:47] there were there and we were shaking for the items.

[2:27:49] And that was when we had a large seizure.

[2:27:51] At the time the business owner told me that he had recently purchased the business and he was trying to figure everything out.

[2:27:55] read a lot of excuses about the flavored tobacco stuff, and we talked to him extensively on his permitting licensing,

[2:28:02] the regulations of the science he needs to post, and the sale flavored tobacco products.

[2:28:07] We returned.

[2:28:08] It was actually on a minor tobacco decoy opera of minor went into purchase tobacco, and I was there with the minor in plain flows.

[2:28:18] They had a display of as in the rack on the counter that displayed multiple favors, but it was completely empty.

[2:28:27] While the decoy was trying to exit the store, it's quite a distance from the front of the door to the counter where he attempted to make a purchase.

[2:28:35] The employee asked me if, how he could help me.

[2:28:39] And so, in order to buy time for the decoy to exit the building, I asked him, I did

[2:28:46] important that I was looking for as in product, as I saw that the rack was empty, hoping

[2:28:51] that he would offer one for sale.

[2:28:53] He went into the back room and pulled out a whole box of different sort of, as in flavor

[2:28:57] to back aqua products, the offer one for sale to me, which I purchased, at that point,

[2:29:02] I called in the rest of the uniform officers,

[2:29:05] while they were responding in,

[2:29:07] they employed went back into that enclosed room,

[2:29:10] which we later found there was a large safe back there.

[2:29:13] And when we went into the room,

[2:29:14] the entire box that he had offered for display

[2:29:16] was no longer accessible and you refused to open the safe.

[2:29:19] Based on my previous conversation with the owner,

[2:29:22] when we first talked contact in,

[2:29:24] we were trying to start the regulations

[2:29:26] by hiding this items in the safe and only offering for sale

[2:29:30] when people are asking.

[2:29:31] and they would own a refuse to come to the location to be responsible for what was going

[2:29:37] on there.

[2:29:40] So I don't believe that the owner is acting a good faith and I don't believe that he's

[2:29:43] going to face on his actions of trying to conceal it in a safe, I don't think that you will

[2:29:48] going forward either if it's licensed.

[2:29:51] We're revoked.

[2:29:55] Thank you.

[2:30:00] If there's no questions about the council look at this time, I will first of all open public

[2:30:10] hearing and invite the appellant to comment if you so wishes. Is the appellant present and would like

[2:30:19] to speak on this matter?

[2:30:22] I don't see the appellant. I will open the public hearing in general then would anyone

[2:30:29] like to speak on this matter.

[2:30:33] I see none, so I will close the public hearing and bring

[2:30:36] the better back to the council.

[2:30:47] Yes.

[2:30:50] Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. So interesting. It doesn't seem like

[2:30:55] unless I'm staying out, you know, unless people, most business owners come and they

[2:31:00] trying to defend themselves. But I'm not seeing that here. So this, we're taking this on a case

[2:31:04] by case basis. And so forgive me if I'm wrong. Is there any defense, like I don't really

[2:31:11] see that I don't see an obvious defense. So I've asked for it. I've closed the public hearing. Okay. Yeah.

[2:31:16] It's back. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So I, you know, based on that, it's like I feel like you have to come and defend yourself or you're just going to get the book thrown at you.

[2:31:26] No, so that's my comment.

[2:31:33] Call my smirboby.

[2:31:35] Go ahead, sir.

[2:31:37] Yeah, I just want to make a comment that the individual cannot sell any tobacco products.

[2:31:43] And Leoey, and there's a, there's a, there's a business license that's in a suspended state, at least right now, is my understanding is whatever.

[2:31:57] So I'm a little reluctant to remove a business license that they can't sell the product.

[2:32:04] And so that's, that's kind of what my feeling on that is.

[2:32:09] and they had the option of coming here tonight to finish themselves, they didn't, so

[2:32:14] I think the medicine, it should be revoked, but obviously it's up to the council majority.

[2:32:22] Well, I guess I would ask what good is a business license? If you can't, it's a tobacco

[2:32:28] permit was to be revoked. What good is a business license? It doesn't allow them to sell

[2:32:35] to medical parents? Well, it could be, I'm not a tobacco, I'm not a, in that business,

[2:32:46] so, but there would be other products, not tobacco related products.

[2:32:51] Yeah, technically they could sell all the accouture moms, you know, not the tobacco

[2:32:56] itself, maybe some bobbleheads or whatever.

[2:33:01] Well, there's no other discussion on the

[2:33:04] down recommendation to revoke the business license or stage smoke shop located at 4-84 West

[2:33:11] 10-10-11.

[2:33:13] How's that going?

[2:33:14] We have a motion by the post there.

[2:33:16] Second thing.

[2:33:16] How's the number?

[2:33:18] I don't know.

[2:33:20] I don't know.

[2:33:22] Please call.

[2:33:23] We will.

[2:33:23] On to member Lopez.

[2:33:25] On to member Heinz.

[2:33:26] No.

[2:33:26] On to member Skizlowe.

[2:33:29] And I'm staying on this one.

[2:33:32] Nice mayor, baby.

[2:33:35] Mayor Furtado.

[2:33:38] The license is revoked.

[2:33:42] We now move to item 8.7.

[2:33:44] This is a public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution.

[2:33:48] We're talking to business license for dreamy exotics.

[2:33:51] Located at 835 Union Avenue, Campbell.

[2:33:58] Mayor, I'm a council member's last application item for you this evening.

[2:34:03] One second.

[2:34:11] As mentioned, dreaming exotics at 835 Union.

[2:34:15] Three pieces of evidence before you today, supporting staffs recommendation to revoke the business license.

[2:34:21] Again, to disclose, as of today, there is no tobacco retailer permit.

[2:34:26] That was revoked by the notice of intent back in June.

[2:34:30] We did not receive an appeal thus today that cannot sell tobacco.

