Agenda packet — Campbell City Council, February 3, 2026

City Council Agenda
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California NOTE: This City Council Regular meeting will be conducted in person as well as telecommunication and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. Vice Mayor Scozzola will participate virtually from the Hyatt Regency Sacramento, 1209 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814. A quorum of the City Council will be in attendance at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers.

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Channel 26 (Xfinity) or Channel 88 (Direct TV), the City's website and on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting.

Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at: https://www.campbellca.gov/signup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers.

Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] until 12:00 p.m. prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 07:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
Please Note: Items listed under Special Presentations and Proclamations are considered ceremonial. The City Council will not take action on these matters.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

ORAL REQUESTS

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. NOTE: This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required to complete a Speaker’s Card. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussion or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Requests.

COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of City Council Executive Session of January 20, 2026. Page 6 Recommended Action
Approve the executive session meeting minutes of January 20, 2026.

Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of January 20, 2026.

Recommended Action
Approve the regular meeting minutes of January 20, 2026.

Approving the Bills and Claims Page 8
Recommended Action
Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $344,985.61 Monthly Treasurer’s Report (December 2025) Page 10
Recommended Action
That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Treasurer’s Report for the month ended December 31, 2025.

Monthly Investment Transactions Report- December 2025 Page 13 Recommended Action
That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for December 2025.

Investment Report - Quarter Ending December 2025 Page 59 Recommended Action
That the City Council approve the Investment Report for the quarter ending December 2025 and the report be noted and filed

6. 7.

7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

7.5 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 2 of 283
Adoption of Ordinance 26-2341 – Speed Limits Page 109
Recommended Action
That the City Council take second reading and adopt Ordinance 26-2341 amending Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 10.32.010 – Establishing state speed limit in certain areas.

Accept resignations from the Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Page 114 ends

Recommended Action
That the City Council accept the resignation of Cori Majewski from the Planning Commission and Rene Carballo from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and direct the City Clerk to prepare the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy.

Accept donation of $4,000 from the Water Tower Kitchen for the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship Fund and approve an associated budget adjustment (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

Page 120 ends

Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to accept a donation of $4,000 from the Water Tower Kitchen for the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship Fund.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS OF ORDINANCES
NOTE: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public hearing item.

Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Council’s consent at the meeting.

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Campbell Municipal Code to clarify the timeline of Council Committee Appointments

Page 124 ends

Recommended Action
That the City Council introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.04.050 of the Campbell Municipal Code to amend when Council committee appointments may occur.

Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance No. 2326 which established urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits at new locations in the City of Campbell. Project

7.7 7.8

7.9 8.

8.1 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 3 of 283
File No.: PLN-2025-12. (Ordinance / Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action
That the City Council adopt an ordinance extending Interim Ordinance No. 2326, which established urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits at new locations in the City of Campbell.

NEW BUSINESS
Acceptance of Final Feasibility Study for the Hamilton
Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

Page 142 ends

Recommended Action
That the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the Final Feasibility Study for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing.

Authorization to Submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant Application for 1) the Hamilton
Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project Initiation Document and 2) the Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

Page 273 ends

Recommended Action
That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program grant application for: (1) The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Initiation Document (PID) and (2) The Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Committee Reports Page 280
Recommended Action
That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

ADJOURN
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after

9. 9.1

9.2 10.

11. 11.1

12. Tuesday, February 03, 2026 4 of 283
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of City Clerk’s Office, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008, during normal business hours. These materials will also be available on the City website at https://pub-campbell.escribemeetings.com with the agenda packet following the last item of the agenda, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. All documents not posted prior to the meeting will be posted the next business day.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the City Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (408) 866-2117, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

Tuesday, February 03, 2026 5 of 283

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California

EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 05:30 PM
Doetsch Conference Room
This City Council meeting was duly noticed pursuant to open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54956).

This meeting was recorded and can be viewed in it's entirety at: https://pubcampbell.escribemeetings.com PRESENT:

Mayor Furtado
Vice Mayor Scozzola
Councilmember Lopez
Councilmember Bybee
Councilmember Hines
ABSENT:

None

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The City Council of the City of Campbell convened this day in the special meeting place, the Doetsch Conference Room, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, California.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.

3. MOVE INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
City Attorney Seligmann was in attendance for Items A and D on the agenda.

4. ADJOURN
Mayor Furtado adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m.

Item 7.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 6 of 283
APPROVED: Sergio Lopez, Mayor
ATTEST: Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 7.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 7 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Approving the Bills and Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $344,985.61

DISCUSSION
The bills and claims that have been audited and approved by staff for payments made as noted below:

FISCAL IMPACT
Requested action does not require a budget adjustment. Adequate funding was available to cover all expenses as listed.

PREPARED BY:

Celia Cruz Deniz, Accounting Clerk II
Item 7.3
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 8 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report Approving Bills and Claims 02.03.26.docx Attachments: Payroll 12.31.25.pdf
Bills & Claims 01.12.26.pdf
Payroll 01.15.26.pdf
Final Approval Date: January 27, 2026
Item 7.3
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 9 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Monthly Treasurer’s Report (December 2025)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Treasurer’s Report for the month ended December 31, 2025.

BACKGROUND
California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submits to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The City of Campbell’s Finance Director has the responsibility of City Treasurer. This report has been prepared to fulfill this requirement.

This report provides financial transaction data for the City of Campbell’s Funds collectively, including the City’s General (Operating) Fund.

DISCUSSION
This Monthly Treasurer’s Report details and summarizes receipts, disbursements, and fund balances for the month ended December 31, 2025. As shown in Attachment 1, the City recognized $8.3 million in revenues and incurred $9.7 million in expenditures in total, for all City funds along with $2.2 of negative prior period adjustments. The City’s overall ending fund balance for December 2025 is $59.0 million, a decrease of $3.6 million from the November 2025 total of $62.6 million. Also in the General Fund, the City recognized $6.5 million in revenues and incurred $6.8 million in expenditures in total, along with $2.0 million of negative prior period adjustments. The General Fund’s overall ending fund balance for December 2025 is $19.6 million, a decrease of $2.3 million from the November 2025 total for $21.9 million.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the review and acceptance of the Monthly Treasurer’s Report.