[2:34:34] The item before you today is solely to also revoked a business license.

[2:34:38] March 5th, 2025 inspection by Campbell Police identified a large amount of flavor tobacco on display and items also containing

[2:34:46] silo-sciven and cannabis THC and identified it in Marine. Campbell Police officer sees over 700 tobacco flavored items, over 400 items with THC and over 20 items with silo-sciven.

[2:35:00] February 22nd, 2026, an other inspection by Campbell Police identified silocibum products and flavor

[2:35:07] neck-to-team for sale, separately in two instances, both in February 2025 and April 2025,

[2:35:16] police officers found folks trying to burglarize or have forced entry into the business

[2:35:23] presumably to obtain access to those illegal products.

[2:35:29] Again, as mentioned, there is no appeal before you tonight of the Tobacco Retailer Permit.

[2:35:33] You are solely deciding on working to business license.

[2:35:37] Again, based on the number of illegal sales, illegal items, both flavor to tobacco,

[2:35:45] of cannabis THC and psilocybum, staff will use at least three of the five findings to

[2:35:50] about the business license or warranted and recommend

[2:35:53] the relocation of the business license.

[2:35:55] With that, in the real quick questions,

[2:35:57] as is in the police, much of detective wants to add any more

[2:36:01] testimony to this.

[2:36:11] There's a couple of quick things on it, so I'd like to add,

[2:36:13] one being that in one of these burglaries that we went into,

[2:36:17] officers also found a loaded gun in the business,

[2:36:21] and then along with a large bag of more one,

[2:36:24] like a Jim Bag, and that gun was related

[2:36:27] related to a violent crime out of Oakland via some of the social and the crime lab.

[2:36:35] And the thing being, I made multiple attempts to contact the business owner, he was extremely

[2:36:39] on cooperative towards trying to resolve these issues to prevent these things being sold out

[2:36:44] of his business.

[2:36:49] Thank you.

[2:36:49] Any questions?

[2:36:50] Could you speak to that dog that was found on say?

[2:36:54] I wasn't there on that, and that was happened personally.

[2:36:56] I heard something about it, but I'm not aware of the circumstances of the dog.

[2:37:02] I actually have the, what, there was a dog that was found there, the PCA SP.

[2:37:12] The was called animal control.

[2:37:13] The animal control was called to, to get that.

[2:37:18] This is right by my backyard, so, but the dog went to the animal control.

[2:37:24] Yeah, and it was apparently in there.

[2:37:30] Members reflect that it was in that business.

[2:37:36] Members are not allowed to offer testimony.

[2:37:39] Okay. All right.

[2:37:43] Now, these are my comments. I think it just speaks to the question of the business.

[2:37:48] And they've broken us.

[2:37:51] Thanks, thank you.

[2:37:52] Thanks, thank you.

[2:37:54] Okay. So once again, I will invite the appellant.

[2:38:01] If present to speak on this matter first does the appellant wish to address the council on this matter

[2:38:14] Yes, you're the appellant.

[2:38:29] Okay

[2:38:37] You're from to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes

[2:38:41] Hey, I'm one of us fought. I'm the owner during the exotics. I just recently bought the business out

[2:38:49] This April

[2:38:51] If I'm not being mistaken and

[2:38:53] All that happened, we had no idea to be honest, I'm just an owner, we bought out the business.

[2:39:01] I wasn't told or notified about any of those stuff that happened at the business before I bought it.

[2:39:08] I bought it, and I'm here to appeal to the back of my license because we has nothing to do on our end.

[2:39:16] It was the previous owner's dad.

[2:39:19] You know, everything that happened was their fault.

[2:39:22] And I will know, I just brought out the business on April and all that beyond this irrelevant, we don't, yeah, that's pretty much it to be able.

[2:39:38] Okay.

[2:39:39] Thank you.

[2:39:41] I will open the public here for anyone else that would like to speak on the matter.

[2:39:48] Yes.

[2:39:58] Do you firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[2:40:01] I do.

[2:40:03] So I'm Robert Brumley.

[2:40:04] I'm one of the owners of the buildings,

[2:40:06] so I'm essentially the landlord.

[2:40:08] So I just am coming in to verify what he said,

[2:40:12] and to offer, excuse me, the music.

[2:40:17] And to give a little bit more context for it.

[2:40:21] First of all, just very quickly,

[2:40:22] I'd like to thank the police department.

[2:40:25] I came out on February 22.

[2:40:27] And I think people stayed a couple of hours.

[2:40:29] I think it was an officer, a cardify, remember, so to protect this site, so I want to thank for that.

[2:40:36] I also want to say, we require in our leases, we don't want any illegal activity going on in the business.

[2:40:44] I was very surprised to hear that this was going on.

[2:40:47] The first time I heard about it was when I got the courtesy notice June 23, something like that, that it went out.

[2:40:54] But the notice didn't go to the owner.

[2:40:56] the owner has never received any notice. I didn't receive the first notice of this here.

[2:41:03] And I received the second notice yesterday. So just to, you know, I feel there is an issue of

[2:41:09] notice going on in terms of the current owner, which had nothing to do with this, you know,

[2:41:13] pretty reprehensible figure. So that's just the.

[2:41:18] Okay, but are you saying you own the building? I own the building, but not the

[2:41:22] the business. Right, so they least from me. Okay, all right, I just wanted to clarify your

[2:41:28] very eye. Thank you. First time doing this.

[2:41:33] Any questions?

[2:41:37] Actually, you just give testimony

[2:41:40] and unless we have a question for you, then that's it. Thank you. Any, would anyone else like to

[2:41:46] speak on this matter?

[2:41:51] Okay, the apparent chance to come back again if you like, you can speak

[2:41:55] one more time if you wish,

[2:42:01] okay, so I will close the public hearing and bring this back

[2:42:06] to the council.

[2:42:07] I do have a question either for staff or attorney on the matter.

[2:42:13] You comment on when the inspection was done, who was the owner at the time, in fact, is this

[2:42:23] person now, a new owner that was not the owner at the time of the violations, and the presence

[2:42:30] of civil siphon and other products, I need some clarification on that.

[2:42:56] I'm sorry, battery just went out.

[2:42:58] I do know that we have received an application for a new business license here, I have to

[2:43:05] check if I'm fine and it's department.

[2:43:06] Um, absent that, uh, again, stated plainly just for the council, there is no tobacco

[2:43:12] retailer permit today. I just want to make that has been revoked. Um, but with respect

[2:43:18] to, uh, the business, the location, no one, the respect to when the, the, uh, the business

[2:43:24] license application came in and who was the owner on the property when the three, when the

[2:43:28] two inspections, uh, uh, occurred, uh, asked to chief for to, to speak to that at the

[2:43:33] information.

[2:43:42] Do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[2:43:45] I do. While Detective Palmer is looking up that information just based on the

[2:43:52] timeliness of it, I thought it would be an important for you to give my own personal experience.

[2:43:58] Two weeks ago on June 22nd, I was getting my haircut at the barber shop two doors down from this

[2:44:04] spoke shop and they had to close the door because the smell of marijuana coming from the

[2:44:11] business was so strong. It was coming into the barber shop and the barber told me that

[2:44:16] that was a regular occurrence at that business. So I think from a timing perspective of

[2:44:21] understanding what's going on in that business, whether it was a year ago or whether it

[2:44:26] was two weeks ago, two weeks ago there was active marijuana use occurring at that business

[2:44:32] that I personally witnessed, and I can let Detective Palmer talk about who he encountered

[2:44:41] when those inspections occurred.

[2:45:00] The gentleman that it just spoke, I understand he said that he was not aware of any of these things going on, because he was not the owner of the business.

[2:45:07] However, when we did this initial inspection where we found the majority of these products that were seized, there was a party there who was not identified, he claimed to just be picking something up from the business.

[2:45:19] But he was very well aware of what was going on, he was laughing at us, and he was refusing to cooperate with us and identify himself.

[2:45:27] The cashier at the time said that he was not an employee at the business, so we didn't push the issue of identifying him.

[2:45:33] However, here I have a body cam image pulled up from one of our body cams that day.

[2:45:39] And I do believe that the gentleman here that I'm referring to is the gentleman that just spoke up here,

[2:45:44] I'd like for you to come up and tell me if this is you or not.

[2:45:47] It really does look like you'd be a student.

[2:46:03] Yeah, that's okay.

[2:46:17] Also, it's my belief based on seeing him in person, about times that there's the same burden.

[2:46:27] All right, excuse me.

[2:46:28] Excuse me.

[2:46:29] He did it.

[2:46:38] This matter is before the council.

[2:46:41] I have a question.

[2:46:43] How does this person get a business license?

[2:46:46] And what was the business license issue for if he?

[2:46:53] It's the previous owner of Dreamy Exotics isn't the owner anymore, right?

[2:47:02] I heard director,

[2:47:09] the piece would, yes, why I'm having trouble with names tonight.

[2:47:15] Now, I heard director Eastwood's testimony was that there was an application pending for a business license.

[2:47:20] I don't know if it has been granted or not.

[2:47:24] But what is it for?

[2:47:26] If the tobacco or retailer permit was revoked?

[2:47:30] The only answer I have is that there has been received in finance and application for some sort of retail permit on the property.

[2:47:40] Something like a mini-marked and that's how it received.

[2:47:43] I do want to reinforce the tobacco retailer permit on file is the one that has been subject to the violations and we were sent.

[2:47:52] We sent all notices to the proper owner and the owner of the business that's on file with the city today.

[2:47:59] And have we recently expected the business to see what's going on there?

[2:48:03] Has there been a recent inspection of the business to see what it is that they're selling?

[2:48:10] You're absent the test and I received from Chief Bergen,

[2:48:15] Detective Palmer, you might provide more on that.

[2:48:22] The most recent police report we have from the business was from February 10th.

[2:48:29] This year, where we had patrol officers that went there on a call for service and they seized over 425

[2:48:36] I've played for tobacco items, and so.

[2:48:42] But I'm calling to this individual that spoke.

[2:48:44] He said that he opened the business in April.

[2:48:48] So what I'm asking is, has there been an inspection of the business since he claims?

[2:48:56] We have not had an inspection of the business since then.

[2:48:59] We wouldn't even be aware that it changed ownership since it hasn't been issued.

[2:49:03] And also it's also very labor intensive to do these inspections.

[2:49:07] Well, it seems like if there's a problem with the business and the tobacco retailer permit

[2:49:14] has been revolved, there should be some attention to what business moves in there.

[2:49:24] I think that tobacco, a fragment from Ron, but it's minor saying that tobacco retail

[2:49:30] The current was just recently revoked after that April day.

[2:49:36] So all of the inspections took place prior to the current, owner of the business.

[2:49:45] I don't, I can't really speak to the owners, but that's what it seems like, yes.

[2:49:52] So are we, are we looking to revoke the current, the back of license is already been revoked

[2:50:00] and we're looking to revoke the business license as it exists today on that.

[2:50:05] on the books.

[2:50:06] So, right.

[2:50:07] Okay.

[2:50:09] I actually had a question about that in his testimony.

[2:50:13] The President of the Environment Office, the owner, did say that he was here to appeal to

[2:50:16] back old license, is that the valley outcome of this proceeding, potentially, for our city

[2:50:25] attorney.

[2:50:26] Excuse me.

[2:50:27] I was reviewing the code, Joe, could you repeat the question?

[2:50:33] During his testimony, the person who had done for himself as the owner stated that he was

[2:50:38] here to appeal the tobacco license sign for the item as a genderist for the business license

[2:50:45] revocation is that a request of possibility.

[2:50:50] I just want to be clear on what we can consider or not.