PREPARED BY: Carolina Vargas, Accountant
Item 7.4
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 10 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Monthly Treasurer's Report December 2025.docx Attachments: 2025.12 Fund Balance Report.pdf
Final Approval Date: January 28, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 7.4
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 11 of 283
City of Campbell
Changes in Total Fund Balance
For the month ended December 31, 2025
Fund Balance
as of
11/30/2025
Prior Month
Adjustment
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure
Fund Balance
as of
12/31/2025
General Fund
Nonspendable Fund Balance
Leases $ 199,081.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 199,081.00
Committed Fund Balance
General Plan Update - - - - -
Compensated Absences 970,698.00 - - - 970,698.00
Liability insurance 157,936.00 - - - 157,936.00
Available Capital Improvement Reserve 212,351.00 - - - 212,351.00 Committed Capital Improvement Reserve 1,240,899.00 - - - 1,240,899.00 Community Center Facility 149,706.00 - - - 149,706.00
Heritage Theater 180,344.00 - - - 180,344.00
Historic Preservation 5,000.00 - - - 5,000.00
Assigned Fund Balance
Capital Projects (Construction Tax) 138,406.00 - - - 138,406.00 Unemployment insurance 90,000.00 - - - 90,000.00
PERS 2,252,000.00 - - - 2,252,000.00
OPEB 393,315.00 - - - 393,315.00
Encumbrances 917,512.00 - - - 917,512.00
Unassigned Fund Balance
Unassigned 1,918,136.04 (1,981,416.66) 6,525,083.44 (6,815,534.03) (353,731.21) City Council Reserve 362,624.00 - - - 362,624.00
Economic fluctuations 9,485,886.00 - - - 9,485,886.00
Emergency 3,207,454.00 - - - 3,207,454.00
General Fund Total 21,881,348.04 (1,981,416.66) 6,525,083.44 (6,815,534.03) 19,609,480.79 Special Revenue
Vehicle Impact 2,780,293.99 (8,372.13) 65,748.98 - 2,837,670.84 Gas Tax 2,960,779.50 (73,053.36) 191,251.89 (209,595.10) 2,869,382.93 Asset Forfeiture 159,092.20 (497.30) 3,855.90 - 162,450.80 Lighting & Landscape District 571,055.47 (138,649.87) 635,938.91 (308,344.09) 760,000.42 Housing & Community Development 329.54 - - - 329.54
Environmental Services 1,251,279.07 (3,601.81) 42,834.96 (22,039.96) 1,268,472.26 Supplemental Law Enforcement 82,667.22 (10,463.12) 12,500.00 (13,824.29) 70,879.81 State & Other Grants (351,931.22) (472.69) 25,266.90 (187,102.06) (514,239.07) TDA Grant 296,525.13 (1,133.31) - - 295,391.82
Federal Grants 638,329.53 (2,171.34) - - 636,158.19
ARPA Fund (12,836.19) 12,836.19 - - -
Housing Assistance 7,995,223.60 (18,784.98) - (32,641.40) 7,943,797.22 Community Restitution Fund 226,661.40 (612.69) 4,806.50 - 230,855.21 Community Facilities District #1 (39,829.45) - - (37,084.00) (76,913.45) Community Facilities District #2 214,815.39 (824.11) - (39,874.51) 174,116.77 Parkland Dedication 8,200,063.73 (20,460.47) 18,013.00 - 8,197,616.26 Recreation - Private Grants 6,681.64 (21.17) - 6,660.47 Adult Center 18,509.44 (58.65) - 18,450.79
Special Revenue Fund Total 24,997,709.99 (266,340.81) 1,000,217.04 (850,505.41) 24,881,080.81 Debt Service
Measure O 1,911,605.20 910.88 4,496.88 - 1,917,012.96
LID #30 35,872.28 (113.73) - - 35,758.55
2016 Refunding Lease Revenue Bond (471,817.16) (41.30) 191,606.31 - (280,252.15) Debt Service Fund Total 1,475,660.32 755.85 196,103.19 - 1,672,519.36 Internal Service Fund
Motor Vehicle Pool 1,193,945.91 (16,590.33) 91,755.67 (99,415.85) 1,169,695.40 Information Technology Pool (658,107.27) (63,673.63) 237,082.65 (158,220.85) (642,919.10) Worker's Compensation 1,500,249.29 7,989.17 49,174.66 (57,188.77) 1,500,224.35 Internal Service Fund Total 2,036,087.93 (72,274.79) 378,012.98 (314,825.47) 2,027,000.65 Trust/Agency
Successor Agency 3,313,669.74 (1,241.53) - - 3,312,428.21 West Valley Solid Waste JPA 1,093,212.93 (3,489.95) 164,340.08 (156,480.32) 1,097,582.74 SCC Specialized Enforcement Team - - - - -
Trust/Agency Fund Total 4,406,882.67 (4,731.48) 164,340.08 (156,480.32) 4,410,010.95 Capital Project
Capital Projects Fund (159,830.32) (838.97) - (69,583.34) (230,252.63) Measure O CIP Fund 7,954,683.66 109,305.47 - (1,458,023.58) 6,605,965.55 Capital Project Fund Total 7,794,853.34 108,466.50 - (1,527,606.92) 6,375,712.92 Total City $ 62,592,542.29 $ (2,215,541.39) $ 8,263,756.73 $ (9,664,952.15) $ 58,975,805.48 Fund Description
*Fund balances are unaudited, and may not include all necessary adjustments. These figures will be updated in future reports once the FY 2024/25 independent audit is completed.

Item 7.4
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 12 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Monthly Investment Transactions Report- December 2025 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for December 2025.

BACKGROUND
As required by California Government Code (GC) Section 53607, staff will submit to the City Council Monthly Investment Transaction Reports within 45 days of the prior month end that show a listing of investments purchased, sold, called, or reached maturity, along with any Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) or California Asset Management Program (CAMP) transfers. This is in addition to the Quarterly Investment Report, which shows several other items listed under Section VII.A of the City’s Investment Policy and is also submitted to the City Council within 45 days from the end of the prior quarter.

DISCUSSION
This Monthly Investment Transaction Report covers December 2025. As shown in Attachment 1, staff deposited $2.1 million into the City’s main Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and withdrew $1.8 million in managing general operating expenditures. $1.8 million was also withdrawn from the Measure O 2022 LAIF bond account, covering project expenditures. The monthly LAIF investment rate dropped slightly to 4.03%. In the City’s California Asset Management Program (CAMP) regular pooled account, $2.1 million was deposited along with $3.0 million in withdrawals for operational expenses, while $34,000 in dividends were posted. In the City’s Measure K escrow account, $608,000 was deposited representing December’s Measure K sales tax received from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) along with $12,000 in dividends. The current yield in CAMP dropped to 3.95%. In the City’s BNY investment custodial account managed by Chandler Asset Management, one $150,000 US Treasury bond (3.5%, 4 yrs) was purchased and $72,000 in net interest, dividends were posted. The average market Yield to Maturity (YTM) rose slightly to 3.81%. The BNY / Chandler strategy continues targeting diversification by locking in longer-term rates as short-term LAIF and CAMP rates continue decreasing. Consistent with the recommended FY 2025-26 Investment Strategy approved by the City Council on September 16, 2025, staff and the City’s investment advisors continue to watch for moderately long-term investment Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 13 of 283
opportunities outside of LAIF, as interest rates remain high but have stabilized to provide the highest yet still safe returns, consistent with the City’s Investment Policy. Please note that all investment purchases made adhere to the City’s Investment Policy

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the review and acceptance of the Monthly Investment Transactions Report.

PREPARED BY: John Formale, Accountant
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 14 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report Monthly Investment Transactions ReportDecember2025.docx Attachments: Monthly Investment Activity Report- 12.31.25.pdf Chandler BNY Investment Statement- 12.31.25.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

January 27, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 15 of 283

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Monthly Investment Transactions Report
December 1 to December 31 2025
Account Trans. Date December'25
LAIF - ******133, Main account
Average Monthly Yield 4.03%
Beginning Balance $ 9,659,626
Transactions
Deposit 12/17/2025 2,100,000
Withdrawal 12/19/2025 (1,500,000)
Withdrawal 12/29/2025 (300,000)
300,000
Ending Balance $ 9,959,626
Account Trans. Date December'25
LAIF - ******032, MEAS O, Series 2022
Average Monthly Yield 4.03%
Beginning Balance $ 7,010,263
Transactions
Withdrawal- November project expenditures 12/15/2025 (1,800,000) (1,800,000)
Ending Balance $ 5,210,263
Account Trans. Date December'25
CAMP - ******001, Regular
Average Monthly Yield 3.95%
Beginning Balance $ 11,170,686
Transactions
Withdrawal 12/3/2025 (800,000)
Withdrawal 12/8/2025 (1,400,000)
Deposit 12/16/2025 2,100,000
Withdrawal 12/19/2025 (800,000)
Dividends 12/31/2025 33,809
(866,191)
Ending Balance $ 10,304,495
Account Trans. Date December'25
CAMP - ******002, Meas K Sales Tax escrow
Average Monthly Yield 3.95%
Beginning Balance $ 3,360,620
Transactions
Deposit-December sales tax receipts 12/24/2025 607,898
Dividends 12/31/2025 11,781
619,679
Ending Balance $ 3,980,298
Trans. Date December'25
Bank of New York (BNY) - ******818
Average Monthly Yield/Market YTM 3.81%
Beginning Balance 20,874,591
Note: Purchases listed at par value, see Chandler Monthly Statement for add'l detail Transactions
Purchase- US Treasury 3.5%, 4 yrs 12/10/2025 150,000
Interest & dividends 12/31/2025 72,320
MM transfers- Principle paydown, purchased/sold interest 12/31/2025 (150,143) 72,177
Ending Balance 20,946,768
Total of all Investments
Beginning $ 52,075,785
Ending $ 50,401,450
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 16 of 283

MONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENT
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT | chandlerasset.com
Information contained herein is confidential. We urge you to compare this statement to the one you receive from your qualified custodian. Please see Important Disclosures at the end of the statement.