[2:50:54] the tobacco retailer permit has been revoked by the, by the, there being no appeal on the

[2:51:03] notice of revocations. That and that was properly noticed because the code requires it to be sent

[2:51:12] to the applicant at the address on the permit. I know it was, and that is the business address

[2:51:21] Correct. Okay. So then, oh, what we're looking to revoke is the business license from somebody.

[2:51:34] Oh.

[2:51:35] Oh, oh, oh.

[2:51:36] Ones the, well, the, yeah, for that business, we're looking to revoke the business license for this, for the particular business stated in the report.

[2:51:53] Thank you.

[2:51:56] Thanks. I guess I'm a little confused. I'm not sure because, you know, I know that certain licenses are able to be transferred over whereas others are not going to get brand new ones. So, where does this fall? I'm a little confused. I'm like, is this new owner still under the last license or they got a new license? Like, I'm a little confused. I'm got some clarity on that.

[2:52:20] they would not be able to obtain a license for tobacco retail.

[2:52:30] Business, if it's not signed tobacco, that is definitely a question that I have, it's like, what is it currently and is that like a all separate, you know, business license, like, what are we, I'm I'm very confused. I'm sorry, but yes, I want some clarity.

[2:52:43] And I answered yes, the the current, the person claiming to have acquired the business would need to get a new business license, that makes sense.

[2:52:55] But there is no tobacco license.

[2:52:58] There is no tobacco retail license allowed for that premises for a period of one year.

[2:53:08] So I'd like to make a suggestion.

[2:53:11] At this point, I would recommend that for this item.

[2:53:14] We continue to the next available date for a few reasons.

[2:53:18] One of them, I think, first and foremost, the issue I'd ask question that we dealt with on the previous ones of both.

[2:53:25] And in this case, it's still a sideburn, which is especially serious, but more over the flavor

[2:53:30] tobacco,

[2:53:32] the illegal items I've been seized in the flavor tobacco is moved because the tobacco

[2:53:37] license in any cases has been revoked. I think there are outstanding questions about what it sounds

[2:53:44] like as a permit that is sitting. Now, finance that I would like our staff to get more time

[2:53:49] to review. And while I trust that our staff to their due diligence have also give more time

[2:53:54] for noticing for the next hearing.

[2:53:56] So that would be my recommendation at this stage

[2:53:59] given the outstanding questions that it doesn't seem

[2:54:02] like we'll be able to resolve up here with my appreciation

[2:54:06] for all the work.

[2:54:08] This site set out to me as by far the most

[2:54:11] egregious of the five up here and there are significant

[2:54:14] resources and police work and many, many incidents

[2:54:17] that that went and that I shared another

[2:54:20] and there where I think four in the South report.

[2:54:22] So I appreciate that, but I think that would be best at this age.

[2:54:27] I guess from my standpoint, that the most

[2:54:32] egregious aspect that does is sell and sold aside,

[2:54:35] which is, and I think that's under the current business license.

[2:54:41] The tobacco license already has been revoked.

[2:54:43] I would contend with it, should proceed ahead to revoke the business

[2:54:48] license because that business was selling so the side.

[2:54:57] Yeah, so for me I agree council member Lopez that this is clearly the most

[2:55:04] egregious one, you know, and for us to be consistent or council even though I

[2:55:10] abstained council decided to revoke and I know we are to revoke it.

[2:55:16] This does, well, I'm sorry, short, I do feel like we need to revisit this because I

[2:55:20] feel like there's some missing pieces or something like, you know, it doesn't seem

[2:55:25] I'm the only one a little bit confused.

[2:55:30] Can I just clarify with the business license, business license are an untransferable?

[2:55:35] So any new owners can have new business for whatever use he's intending to use there.

[2:55:40] The devacco retailer permit has been revoked.

[2:55:42] The business license that's tied to that use is also being proposed to be revoked and

[2:55:47] recommended by staff.

[2:55:49] There's a new owner in the property and they want to exercise to do use on that property.

[2:55:53] They give a chain of new business license for them and there would be nothing they've

[2:55:56] at the phone for doing so.

[2:55:58] I are actually the same.

[2:56:00] So as the gentleman indicated that he, apparently,

[2:56:06] least the business, least the operation in April,

[2:56:12] I'm curious, was there any obligation

[2:56:15] or what was going on, or, I mean,

[2:56:18] are there just the police reporting that,

[2:56:20] since this person acquired the business,

[2:56:25] There was nothing that was legal about operating anything because there was no valid business

[2:56:33] license and there was no valid tobacco license.

[2:56:36] Am I correct with that?

[2:56:39] It is simply a follow-up to the revocation on the tobacco retailer permit that the business

[2:56:44] cannot operate.

[2:56:46] You sell tobacco as it sits here today and this is a normality to also revoke business license

[2:56:51] associated with that news, if a new owner wants to apply for a business license for a new

[2:56:56] US, they would be open to do that.

[2:56:59] I have one more question for the attorney. Does the owner of the building have any responsibility

[2:57:03] in the matters before us tonight?

[2:57:13] The owner would not be in any involvement in the decision to revoke any of the permits. The owner

[2:57:23] could be held legally responsible for what was taking place on his premises in a prosecution

[2:57:32] for a criminal action.

[2:57:36] Thank you.

[2:57:38] You know, I've got to ask a follow-up, Brian, just to make sure I understand your question.

[2:57:46] To make sure I understand your comments in essence, any action we take is really tight

[2:57:51] of the previous operation of the business finding new owners.

[2:57:57] Okay.

[2:58:05] Well, I was inclined also to indicate the same thing you did sort of continue this and discuss it further.

[2:58:13] However, it does seem clear that there is no tobacco license and there is a new business license.

[2:58:19] I would imagine then the current business license simply should be revoked and the whole matter should be reconsidered.

[2:58:26] it seems to me that the owner of the building has a certain level of responsibility of

[2:58:32] what kind of business is coming in there, who you're leasing it to, what the purpose is,

[2:58:37] or do they have the proper myths. Now that's just my opinion, I am not a deterrent,

[2:58:41] but I'm just offering that comment since you yourself commented to us, I'm offering another

[2:58:46] comment back to you with all due respect. So, and my perspective on this is also that the

[2:58:53] business license that we're reviewing you here is the business that had this

[2:58:57] solicited. That is correct because that we can't revoke the new business

[2:59:02] license because it's only an application, right? So if you're emotional, let's not

[2:59:07] and I don't want to presume that the new business license would be doing

[2:59:11] anything like that. I'm just saying that the old business license, the current

[2:59:15] business license. So what I'd like to propose a motion is to revoke the

[2:59:22] The business license for bringing the exotics located at 835 Union Avenue.

[2:59:32] All second?

[2:59:34] And if I could just make a very brief comment, I would support that for mayor for the

[2:59:39] reasons that you said, I think now that I understand better from the city manager, that is

[2:59:44] helpful.

[2:59:46] We have a motion on the second before the council to revoke the current business license.

[2:59:52] There is no tobacco license.

[2:59:53] if there's no other comments by the council.

[3:00:00] This, council member Heinz, council member Schizillot, aye, Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor for

[3:00:08] Toto.

[3:00:08] Thank you, that concludes these five items, but council is going to take a brief break here.

[3:00:17] We'll come back and resume and consider the following items on our agenda.

[3:11:27] A list of under new business actually should have been listed under public hearings, because it meant the qualification for that.

[3:11:36] So item 9.1 will now be considered item 8.8.

[3:11:41] And Sir, I know you've been here waiting a long time. I apologize for the fact that this mix-up, we should have heard this at the very beginning of ease, and it was an error, and I offer my apologies.

[3:11:54] So, this is the placing the cost of abating hazardous vegetation on the property tax rules.

[3:12:03] Once again.

[3:12:05] I'll open it.

[3:12:06] You can make the presentation.

[3:12:07] First of all, I'd like to thank you.

[3:12:09] Robbie, to the Community Development Director.

[3:12:11] Every year you have three hearings on the weight of payment.

[3:12:13] This is your third.

[3:12:15] The item for your time is simply to take action to put on tax goals.

[3:12:19] The cost for the abatement of the properties that you've heard back in February, which is 75 properties to abat weeds.

[3:12:28] Just some note, you did take testimony in that meeting.

[3:12:30] You gave direction on how to address certain properties.

[3:12:34] Everything I've understood from our county.

[3:12:35] We debate them off.

[3:12:36] Sir, those actions have been taken.

[3:12:38] Again, simply today is the measure to pay the abatement of those.

[3:12:43] With that, I have nothing for to add.

[3:12:44] We do have the county.

[3:12:45] We debate and Andrew here at Gerrard, who can answer any questions, and of course, has been waiting patient. Thank you.

[3:12:53] Any questions from Council? First of all, no questions.

[3:13:00] I will open the public hearing and invite anyone to speak on item now called item 8.8.8.

[3:13:10] Flesing the cost of abating hazardous vegetation and property tax assessment roll, would anyone

[3:13:15] like to address the council on this matter?

[3:13:19] No one's online, I presume.

[3:13:23] Close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion or emotion.

[3:13:33] I will actually make the motion that the City Council will adopt a resolution placing the

[3:13:37] cost of abating hazardous vegetation on the property tax assessment roll.

[3:13:42] I'll second. Motion by me. Second by the vice mayor. If there's no further comment, roll, cold, please.

[3:13:54] Councilmember Lopez. Councilmember Heinz. Councilmember Skizola.

[3:13:58] Aye. Vice mayor, by me. All right. Mayor for total.

[3:14:01] Aye.

[3:14:04] That does conclude now. The public hearings.

[3:14:09] Thanks for your attendance. What's again?

[3:14:16] Also, so now we go to new business and the item we have here now is the authorization

[3:14:23] to submit to one bay area grant, OBAG Oback Application, and if you do, we'll make the presentation.

[3:14:37] Good evening.

[3:14:38] Mayor Ferdado, members of the City Council.

[3:14:41] The VDA has issued a call for projects for the one bay area grant program.

[3:14:46] After considering a number of projects, staff is recommending submitting one grant application,

[3:14:52] and that is for the Cable PDA Enhancements phase three project.

[3:15:00] The intersection of civic center drive and Harrison Avenue, it's the signalized intersection next to the Campbell Library.

[3:15:07] Current condition of the intersection is skewed. It has a large triangular island that splits Harrison Avenue and has high traffic speeds turning onto an off of Harrison Avenue.

[3:15:21] The Provost project would reshape the intersection to a normal T intersection, eliminate the large island in the middle and spur off the corners of the intersection to slow down traffic.

[3:15:33] The project cost estimate is $1.77 million.

[3:15:39] Congressmen, Sam McCarton secured a $250,000 federal grant so that the unfunded portion

[3:15:46] of the project is now $1.52 million.

[3:15:50] The grant program requires a minimum local match of 11.47%, but staff is recommending a 21%

[3:15:58] local match due to the competitive nature of the grant program.

[3:16:02] General Fund and Measure K are potential fund sources for the local match should the city be awarded a grant for the project.

[3:16:13] Staff will return at a future council meeting to recommend the fund source for the local match.

[3:16:20] And that concludes my presentation.

[3:16:23] Any questions for Matthew?

[3:16:27] Do you know off-hand if the city actually did get the grant and therefore we would pay for 21% or possibly what that would be?

[3:16:43] 320,000.

[3:16:45] 320,000.

[3:16:47] Thank you.

[3:16:51] I guess no comments at the present time.

[3:16:54] Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this matter, the application?

[3:17:01] Thank you. Seeing none. What is the pleasure of the council?