Chandler Team:

For questions about your account, please call (800) 317-4747, or contact [email protected]
Custodian:

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Portfolio Characteristics
Sector Allocation
Performance Review
Account Summary
Maturity Distribution
Top Issuers
Credit Quality*
Total Rate of Return** 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS Since Inception (03/01/25)
City of Campbell 0.19% 1.13% -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Benchmark Return 0.19% 1.11% -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Average Modified Duration 2.57
Average Coupon 4.06%
Average Purchase YTM 4.20%
Average Market YTM 3.81%
Average Credit Quality* AA
Average Final Maturity 3.06
Average Life 2.81
End Values as of
11/30/2025
End Values as of
12/31/2025
Market Value 21,147,966.79 21,172,773.16
Accrued Interest 173,558.97 188,371.46
Total Market Value 21,321,525.77 21,361,144.63
Income Earned 57,830.47 89,450.53
Cont/WD 0.00 0.00
Par 20,980,905.08 21,039,428.43
Book Value 20,900,936.52 20,960,076.32
Cost Value 20,890,355.53 20,947,034.63
United States 41.55%
FHLMC 10.00%
Farm Credit System 4.71%
Federal Home Loan Banks 2.37%
International Bank for Recon and Dev 2.26%
Toyota Motor Corporation 1.91%
BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 1.88%
American Express Credit Master Trust 1.77%
**Periods over 1 year are annualized.

Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index *The average credit quality is a weighted average calculation of the highest of S&P, Moody’s and Fitch.

RECONCILIATION SUMMARY
Accrual Activity Summary
Fair Market Activity Summary
Month to Date Fiscal Year to Date
(07/01/2025)
Beginning Book Value 20,900,936.52 20,540,867.11
Maturities/Calls 0.00 (2,250,000.00)
Principal Paydowns (14,398.52) (52,796.16)
Purchases 234,872.94 5,611,343.48
Sales (148,298.53) (2,902,732.41)
Change in Cash, Payables, Receivables (15,498.24) (111.24) Amortization/Accretion 2,462.15 11,679.25
Realized Gain (Loss) (0.00) 1,826.29
Ending Book Value 20,960,076.32 20,960,076.32
Month to Date Fiscal Year to Date
(07/01/2025)
Beginning Market Value 21,147,966.79 20,681,866.80
Maturities/Calls 0.00 (2,250,000.00)
Principal Paydowns (14,398.52) (52,796.16)
Purchases 234,872.94 5,611,343.48
Sales (148,298.53) (2,902,732.41)
Change in Cash, Payables, Receivables (15,498.24) (111.24) Amortization/Accretion 2,462.15 11,679.25
Change in Net Unrealized Gain (Loss) (34,333.43) 71,697.15 Realized Gain (Loss) (0.00) 1,826.29
Ending Market Value 21,172,773.16 21,172,773.16
Maturities / Calls
Month to Date 0.00
Fiscal Year to Date (2,250,000.00)
Principal Paydowns
Month to Date (14,398.52)
Fiscal Year to Date (52,796.16)
Purchases
Month to Date 234,872.94
Fiscal Year to Date 5,611,343.48
Sales
Month to Date (148,298.53)
Fiscal Year to Date (2,902,732.41)
Interest Received
Month to Date 72,320.12
Fiscal Year to Date 409,839.84
Purchased / Sold Interest
Month to Date (144.23)
Fiscal Year to Date (4,024.93)
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 19 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 4
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
ABS
891940AC2 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63
09/15/2027 51,363.98 11/14/20244.63%
51,384.05
51,372.22
100.23

4.00%
51,482.02
105.70

0.24%
109.80
NA/AAA
AAA

1.71 0.34
362962AD4 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58
05/22/2028 95,000.00 05/20/20254.84%
94,998.42
94,998.73
100.90

3.87%
95,852.53
132.95

0.45%
853.80
NA/AAA
AAA

2.39 1.18
379965AD8 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17
08/21/2028 90,000.00 08/05/20254.18%
89,986.32
89,988.07
100.52

3.85%
90,469.53
114.68

0.43%
481.46
NA/AAA
AAA

2.64 1.45
47800RAD5 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 200,000.00 02/20/2025

4.63%
201,203.13
200,824.21
100.88

3.98%
201,752.60
440.89

0.95%
928.39
Aaa/NA
AAA

2.88 0.85
096919AD7 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18
02/26/2029 394,245.29 --4.69%
398,341.74
397,084.51
100.91

3.98%
397,843.57
340.37

1.88%
759.06
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.16 0.73
89239TAD4 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 60,000.00 10/10/2024

4.51%
59,996.65
59,997.52
100.70

3.86%
60,417.30
117.33

0.29%
419.78
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.45 1.19
02589BAE0 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65
07/15/2027 200,000.00 02/20/20254.57%
200,546.88
200,350.40
101.37

3.76%
202,737.40
413.33

0.96%
2,387.00
NA/AAA
AAA

1.54 1.46
34535VAD6 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61
08/15/2029 120,000.00 11/19/20244.66%
119,996.15
119,997.05
101.10

3.89%
121,319.88
245.87

0.57%
1,322.83
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.62 1.43
38014AAD3 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4
08/16/2029 60,000.00 10/08/20244.32%
59,988.44
59,991.33
100.75

3.76%
60,449.88
110.00

0.29%
458.55
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.62 1.10
47800DAD6 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 100,000.00 03/04/2025

5.09%
99,993.71
99,994.84
100.75

3.85%
100,746.00
188.00

0.48%
751.16
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.71 1.77
92970QAE5 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29
10/15/2029 110,000.00 10/17/20244.29%
109,983.65
109,987.56
100.97

3.76%
111,065.57
209.73

0.52%
1,078.01
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.79 1.69
89231HAD8 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34
11/15/2029 65,000.00 04/24/20254.82%
64,996.28
64,996.83
100.78

3.93%
65,510.06
125.38

0.31%
513.22
NA/AAA
AAA

3.87 1.72
362955AD8 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62
12/17/2029 80,000.00 01/09/20255.03%
79,994.06
79,995.22
101.03

3.89%
80,821.60
154.00

0.38%
826.38
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.96 1.32
58773DAD6 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78
12/17/2029 115,000.00 01/14/20254.84%
114,975.54
114,980.23
101.45

3.85%
116,664.40
244.31

0.55%
1,684.17
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.96 1.47
44935XAD7 HART 2025-B A3 4.36
12/17/2029 80,000.00 06/03/20254.36%
79,992.78
79,993.67
100.95

3.87%
80,763.76
155.02

0.38%
770.09
NA/AAA
AAA

3.96 1.79
02582JKP4 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28
04/15/2030 170,000.00 05/06/20254.28%
169,996.92
169,997.32
101.14

3.79%
171,940.38
323.38

0.81%
1,943.06
NA/AAA
AAA

4.29 2.14
Total ABS 1,990,609.27 4.61%
1,996,374.72
1,994,549.72
100.97

3.88%
2,009,836.46
3,420.93

9.49%
15,286.74

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
AGENCY
3133ENZY9 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 3.96 07/12/2027 1,000,000.00 07/12/20223.96% 1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00

99.69 4.17%
996,942.00
18,590.00

4.71%
(3,058.00)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.53 1.44
3130B7QM9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 3.5
09/09/2027 500,000.00 09/23/20253.63%
498,795.00
498,961.85
100.18

3.39%
500,886.00
5,347.22

2.37%
1,924.15
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.69 1.61
Total Agency 1,500,000.00 3.85%
1,498,795.00
1,498,961.85

99.86 3.91%
1,497,828.00
23,937.22

7.07%
(1,133.85)

1.58 1.50

AGENCY CMBS
3137BSRE5 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 246,720.25 11/21/2024

4.55%
240,494.42
244,371.06

99.38 3.77%
245,195.52
641.47

1.16%
824.46
Aa1/AAA
AAA

0.73 0.65
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 250,000.00 11/21/2024

4.53%
244,335.94
246,025.89
100.08

3.79%
250,210.00
812.50

1.18%
4,184.11
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.65 2.45
3137FJKE8 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 250,000.00 06/10/2025

4.27%
246,992.19
247,508.84
100.21

3.76%
250,516.25
816.67

1.18%
3,007.41
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.74 2.48
3137FKSH0 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859
11/25/2028 150,000.00 09/18/20243.82%
150,005.86
150,004.04