[3:17:10] I will make the motion at the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the public works director to submit the one big

[3:17:17] 30 of grant. I'm cycle four, oh, back four program grant application for the Campbell

[3:17:26] Priority Development Area PDA, enhancements phase three project PDA phase three.

[3:17:35] All second. The motion at a second. Any comments?

[3:17:41] Okay, please call the roll.

[3:17:44] Thank you.

[3:17:45] Councilmember Lopez, Councilmember Heinz, Councilmember Skizola, Vice Mayor Bobby, I thank you for

[3:17:52] coming.

[3:17:53] All right.

[3:17:55] Now go to the next item.

[3:17:56] The authorization of fiscal year 2026-27, Measure O tax rate resolution,

[3:18:14] Director of Finance

[3:18:15] will give the staff presentation.

[3:18:18] Thank you.

[3:18:27] So, I'm here, I'm here, I'm here before Hackelsol to seek an authorable for the F-I-Tool or the F-I-Tool.

[3:18:59] you will pay to a council each year. As on the, a council and the public, a will have a

[3:19:11] of the World Health, I'm a public approved in 18, a deal bond, up to us for the up to

[3:19:27] of a million in our total to construct a new police building.

[3:19:40] You've had to, that is a net open.

[3:19:47] And also to construct a new, a new, a new, a new, a new, a new, a new, as well.

[3:19:59] As part of the field line, okay, I'll hand it to the issue of the idea to pay for the

[3:20:21] projects and in curdom, that payments of about two points, two points, six million in.

[3:20:39] They are a set to an engine of an FYI to hire a 20-foot, 20-steady of 51,

[3:20:53] and until until that time,

[3:20:58] The death of Hapayna's son, R.E.E.

[3:21:04] I did a

[3:21:10] back-ax on a property on this public.

[3:21:18] I don't wish a poem on the...

[3:21:25] I show the...

[3:21:27] That's right, of us on the...

[3:21:32] And that, they were on the whole off-road,

[3:21:42] pre-stem our time to a certain point.

[3:21:50] And now, I'm a deputy, I will have also

[3:21:53] an increase in AV amounts.

[3:21:58] They are expected to stay the same for law enforcement.

[3:22:06] they're proposed to us, they're the same for the career and also on the net,

[3:22:22] the deer as well.

[3:22:23] And then on other time on the...

[3:22:31] I'm so up, so up, so up, so up, so before I, I also, is on the day of war, is the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the

[3:23:08] And I will end it

[3:23:19] from the council or also be.

[3:23:24] Thank you.

[3:23:25] Any questions at this point?

[3:23:27] Members of the council.

[3:23:30] I just did have a question on the last slide if you could.

[3:23:33] So that back at the, you showed is $17,000 per $100,000 for 26.7. And you feel that the trend

[3:23:43] is going to, that's going to diminish over time. It's the, which is terrific. And it's already

[3:23:51] below the original estimate that, that I'm asking for that from yesterday. Yeah, so it's, so

[3:23:59] Over time, a question of the test goes as a result of the measures are expected to increase,

[3:24:18] and if the two increase, then we are able to bring down the right

[3:24:30] over time. If they can continue on the other,

[3:24:41] on the other hand, at the end of the

[3:24:46] And they could be about eight,

[3:24:58] eight, eight, eight hours of

[3:25:05] a year or another.

[3:25:39] In the evening, Steve Sanders, Campbell property owner, low mayor, vice mayor, Council members.

[3:25:48] Again, I'm going to ask you to adopt an ordinance, the ordinance just because it's really hard to do.

[3:25:54] Even if it's hard to do, to limit the reduction in the tax rate, to no more than 2% every year.

[3:26:03] Now, the staff report shows that we're going to have $17,000 per month for this year and next year.

[3:26:10] Something with that, what I envision or what I'm requesting is that that next rate after that would not be any lower than $16 and $66 or $67 per 100,000, that would correspond to a 2% reduction in that offset 2% automatic increase that every property is given now.

[3:26:35] So the net effect of all that is if this were adopted,

[3:26:40] and the council and staff chose to follow it,

[3:26:43] that each year the rate would drop the base. Every house would be raised 2%, the dollar amount

[3:26:52] that any taxpayer would reach to half the pay would remain constant until the things you tire.

[3:26:58] So what I've done with this graph that I've shown to you is to look at, first of all, the

[3:27:07] green line kind of downperts a bottom is the same thing you saw in your staff report or

[3:27:13] mathematically better be the same thing.

[3:27:16] The middle line is my proposal to limit the reduction to V98% of what it was last year or down 2%.

[3:27:28] That shows another declining line.

[3:27:31] And the last one, the top one across the top, is the staff report mentioned the possibility of just maintaining 70 dollars.

[3:27:39] You didn't get one?

[3:27:44] So basically, there's three different approaches.

[3:27:48] The one that essentially pays the minimum, we pay all the way through.

[3:27:52] If we limited the reduction to offset the property tax increase,

[3:27:57] we get done a couple of years earlier.

[3:27:59] And if we did 17%, we've done five years earlier.

[3:28:02] That does not count interest on us.

[3:28:06] That money, which would come in.

[3:28:08] and it doesn't talk about calling things, it's just a way to guide the future. Thank you.

[3:28:17] Okay. Any other questions?

[3:28:23] I did have a follow-up sort of comment question to your testimony myself actually.

[3:28:29] This is a bond of schedule to go for another 25 years.

[3:28:35] So, people who are currently the owners, if they follow what I think you're saying, they

[3:28:44] be sort of paying sort of a higher rate, the real benefit would come in the latter part

[3:28:49] of the years when many of the owners either wouldn't be here or they may have sold their property

[3:28:55] in the meantime, so the new owners or the surviving persons would benefit from the sacrifice

[3:29:03] that people presently would have to make, because they'd be paying a higher amount, in other words,

[3:29:10] it's not... Yes, you've finished it earlier, but the people live today, or owning the property today,

[3:29:19] seemed to be more now, and they may not be here to see the benefit that many years later.

[3:29:28] I disagree.

[3:29:32] Basically, we have two new facilities. And as you know by slowing the rate drop people pay more in front, that's where the maximum benefit from our new facilities will come.

[3:29:46] If you get out 25 years, we may be starting to feel a little cramped or the wood out here and needed to be treated more or something.

[3:29:54] So I would argue that...

[3:30:00] Now, is actually more representative of where the benefit for the community would

[3:30:10] be.

[3:30:16] All

[3:30:26] right, so we're going to speak tonight. Yeah, well, I just moved to authorize the twenty twenty six,

[3:30:32] measure, tax rate gas presented by staff.

[3:30:37] Motion and motion and a second, any further comment.

[3:30:41] Back, I'll just make a brief comment.

[3:30:44] I'll just make a brief comment.

[3:30:46] See, if any of you should before in our early setting session,

[3:30:49] I think it's an idea that's worth continuing to discuss,

[3:30:53] as the rate for next year is planned to be the same,

[3:30:56] and so it doesn't preclude us from,

[3:30:58] or really future councils from considering that.

[3:31:01] So I appreciate your grad, you can see.

[3:31:04] And I, you know, about predisposing myself,

[3:31:09] I think it's worth it, it's got some.

[3:31:13] Thank you.

[3:31:17] Okay, there's no other comment.

[3:31:19] Roll please.

[3:31:20] Thank you.

[3:31:20] You should do a cool.

[3:31:21] Councilmember Lopez.

[3:31:23] Councilmember Heinz.

[3:31:24] Councilmember Skizola.

[3:31:26] Vice Mayor, by me.

[3:31:27] I'm Mayor Frickado.

[3:31:30] Okay.

[3:31:33] So now we move on to the item that had been listed as 9.4.

[3:31:40] a third-party building plan, the third-party building plan, check and instruction.

[3:31:50] Our familiar council members, I promise you, this is the last time I speak to you tonight.

[3:31:55] I give a little bit of an hour. I'm going to try and keep this 50 and quick.

[3:31:59] As you know, we maintain a bench of third-party consultants to support our building division and plan check and inspection.

[3:32:05] The need sometimes is expertise, if need a structural engineer, which we don't have on call.

[3:32:11] Our Thursday surge in permits where it overwhelms our staff and we need to send it out for the third party plan check our inspection.

[3:32:17] Our current list, which was established in 2020, is experienced.

[3:32:22] We went through a procurement process early this year.

[3:32:24] We reached out across state to ask for new firms who would like to be our list.

[3:32:29] We got a big response.

[3:32:32] in folks asking beyond the Campbell Third Party list.

[3:32:37] From that list, our building official in staff has reviewed and recommended that the city

[3:32:43] move forward with executing agreements with six consultants.

[3:32:46] We'll provide third party plan check in the inspection.

[3:32:50] We are asking for more consultants and a bigger budget over the next three years.

[3:32:55] Three things driving that, number one we've learned having a deeper bench helps out on flexibility

[3:33:01] on the type of service you need versus a smaller bench, so having six firms can provide that skill set for the type of project that comes in.

[3:33:09] Two, we've ventured more into using third-party inspection, which our building official has helped sell, especially big projects, like town homes, where you have one dedicated person to inspect it,

[3:33:19] and you can free up our inspectors to deal with the diversity of other projects.

[3:33:23] And three, as you know, due to our own ambitious housing element and the state's ambitious housing goals,

[3:33:28] we've seen a progressive increase in housing permits coming through the city of the last couple years,

[3:33:33] at least a 9% growth in building permits coming through the building division.

[3:33:37] All through those factors, point two, increase need for third-party inspection in plan check,

[3:33:42] and just for a customer's, would like to remind our council, all funds that pay for the service are paid for by permit fees and plan check fees that come into the building division.

[3:33:52] that there is no impact on the general fund of the city.

[3:33:56] With that, I will wrap up and do recommend a big adopt the resolution of proving that consultant

[3:34:01] service agreements for the six firms and authorize a city manager to amend negotiate and execute

[3:34:07] the service contracts.

[3:34:09] Avail for questions are building official Bob Lennon has also been patiently waiting and he's

[3:34:14] available for questions also.

[3:34:16] Thank you.

[3:34:17] Thank you.

[3:34:18] Questions?

[3:34:20] questions is anyone wish to speak on this matter you know request what is the

[3:34:27] pleasure of the council

[3:34:32] I move the staff recommendation second motion by the

[3:34:38] vice mayor second by council member look as roll call please

[3:34:42] council member Lopez council member Heinle council member she's a lot nice mayor by

[3:34:50] Thank you.

[3:34:53] Thank you.

[3:34:53] We now move to the next item.

[3:34:56] The resolution of proving the new classification specification for the city attorney.

[3:35:01] And I'm speaking city managers.

[3:35:04] Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:35:05] The personal director.

[3:35:07] Amy.

[3:35:07] Follow us.

[3:35:09] Yeah.

[3:35:09] Oh, where are you?

[3:35:11] Good evening.

[3:35:11] Honorable Mayor and council members.

[3:35:13] I'm Ada Chang.

[3:35:14] I'm a resources manager.

[3:35:15] The item I'm bringing forward to you today is a resolution.

[3:35:19] approving the new jobs specifications for city attorney. As you know, our long-standing city

[3:35:24] attorney, Bill Solicum, will be retiring at the end of this year. And since his appointment

[3:35:29] as the city attorney in 1987, Mr. Solicum's firm has provided several services to the city

[3:35:35] in and of council relationship, with Etchston, Burstown and Condadia Law Firm. Mr. Solicum's

[3:35:41] contract doesn't include a monthly retainer fee covering 100 billable hours per month, with additional

[3:35:47] our relief fees for additional or excess services that are in access of covering the

[3:35:54] of the retainer. March 31st City Council expressed an interest in transitioning the city

[3:36:00] attorney role to a full-time in-house attorney model and directed staff to develop

[3:36:05] and appropriate city attorney jobs specification. So the recommended city attorney

[3:36:10] classification specification being brought forward to you today, reflects the current city

[3:36:14] attorney's duties, and adds additional breadth that would be expected for a full-time in-house

[3:36:19] position.