99.97 3.81%
149,949.00
482.38

0.71%
(55.04)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.90 2.66
3137FLN91 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505
03/25/2029 300,000.00 11/14/20244.62%
287,074.22
290,448.32

98.88 3.84%
296,650.50
876.25

1.40%
6,202.18
Aa1/AAA
AA+

3.23 2.90
3137FMCR1 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982
05/25/2029 147,891.42 10/16/20244.15%
140,912.80
142,757.72

97.33 3.84%
143,939.61
367.51

0.68%
1,181.89
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.40 2.98
3137FNAE0 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785
06/25/2029 250,000.00 03/13/20254.39%
234,707.03
237,584.42

96.49 3.87%
241,236.25
580.21

1.14%
3,651.83
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.48 3.15
3137FPHK4 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425
08/25/2029 300,000.00 10/17/20244.26%
276,445.31
282,333.98

95.07 3.90%
285,204.90
606.25

1.35%
2,870.92
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.65 3.34
3137FRUJ8 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872
01/25/2030 275,000.00 03/17/20254.43%
244,868.16
249,815.44

92.31 3.95%
253,861.03
429.00

1.20%
4,045.59
Aa1/AA+
AAA

4.07 3.78
Total Agency CMBS 2,169,611.67 4.37%
2,065,835.93
2,090,849.71

97.64 3.84%
2,116,763.05
5,612.23

10.00%
25,913.35

2.99 2.72
CASH
CCYUSD Receivable 266.55 -- 266.55
266.55

1.00 266.55

0.00 0.00%

0.00 Aaa/AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00
Total Cash 266.55
266.55
266.55

1.00 266.55

0.00 0.00%

0.00 0.00

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration

COMMERCIAL
PAPER
62479MES8 MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York
Branch 05/26/2026 350,000.00 09/23/20253.99%
340,758.06
344,530.28

98.46 3.91%
344,614.20

0.00 1.63%

83.92 P-1/A-1
NA

0.40 0.39
Total Commercial
Paper 350,000.00 3.99%
340,758.06
344,530.28

98.46 3.91%
344,614.20

0.00 1.63%

83.92 0.40

0.39 CORPORATE
91324PEY4 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 4.6
04/15/2027 240,000.00 09/18/20243.83%
244,346.40
242,098.92
100.84

3.92%
242,010.48
2,330.67

1.14%
(88.44)
A2/A+
A

1.29 1.15
437076DB5 HOME DEPOT INC 4.875
06/25/2027 225,000.00 08/12/20244.25%
228,663.00
226,836.91
101.69

3.69%
228,804.75
182.81

1.08%
1,967.84
A2/A
A

1.48 1.34
02665WFK2 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE
CORP 4.9 07/09/2027 200,000.00 09/18/20244.03%
204,578.00
202,479.19
101.35

3.97%
202,702.20
4,682.22

0.96%
223.01
A3/ANA1.52

1.42 857477CP6 STATE STREET CORP 4.33
10/22/2027 250,000.00 11/07/20244.54%
248,537.50
249,105.95
101.01

3.74%
252,529.00
2,074.79

1.19%
3,423.05
Aa3/A
AA1.811.63
89115A3E0 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

4.861 01/31/2028 225,000.00 01/28/20254.86%
225,000.00
225,000.00
101.64

4.03%
228,684.83
4,587.57

1.08%
3,684.83
A2/AAA2.08

1.92 17275RBW1 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.55
02/24/2028 250,000.00 03/11/20254.32%
251,557.50
251,119.08
101.62

3.75%
254,061.25
4,012.85

1.20%
2,942.17
A1/AANA2.15

1.92 00287YDY2 ABBVIE INC 4.65 03/15/2028 125,000.00 02/18/2025

4.70%
124,833.75
124,879.91
101.68

3.85%
127,096.00
1,711.46

0.60%
2,216.09
A3/ANA2.21

1.98 06406RBG1 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORP 3.992 06/13/2028 225,000.00 09/05/20244.31%
223,128.00
224,021.37
100.04

4.33%
225,083.03
449.10

1.06%
1,061.65
Aa3/A
AA2.451.39
46647PDG8 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.851
07/25/2028 150,000.00 08/12/20244.62%
150,933.00
150,494.25
101.29

4.64%
151,928.40
3,153.15

0.72%
1,434.15
A1/A
AA2.571.47
46647PEU6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.915
01/24/2029 115,000.00 01/16/20254.92%
115,000.00
115,000.00
101.86

4.14%
117,137.85
2,465.01

0.55%
2,137.85
A1/A
AA3.071.91
06051GMK2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 4.979
01/24/2029 150,000.00 01/17/20254.98%
150,000.00
150,000.00
101.87

4.19%
152,807.10
3,257.10

0.72%
2,807.10
A1/AAA3.07

1.91 06368MJG0 BANK OF MONTREAL 5.004
01/27/2029 100,000.00 01/22/20255.01%
100,000.00
100,000.00
101.89

4.15%
101,894.70
2,140.60

0.48%
1,894.70
A2/AAA3.07

1.91 91159HJK7 US BANCORP 4.653 02/01/2029 200,000.00 09/05/2024

4.47%
201,116.00
200,683.25
101.25

4.31%
202,500.00
3,877.50

0.96%
1,816.75
A3/A
A

3.09 1.93
06051GLG2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 5.202
04/25/2029 150,000.00 08/12/20244.69%
152,550.00
151,594.93
102.56

4.41%
153,841.20
1,430.55

0.73%
2,246.27
A1/AAA3.31

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
24422EXT1 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 4.85
06/11/2029 225,000.00 08/12/20244.40%
229,338.00
228,092.95
102.76

3.98%
231,202.80
606.25

1.09%
3,109.85
A1/A
A+

3.44 3.14
025816EJ4 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 4.351
07/20/2029 170,000.00 07/21/20254.35%
170,000.00
170,000.00
100.73

4.18%
171,240.32
3,205.24

0.81%
1,240.32
A2/AA3.55

2.35 89236TMK8 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

4.55 08/09/2029 225,000.00 08/12/20244.49%
225,567.00
225,409.53
101.62

4.06%
228,653.55
4,038.13

1.08%
3,244.02
A1/A+
A+

3.61 3.24
532457CQ9 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.2 08/14/2029 235,000.00 08/12/2024

4.22%
234,769.70
234,833.39
100.97

3.91%
237,277.62
3,756.08

1.12%
2,444.23
Aa3/A+
NA

3.62 3.21
26442CAY0 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC

2.45 08/15/2029 250,000.00 12/18/20244.72%
226,517.50
231,738.90

94.67 4.05%
236,663.50
2,313.89

1.12%
4,924.60
Aa3/A
NA

3.62 3.38
61748UAK8 MORGAN STANLEY 4.133
10/18/2029 155,000.00 10/17/20254.25%
155,019.50
155,018.23

99.97 4.27%
154,950.09
1,227.85

0.73%
(68.14)
A1/AA+3.80

2.59 38141GD27 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

4.153 10/21/2029 105,000.00 10/14/20254.37%
105,000.00
105,000.00

99.98 4.27%
104,976.48
847.90

0.50%
(23.52)
A2/BBB+
A

3.80 2.60
14913UAU4 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL
SERVICES CORP 4.7 11/15/2029 250,000.00 11/12/20244.74% 249,592.50
249,684.44
102.60

3.97%
256,494.25
1,501.39

1.21%
6,809.81
A2/A
A+

3.87 3.50
89236TNA9 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

4.95 01/09/2030 170,000.00 01/06/20255.00%
169,636.20
169,707.33
102.97

4.14%
175,043.05
4,020.50

0.83%
5,335.72
A1/A+
A+

4.02 3.54
63743HFX5

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES

COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP

4.95 02/07/2030
250,000.00 02/20/2025

4.90%
250,550.00
250,453.03
102.92

4.17%
257,293.75
4,950.00

1.22%
6,840.72
A2/NA
A

4.10 3.55
571748CA8

MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES INC 4.65
03/15/2030
250,000.00 03/24/2025

4.67%
249,755.00
249,793.05
102.00

4.12%
255,011.75
3,422.92

1.20%
5,218.70
A3/AA4.20

3.67 931142FN8 WALMART INC 4.35 04/28/2030 185,000.00 04/23/2025

4.39%
184,679.95
184,723.42
101.58

3.95%
187,918.75
1,408.31

0.89%
3,195.33
Aa2/AA
AA

4.32 3.82
69371RT71 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.55
05/08/2030 230,000.00 05/05/20254.59%
229,643.50
229,689.97
101.85