[3:36:21] It's also understood that, at the time of recruitment, the City Council can direct

[3:36:24] staff to advertise the position to encompass all areas of municipal law, or focus on

[3:36:30] candidates with specific specialty areas who can still oversee consultants or other staff handling

[3:36:35] other areas pertaining to municipal law.

[3:36:38] This position will be appointed by and report to City Council, and they will also serve

[3:36:43] the city's executive leader as the city's executive leader in all the

[3:36:47] full matters for change to the city. So I'm like that, but I think this is my

[3:36:50] presentation and I'm opening to any questions that you may have.

[3:36:53] Thank you, Ada. Questions by the council?

[3:37:01] Does anyone wish to speak of this

[3:37:02] matter?

[3:37:05] Apparently not. So what is the pleasure of the council?

[3:37:11] I'll make a motion that we adopt the resolution, proving the new

[3:37:14] classification specification for city attorney.

[3:37:17] Our second motion in the second. If no comment, go cold.

[3:37:24] Council member Lopez.

[3:37:25] Council member Heinz.

[3:37:26] Aye. Council members.

[3:37:30] Thank you. Item number 10, we have no unfinished business. We now go to council committee reports. So who would like to start?

[3:37:46] Well, does you want to look?

[3:37:50] Sure. VTA held a special

[3:37:56] technically it's regular meeting but on June 26th of Friday morning,

[3:38:04] which is not our usual time, but in lieu of a July meeting as we're out for the summer.

[3:38:13] So major, I don't know, that was a big decision on the Barc Project, essentially, the

[3:38:22] decision was made to break what was previously a large upwards of almost 5 billion with

[3:38:30] a B dollar contract for the Barc Project into a relatively smaller $2.4 billion by a $400 million

[3:38:42] which was voted on and the idea to break that up in the smaller pieces that more bidders

[3:38:48] can potentially bid on and get a better price for it. It did result in significance

[3:38:55] every hundred millions of dollars in savings for that project while keeping the work

[3:39:02] along on schedule. So I think that was, that's what I mean before.

[3:39:09] It still has a lot of zeroes after it.

[3:39:13] Yeah.

[3:39:13] Don't know.

[3:39:14] Nevermind.

[3:39:15] Yeah.

[3:39:15] Sergeant Matt Ryan described the incident around the police officers association labor meeting

[3:39:20] on June 10th.

[3:39:23] I had our last council meeting.

[3:39:25] He said a council member yelled at police vehicles and invited to officers.

[3:39:29] They should leave the community center.

[3:39:31] Sergeant Ryan felt employees will feel hostility or criticism exercising their lawful rights

[3:39:36] for collecting.

[3:39:38] I asked the staff to conduct an investigation

[3:39:41] to the Council Member's actions on June 10th.

[3:39:44] I asked a specifically review

[3:39:45] if there is any California code violation

[3:39:48] of employer interference by the Council Member.

[3:39:51] I proposed a motion to agenda is the review

[3:39:54] of the Council Member's actions on June 10th.

[3:40:01] I think we have a lot of staff time

[3:40:04] that doesn't need to be wasted on something like this,

[3:40:07] especially when you don't know the full story and it's accuracy of

[3:40:13] a veracity.

[3:40:17] Can the council member elaborate on the full story?

[3:40:21] No, but I will tell you that city manager that had a long conversation

[3:40:25] and others as well.

[3:40:28] So I'd be happy to have a conversation with you as well, but this is

[3:40:32] inappropriate in my mind.

[3:40:38] Well, I can say that this is the second time that a member has

[3:40:42] approach the dumbass or the podium with allegations about a council member's behavior, and in order to respond to the public in a transparent way, the two facts should be investigated so that the council can respond appropriately.

[3:41:04] to receive confidence at a or request where the council is not able to defend itself or defend

[3:41:11] the council member really puts us in a very awkward position.

[3:41:18] I'll just comment briefly.

[3:41:21] I don't know anything at all about this beyond what was said, and I'm like I don't have

[3:41:28] facts given that it is something the comment that was made that that has implications for

[3:41:35] other council as represented. I will second that motion I think as was said if the full story is

[3:41:42] not known then they will come out and if there's nothing to it then that will mount and

[3:41:52] Any comments on this?

[3:41:55] I'll go ahead and say.

[3:42:02] Okay.

[3:42:04] Well, Mayor, I have proposed a motion.

[3:42:08] And there is a second.

[3:42:09] There is a book in the second.

[3:42:11] I was following very more comments.

[3:42:13] Currently not.

[3:42:14] I will just say that.

[3:42:16] I think the further action.

[3:42:18] Or into the.

[3:42:21] No one has a

[3:42:26] question.

[3:42:27] Yes.

[3:42:27] Please.

[3:42:29] Councilmember Lopez. Councilmember Heinz. Councilmember Shkizolo.

[3:42:36] No. Vice Mayor Bibi. Mayor Fartado.

[3:42:39] No. The motion is passed, so that's the city manager to it.

[3:42:45] Gender is the matter for further discussion.

[3:42:50] I'm sorry. I guess we're Bibi your microphone is off. I just want to know.

[3:42:54] I'm sorry. I said I.

[3:42:56] Sorry. Thank you for pointing it out.

[3:43:02] I have nothing to report this week and I have nothing

[3:43:06] for the report. So after a very long evening I thank everyone and still here and but we are

[3:43:12] going to stand adjourned. Thank you.

City Council Regular Session Meeting

Agenda

Transcript