4.08%
234,247.87
1,540.68

1.11%
4,557.90
A1/A+
NA

4.35 3.89
30303MAB8 META PLATFORMS INC 4.2
11/15/2030 250,000.00 11/13/20254.16%
250,482.50
250,470.39
100.21

4.15%
250,528.25
1,691.67

1.18%

57.86 Aa3/AANA4.87

4.27 Total Corporate 5,555,000.00 4.50%
5,550,794.50
5,547,928.39
101.24

4.06%
5,622,582.81
70,886.17

26.56%
74,654.42

3.16 2.60

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
X9USDDGCM DREYFUS GVT CM INST 93,940.94 --

3.65%
93,940.94
93,940.94

1.00 3.65%
93,940.94

0.00 0.44%

0.00 Aaa/
AAAm
NA

0.00 0.00
Total Money
Market Fund 93,940.94 3.65%
93,940.94
93,940.94

1.00 3.65%
93,940.94

0.00 0.44%

0.00 0.00

0.00 MUNICIPAL
BONDS
13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.5
08/01/2029 205,000.00 10/30/20244.38%
206,080.35
205,816.82
102.47

3.76%
210,063.50
3,843.75

0.99%
4,246.68
Aa2/AAAA3.58

3.23 Total Municipal
Bonds 205,000.00 4.38%
206,080.35
205,816.82
102.47

3.76%
210,063.50
3,843.75

0.99%
4,246.68

3.58 3.23

SUPRANATIONAL
459058LN1

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029
350,000.00 12/13/2024

4.29%
343,689.50
345,051.71
100.70

3.68%
352,449.30
2,824.50

1.66%
7,397.59
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.79 3.47
459058LR2

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 4.125 03/20/2030
125,000.00 03/14/2025

4.20%
124,553.75
124,623.89
101.49

3.74%
126,860.13
1,446.61

0.60%
2,236.24
Aaa/AAA
NA

4.22 3.80
Total
Supranational 475,000.00 4.27%
468,243.25
469,675.60
100.91

3.69%
479,309.43
4,271.11

2.26%
9,633.83

3.90 3.56

US TREASURY
91282CJC6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
10/15/2026 375,000.00 08/30/20243.90%
380,507.81
377,037.04
100.81

3.57%
378,021.38
3,716.52

1.79%
984.34
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.79 0.76
91282CKE0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
03/15/2027 350,000.00 08/20/20243.86%
353,322.27
351,554.65
100.85

3.52%
352,966.95
4,437.85

1.67%
1,412.30
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.20 1.15
91282CKZ3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
07/15/2027 375,000.00 08/08/20243.91%
379,804.69
377,514.60
101.33

3.48%
379,980.38
7,578.97

1.79%
2,465.77
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.54 1.45
91282CFM8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
09/30/2027 350,000.00 10/31/20244.17%
349,521.48
349,713.25
101.07

3.48%
353,746.05
3,688.70

1.67%
4,032.80
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.75 1.65
91282CGP0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
02/29/2028 375,000.00 08/08/20243.87%
376,552.73
375,943.11
101.04

3.49%
378,911.25
5,096.69

1.79%
2,968.14
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.16 2.03
91282CHK0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
06/30/2028 350,000.00 08/20/20243.76%
353,007.81
351,944.72
101.17

3.51%
354,101.65

38.67 1.67%
2,156.93
Aa1/AA+
AA+

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CJF9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.875
10/31/2028 375,000.00 08/08/20243.85%
389,765.63
384,888.38
103.54

3.54%
388,286.25
3,131.04

1.83%
3,397.87
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.84 2.61
91282CKD2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
02/28/2029 375,000.00 11/26/20244.21%
375,585.94
375,435.12
102.02

3.57%
382,587.75
5,415.23

1.81%
7,152.63
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.16 2.90
91282CKG5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
03/31/2029 350,000.00 11/18/20244.31%
347,498.05
348,138.85
101.66

3.58%
355,797.05
3,688.70

1.68%
7,658.20
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.25 2.99
91282CKP5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
04/30/2029 375,000.00 08/08/20243.84%
387,583.01
383,862.82
103.23

3.58%
387,114.38
2,970.48

1.83%
3,251.56
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.33 3.05
91282CEV9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.25
06/30/2029 350,000.00 11/18/20244.31%
334,591.80
338,324.90

98.86 3.60%
346,007.90

31.42 1.63%
7,683.00
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.50 3.27
91282CLC3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
07/31/2029 350,000.00 08/20/20243.70%
354,634.77
353,356.04
101.29

3.61%
354,525.50
5,858.70

1.67%
1,169.46
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.58 3.26
91282CLK5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2029 400,000.00 --3.60%
400,687.50
400,405.13

99.98 3.63%
399,937.60
4,926.80

1.89%
(467.53)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.67 3.36
91282CLN9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
09/30/2029 400,000.00 --4.09%
389,617.18
392,020.36

99.54 3.63%
398,140.80
3,576.92

1.88%
6,120.44
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.75 3.45
91282CLR0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
10/31/2029 400,000.00 --4.33%
396,388.68
397,178.64
101.71

3.64%
406,843.60
2,825.97

1.92%
9,664.96
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.83 3.49
91282CMA6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
11/30/2029 400,000.00 12/11/20244.09%
400,546.88
400,430.81
101.73

3.65%
406,906.40
1,450.55

1.92%
6,475.59
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.91 3.58
91282CMD0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
12/31/2029 400,000.00 --4.45%
398,679.69
398,935.03
102.67

3.65%
410,687.60

48.34 1.94%
11,752.57
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.00 3.65
91282CMU2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
03/31/2030 300,000.00 04/07/20253.75%
303,375.00
302,877.48
101.27

3.67%
303,820.20
3,065.93

1.43%
942.72
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.25 3.84
91282CMZ1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
04/30/2030 500,000.00 09/16/20253.57%
506,425.78
506,021.79
100.78

3.68%
503,906.50
3,318.37

2.38%
(2,115.29)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.33 3.93
91282CNG2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
05/31/2030 350,000.00 06/09/20254.08%
348,742.19
348,884.18
101.27

3.68%
354,456.90
1,230.77

1.67%
5,572.72
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.41 4.00
91282CNK3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
06/30/2030 325,000.00 07/29/20253.95%
323,933.59
324,025.62
100.75

3.69%
327,450.18

34.79 1.55%
3,424.55
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.50 4.09
91282CNN7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
07/31/2030 225,000.00 08/26/20253.77%
226,081.05
226,004.73
100.74

3.70%
226,661.18
3,648.61

1.07%
656.44
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.58 4.10
91282CNX5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2030 500,000.00 09/16/20253.58%
500,937.50
500,882.57

99.64 3.71%
498,222.50
6,158.49

2.35%
(2,660.07)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.67 4.20
91282CPN5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030 150,000.00 12/09/20253.77%
148,154.30
148,176.66

98.99 3.73%
148,488.30
461.54

0.70%
311.64
Aa1/AA+
AA+

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Total US Treasury 8,700,000.00 3.95%
8,725,945.33
8,713,556.47
101.13

3.61%
8,797,568.23
76,400.05

41.55%
84,011.75

3.32 3.04
Total Portfolio 21,039,428.43 4.20%
20,947,034.63
20,960,076.32
100.23

3.81%
21,172,773.16
188,371.46
100.00%
212,696.84

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 12/01/2025 X9USDDGCM 15,250.00 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.86% (15,250.00) 0.00 (15,250.00) 0.00 Purchase 12/02/2025 X9USDDGCM 514.77 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.89% (514.77) 0.00 (514.77) 0.00 Purchase 12/10/2025 91282CPN5 150,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.5 11/30/2030 98.770 3.77% (148,154.30) (144.23) (148,298.53) 0.00 Purchase 12/11/2025 X9USDDGCM 5,456.25 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.78% (5,456.25) 0.00 (5,456.25) 0.00 Purchase 12/15/2025 X9USDDGCM 6,274.53 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.66% (6,274.53) 0.00 (6,274.53) 0.00 Purchase 12/15/2025 X9USDDGCM 9,331.97 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.66% (9,331.97) 0.00 (9,331.97) 0.00 Purchase 12/16/2025 X9USDDGCM 528.00 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.69% (528.00) 0.00 (528.00) 0.00 Purchase 12/22/2025 X9USDDGCM 675.33 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.61% (675.33) 0.00 (675.33) 0.00 Purchase 12/26/2025 X9USDDGCM 12,829.42 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.62% (12,829.42) 0.00 (12,829.42) 0.00 Purchase 12/26/2025 X9USDDGCM 8,123.99 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.62% (8,123.99) 0.00 (8,123.99) 0.00 Purchase 12/31/2025 X9USDDGCM 27,734.38 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.65% (27,734.38) 0.00 (27,734.38) 0.00 Total Purchase 236,718.64 (234,872.94) (144.23) (235,017.17) 0.00 TOTAL
ACQUISITIONS 236,718.64 (234,872.94) (144.23) (235,017.17) 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Sale 12/10/2025 X9USDDGCM (139,131.74) DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.78% 139,131.74 0.00 139,131.74 0.00 Sale 12/10/2025 X9USDDGCM (9,166.79) DREYFUS GVT CM INST 1.000 3.78% 9,166.79 0.00 9,166.79 0.00 Total Sale (148,298.53) 148,298.53 0.00 148,298.53 0.00 TOTAL
DISPOSITIONS (148,298.53) 148,298.53 0.00 148,298.53 0.00 OTHER

TRANSACTIONS
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FLN91 0.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505
03/25/2029 4.62% 876.25 0.00 876.25 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137BSRE5 0.00 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12
09/25/2026 4.55% 647.17 0.00 647.17 0.00
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 27 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 12
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FJEH8 0.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9
08/25/2028 4.53% 812.50 0.00 812.50 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FRUJ8 0.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872
01/25/2030 4.43% 429.00 0.00 429.00 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FNAE0 0.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785
06/25/2029 4.39% 580.21 0.00 580.21 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FJKE8 0.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92
09/25/2028 4.27% 816.67 0.00 816.67 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FPHK4 0.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425
08/25/2029 4.26% 606.25 0.00 606.25 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FMCR1 0.00 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982
05/25/2029 4.15% 367.95 0.00 367.95 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FKSH0 0.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859
11/25/2028 3.82% 482.37 0.00 482.37 0.00
Coupon 12/11/2025 24422EXT1 0.00 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL
CORP 4.85 06/11/2029 4.40% 5,456.25 0.00 5,456.25 0.00
Coupon 12/13/2025 06406RBG1 0.00

BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON CORP 3.992
06/13/2028

4.31% 4,491.00 0.00 4,491.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 47800DAD6 0.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23
09/17/2029 5.09% 352.50 0.00 352.50 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 58773DAD6 0.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78
12/17/2029 4.84% 458.08 0.00 458.08 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 89231HAD8 0.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34
11/15/2029 4.82% 235.08 0.00 235.08 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 34535VAD6 0.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61
08/15/2029 4.66% 461.00 0.00 461.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 47800RAD5 0.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96
11/15/2028 4.63% 826.67 0.00 826.67 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 891940AC2 0.00 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63
09/15/2027 4.63% 222.39 0.00 222.39 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 02589BAE0 0.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65
07/15/2027 4.57% 775.00 0.00 775.00 0.00
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 28 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 13
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Coupon 12/15/2025 89239TAD4 0.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4
06/15/2029 4.51% 220.00 0.00 220.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 44935XAD7 0.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36
12/17/2029 4.36% 290.67 0.00 290.67 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 92970QAE5 0.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29
10/15/2029 4.29% 393.25 0.00 393.25 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 02582JKP4 0.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28
04/15/2030 4.28% 606.33 0.00 606.33 0.00
Coupon 12/16/2025 362955AD8 0.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62
12/17/2029 5.03% 308.00 0.00 308.00 0.00
Coupon 12/16/2025 38014AAD3 0.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4
08/16/2029 4.32% 220.00 0.00 220.00 0.00
Coupon 12/20/2025 362962AD4 0.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58
05/22/2028 4.84% 362.58 0.00 362.58 0.00
Coupon 12/20/2025 379965AD8 0.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17
08/21/2028 4.18% 312.75 0.00 312.75 0.00
Coupon 12/25/2025 096919AD7 0.00 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18
02/26/2029 4.69% 1,726.67 0.00 1,726.67 0.00
Coupon 12/25/2025 437076DB5 0.00 HOME DEPOT INC 4.875
06/25/2027 4.25% 5,484.38 0.00 5,484.38 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CMD0 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.375 12/31/2029 4.45% 8,750.00 0.00 8,750.00 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CEV9 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.25 06/30/2029 4.31% 5,687.50 0.00 5,687.50 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CNK3 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.875 06/30/2030 3.95% 6,296.88 0.00 6,296.88 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CHK0 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.0 06/30/2028 3.76% 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 0.00
Total Coupon 0.00 56,555.35 0.00 56,555.35 0.00
Dividend 12/31/2025 X9USDDGCM 0.00 DREYFUS GVT CM INST 3.65% 266.54 0.00 266.54 0.00 Total Dividend 0.00 266.54 0.00 266.54 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/01/2025 3137BSRE5 2,191.12 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 4.55% 2,191.12 -- 2,191.12 0.00
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 29 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 14
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Principal Paydown 12/01/2025 3137FMCR1 178.16 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 4.15% 178.16 -- 178.16 (0.00)
Principal Paydown 12/15/2025 891940AC2 6,274.53 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 4.63% 6,274.53 -- 6,274.53 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/25/2025 096919AD7 5,754.71 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 4.69% 5,754.71 -- 5,754.71 (0.00)
Total Principal
Paydown 14,398.52 14,398.52 -- 14,398.52 0.00

TOTAL OTHER
TRANSACTIONS 14,398.52 71,220.41 0.00 71,220.41 0.00
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 30 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 15
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

INCOME EARNED
Cusip Security Description
Trade Date
Settle Date
Units
Book Value: Begin
Book Value: Acq
Book Value: Disp
Book Value: End
Prior Accrued
Inc. Received
Ending Accrued
Total Interest
Accr. Of Discount
Amort. Of Premium
Net Accret/Amort
Income Earned
Total Income

CASH & EQUIVALENTS
CCYUSD Receivable
266.55
15,764.79

0.00 0.00
266.55

0.00 0.00

0.00 X9USDDGCM DREYFUS GVT CM INST
93,940.94
155,520.83
86,718.64
(148,298.53)
93,940.94

0.00 514.77

0.00 0.00

0.00 514.77
514.77
Total Cash & Equivalents 94,207.49
171,285.62
86,718.64
(148,298.53)
94,207.49

0.00 514.77

0.00 0.00

0.00 514.77 514.77

FIXED INCOME
00287YDY2 ABBVIE INC 4.65 03/15/2028
02/18/2025
02/26/2025
125,000.00
124,875.28

0.00 0.00
124,879.91
1,227.08

0.00 1,711.46
484.38

4.63 0.00

4.63 489.01
489.01
025816EJ4 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 4.351
07/20/2029
07/21/2025
07/25/2025
170,000.00
170,000.00

0.00 0.00
170,000.00
2,588.85

0.00 3,205.24
616.39

0.00 0.00

0.00 616.39
616.39
02582JKP4 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28
04/15/2030
05/06/2025
05/13/2025
170,000.00
169,997.27

0.00 0.00
169,997.32
323.38
606.33
323.38
606.33

0.05 0.00

0.05 606.38
606.38
02589BAE0 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65
07/15/2027
02/20/2025
02/21/2025
200,000.00
200,369.80

0.00 0.00
200,350.40
413.33
775.00
413.33
775.00

0.00 (19.40)
(19.40)
755.60
755.60
02665WFK2 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE
CORP 4.9 07/09/2027
09/18/2024
09/19/2024
200,000.00
202,617.92

0.00 0.00
202,479.19
3,865.56

0.00 4,682.22
816.67

5.202 04/25/2029
08/12/2024
08/13/2024
150,000.00
151,653.44

0.00 0.00
151,594.93
780.30

0.00 1,430.55
650.25

0.00 (58.51)
(58.51)
591.74
591.74
06051GMK2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP

4.979 01/24/2029
01/17/2025
01/24/2025
150,000.00
150,000.00

0.00 0.00
150,000.00
2,634.72

0.00 3,257.10
622.38

0.00 0.00

0.00 622.38
622.38
06368MJG0 BANK OF MONTREAL 5.004
01/27/2029
01/22/2025
01/27/2025
100,000.00
100,000.00

0.00 0.00
100,000.00
1,723.60

0.00 2,140.60
417.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 417.00
417.00
06406RBG1 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORP 3.992 06/13/2028
09/05/2024
09/06/2024
225,000.00
223,963.91

0.00 0.00
224,021.37
4,191.60
4,491.00
449.10
748.50

57.46 0.00

57.46 805.96
805.96
096919AD7 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18
02/26/2029 394,245.29
402,990.37

0.00 (5,754.71)
397,084.51
345.33
1,726.67
340.37
1,721.70

0.00 (151.15)
(151.15)
1,570.55
1,570.55
13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.5
08/01/2029
10/30/2024
11/05/2024
205,000.00
205,836.18

0.00 0.00
205,816.82
3,075.00

0.00 3,843.75
768.75

0.00 (19.36)
(19.36)
749.39
749.39
14913UAU4

CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL
SERVICES CORP 4.7
11/15/2029
11/12/2024
11/15/2024
250,000.00
249,677.53

0.00 0.00
249,684.44
522.22

0.00 1,501.39
979.17

6.92 0.00

6.92 986.08
986.08
17275RBW1 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.55
02/24/2028
03/11/2025
03/12/2025
250,000.00
251,165.15

0.00 0.00
251,119.08
3,064.93

0.00 4,012.85
947.92

0.00 (46.07)
(46.07)
901.85
901.85
24422EXT1 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP

4.85 06/11/2029
08/12/2024
08/13/2024
225,000.00
228,169.23

0.00 0.00
228,092.95
5,153.13
5,456.25
606.25
909.38

0.00 0.00
231,738.90
1,803.47

0.00 2,313.89
510.42
428.21

0.00 428.21
938.63
938.63
30303MAB8 META PLATFORMS INC 4.2
11/15/2030
11/13/2025
11/17/2025
250,000.00
250,478.73

0.00 0.00
250,470.39
816.67

0.00 1,691.67
875.00

0.00 (8.34)
(8.34)
866.66
866.66
3130B7QM9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

3.5 09/09/2027
09/23/2025
09/24/2025
500,000.00
498,909.60

0.00 0.00
498,961.85
3,888.89

0.00 5,347.22
1,458.33

52.24 0.00

52.24 1,510.58
1,510.58
3133ENZY9

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT
BANKS FUNDING CORP 3.96
07/12/2027
07/12/2022
07/12/2022
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00

0.00 0.00
1,000,000.00
15,290.00

0.00 18,590.00
3,300.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 3,300.00
3,300.00
3137BSRE5 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12
09/25/2026
11/21/2024
11/26/2024
246,720.25
246,238.97

0.00 (2,191.12)
244,371.06
647.17
647.17
641.47
641.47
323.22

0.00 323.22
964.69
964.69
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9
08/25/2028
11/21/2024
11/26/2024
250,000.00
245,895.24

0.00 0.00
246,025.89
812.50
812.50
812.50
812.50
130.64

0.00 130.64
943.14
943.14
3137FJKE8 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92
09/25/2028
06/10/2025
06/13/2025
250,000.00
247,429.55

0.00 0.00
247,508.84
816.67
816.67
816.67
816.67

79.29 0.00

79.29 895.96
895.96
3137FKSH0 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859
11/25/2028
09/18/2024
09/23/2024
150,000.00
150,004.16

0.00 0.00
150,004.04
482.38
482.37
482.38
482.37

0.00 (0.12)
(0.12)
482.25
482.25
3137FLN91 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505
03/25/2029
11/14/2024
11/19/2024
300,000.00
290,191.95

0.00 0.00
290,448.32
876.25
876.25
876.25
876.25
256.37

0.00 (178.16)
142,757.72
367.95
367.95
367.51
367.51
137.22

0.00 137.22
504.73
504.73
3137FNAE0 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785
06/25/2029
03/13/2025
03/18/2025
250,000.00
237,275.77

0.00 0.00
237,584.42
580.21
580.21
580.21
580.21
308.65

0.00 308.65
888.86
888.86
3137FPHK4 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425
08/25/2029
10/17/2024
10/22/2024
300,000.00
281,915.29

0.00 0.00
282,333.98
606.25
606.25
606.25
606.25
418.69

0.00 418.69
1,024.94
1,024.94
3137FRUJ8 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872
01/25/2030
03/17/2025
03/20/2025
275,000.00
249,281.06

0.00 0.00
249,815.44
429.00
429.00
429.00
429.00
534.37

0.00 534.37
963.37
963.37
34535VAD6 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61
08/15/2029
11/19/2024
11/22/2024
120,000.00
119,996.98

0.00 0.00
119,997.05
245.87
461.00
245.87
461.00

0.07 0.00

0.07 461.07
461.07
362955AD8 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62
12/17/2029
01/09/2025
01/15/2025
80,000.00
79,995.12

0.00 0.00
79,995.22
154.00
308.00
154.00
308.00

0.10 0.00

0.10 308.10
308.10
362962AD4 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58
05/22/2028
05/20/2025
05/29/2025
95,000.00
94,998.69

0.00 0.00
94,998.73
132.95
362.58
132.95
362.58

0.04 0.00

0.04 362.62
362.62
379965AD8 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17
08/21/2028
08/05/2025
08/13/2025
90,000.00
89,987.68

0.00 0.00
89,988.07
114.68
312.75
114.68
312.75

0.38 0.00

0.38 313.13
313.13
38014AAD3 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4
08/16/2029
10/08/2024
10/16/2024
60,000.00
59,991.13

0.00 0.00
59,991.33
110.00
220.00
110.00
220.00

0.20 0.00

0.00 0.00
105,000.00
484.52

0.00 847.90
363.39

0.00 0.00

0.00 363.39
363.39
437076DB5 HOME DEPOT INC 4.875
06/25/2027
08/12/2024
08/13/2024
225,000.00
226,948.79

0.00 0.00
226,836.91
4,753.13
5,484.38
182.81
914.07

0.00 (111.87)
(111.87)
802.19
802.19
44935XAD7 HART 2025-B A3 4.36
12/17/2029
06/03/2025
06/11/2025
80,000.00
79,993.54

0.00 0.00
79,993.67
155.02
290.67
155.02
290.67

0.14 0.00

0.14 290.81
290.81
459058LN1

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029
12/13/2024
12/16/2024
350,000.00
344,940.87

0.00 0.00
345,051.71
1,694.00

0.00 2,824.50
1,130.50
110.84

0.00 110.84
1,241.34
1,241.34
459058LR2

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 4.125 03/20/2030
03/14/2025
03/20/2025
125,000.00
124,616.31

0.00 0.00
124,623.89
1,016.93

0.00 1,446.61
429.69

7.58 0.00

7.58 437.26
437.26
46647PDG8 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO

4.851 07/25/2028
08/12/2024
08/13/2024
150,000.00
150,521.13

0.00 0.00
150,494.25
2,546.78

0.00 3,153.15
606.38

0.00 (26.88)
(26.88)
579.49
579.49
46647PEU6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO

4.915 01/24/2029
01/16/2025
01/24/2025
115,000.00
115,000.00

0.00 0.00
115,000.00
1,993.99

0.00 2,465.01
471.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 471.02
471.02
47800DAD6 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23
09/17/2029
03/04/2025
03/11/2025
100,000.00
99,994.72

0.00 0.00
99,994.84
188.00
352.50
188.00
352.50

0.12 0.00

0.12 352.62
352.62
47800RAD5 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96
11/15/2028
02/20/2025
02/21/2025
200,000.00
200,861.62

0.00 0.00
200,824.21
440.89
826.67
440.89
826.67

0.00 0.00
234,833.39
2,933.58

0.00 3,756.08
822.50

3.91 0.00

3.91 826.41
826.41
571748CA8

MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES INC 4.65
03/15/2030
03/24/2025
03/25/2025
250,000.00
249,788.86

0.00 0.00
249,793.05
2,454.17

0.00 3,422.92
968.75

4.18 0.00

4.18 972.93
972.93
58773DAD6 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78
12/17/2029
01/14/2025
01/23/2025
115,000.00
114,979.81

0.00 0.00
114,980.23
244.31
458.08
244.31
458.08

0.42 0.00

0.42 458.50
458.50
61748UAK8 MORGAN STANLEY 4.133
10/18/2029
10/17/2025
10/22/2025
155,000.00
155,018.79

0.00 0.00
155,018.23
694.00

0.00 1,227.85
533.85

0.00 (0.55)
(0.55)
533.29
533.29
62479MES8 MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York
Branch 05/26/2026
09/23/2025
09/23/2025
350,000.00
343,360.89

0.00 0.00
344,530.28

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,169.39

0.00 1,169.39
1,169.39
1,169.39
63743HFX5

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES

COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP

4.95 02/07/2030
02/20/2025
02/21/2025
250,000.00
250,462.61

0.00 0.00
250,453.03
3,918.75

0.00 4,950.00
1,031.25

0.00 (9.57)
(9.57)
1,021.68
1,021.68
69371RT71 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP

4.55 05/08/2030
05/05/2025
05/08/2025
230,000.00
229,683.91

0.00 0.00
229,689.97
668.60

0.00 1,540.68
872.08

6.05 0.00

6.05 878.14
878.14
857477CP6 STATE STREET CORP 4.33
10/22/2027
11/07/2024
11/08/2024
250,000.00
249,063.89

0.00 0.00
249,105.95
1,172.71

0.00 2,074.79
902.08

42.06 0.00

42.06 944.14
944.14
89115A3E0 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

4.861 01/31/2028
01/28/2025
01/31/2025
225,000.00
225,000.00

0.00 0.00
225,000.00
3,676.13

0.00 4,587.57
911.44

0.00 0.00

0.00 (6,274.53)
51,372.22
118.61
222.39
105.70
209.48

0.00 (2.00)
(2.00)
207.47
207.47
89231HAD8 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34
11/15/2029
04/24/2025
04/30/2025
65,000.00
64,996.76

0.00 0.00
64,996.83
125.38
235.08
125.38
235.08

0.07 0.00

0.07 235.15
235.15
89236TMK8 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
CORP 4.55 08/09/2029
08/12/2024
08/13/2024
225,000.00
225,419.18

0.00 0.00
225,409.53
3,185.00

0.00 4,038.13
853.13

0.00 (9.65)
(9.65)
843.48
843.48
89236TNA9 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
CORP 4.95 01/09/2030
01/06/2025
01/09/2025
170,000.00
169,701.15

0.00 0.00
169,707.33
3,319.25

0.00 4,020.50
701.25

6.18 0.00

6.18 707.43
707.43
89239TAD4 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4
06/15/2029
10/10/2024
10/17/2024
60,000.00
59,997.46

0.00 0.00
59,997.52
117.33
220.00
117.33
220.00

0.06 0.00

0.06 220.06
220.06
91159HJK7 US BANCORP 4.653
02/01/2029
09/05/2024
09/06/2024
200,000.00
200,711.08

0.00 0.00
200,683.25
3,102.00

0.00 3,877.50
775.50

0.00 (27.83)
(27.83)
747.67
747.67
91282CEV9 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.25 06/30/2029
11/18/2024
11/19/2024
350,000.00
338,041.26

0.00 0.00
338,324.90
4,760.19
5,687.50

31.42 958.73
283.64

0.00 283.64
1,242.38
1,242.38
91282CFM8 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.125 09/30/2027
10/31/2024
11/01/2024
350,000.00
349,699.29

0.00 0.00
349,713.25
2,459.13

0.00 3,688.70
1,229.57

13.95 0.00

13.95 1,243.52
1,243.52
91282CGP0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
02/29/2028
08/08/2024
08/09/2024
375,000.00
375,980.17

0.00 0.00
375,943.11
3,812.15

0.00 5,096.69
1,284.53

0.00 0.00
351,944.72
5,858.70
7,000.00

38.67 1,179.98

0.00 (66.18)
(66.18)
1,113.80
1,113.80
91282CJC6 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.625 10/15/2026
08/30/2024
08/30/2024
375,000.00
377,257.07

0.00 0.00
377,037.04
2,239.44

0.00 3,716.52
1,477.08

0.00 (220.03)
(220.03)
1,257.05
1,257.05
91282CJF9 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.875 10/31/2028
08/08/2024
08/09/2024
375,000.00
385,184.84

0.00 0.00
384,888.38
1,565.52

0.00 3,131.04
1,565.52

0.00 (296.46)
(296.46)
1,269.06
1,269.06
91282CKD2 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.25 02/28/2029
11/26/2024
11/27/2024
375,000.00
375,446.81

0.00 0.00
375,435.12
4,050.41

0.00 5,415.23
1,364.81

0.00 (11.69)
(11.69)
1,353.12
1,353.12
91282CKE0 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.25 03/15/2027
08/20/2024
08/21/2024
350,000.00
351,664.68

0.00 0.00
351,554.65
3,164.02

0.00 4,437.85
1,273.83

0.00 (110.03)
(110.03)
1,163.79
1,163.79
91282CKG5 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.125 03/31/2029
11/18/2024
11/19/2024
350,000.00
348,090.16

0.00 0.00
348,138.85
2,459.13

0.00 3,688.70
1,229.57

48.69 0.00

48.69 1,278.26
1,278.26
91282CKP5 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.625 04/30/2029
08/08/2024
08/09/2024
375,000.00
384,088.95

0.00 0.00
383,862.82
1,485.24

0.00 2,970.48
1,485.24

0.00 (226.13)
(226.13)
1,259.11
1,259.11
91282CKZ3 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.375 07/15/2027
08/08/2024
08/09/2024
375,000.00
377,653.81

0.00 0.00
377,514.60
6,196.93

0.00 7,578.97
1,382.05

0.00 (139.20)
(139.20)
1,242.85
1,242.85
91282CLC3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
07/31/2029
08/20/2024
08/21/2024
350,000.00
353,435.64

0.00 0.00
353,356.04
4,679.35

0.00 5,858.70
1,179.35

3.625 08/31/2029 400,000.00
400,414.52

0.00 0.00
400,405.13
3,685.08

0.00 4,926.80
1,241.71

36.79 (46.18)
(9.39)
1,232.33
1,232.33
91282CLN9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
09/30/2029 400,000.00
391,839.53

0.00 0.00
392,020.36
2,384.62

0.00 3,576.92
1,192.31
180.83

0.00 180.83
1,373.13
1,373.13
91282CLR0 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.125 10/31/2029 400,000.00
397,116.12

0.00 0.00
397,178.64
1,412.98

0.00 2,825.97
1,412.98

62.52 0.00

62.52 1,475.50
1,475.50
91282CMA6 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.125 11/30/2029
12/11/2024
12/12/2024
400,000.00
400,440.16

0.00 0.00
400,430.81

45.33 8,250.00
1,450.55
9,655.22

0.00 (9.35)
(9.35)
9,645.87
9,645.87
91282CMD0 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.375 12/31/2029 400,000.00
398,912.42

0.00 0.00
398,935.03
7,323.37
8,750.00

48.34 1,474.97

25.76 (3.15)

22.61 1,497.59
1,497.59
91282CMU2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
03/31/2030
04/07/2025
04/08/2025
300,000.00
302,935.02

0.00 0.00
302,877.48
2,043.96

0.00 3,065.93
1,021.98

0.00 (57.55)
(57.55)
964.43
964.43
91282CMZ1 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.875 04/30/2030
09/16/2025
09/17/2025
500,000.00
506,139.94

0.00 0.00
506,021.79
1,659.19

0.00 3,318.37
1,659.19

0.00 (118.15)
(118.15)
1,541.04
1,541.04
91282CNG2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
05/31/2030
06/09/2025
06/10/2025
350,000.00
348,862.71

0.00 0.00
348,884.18

38.46 7,000.00
1,230.77
8,192.31

21.47 0.00

21.47 8,213.78
8,213.78
91282CNK3 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.875 06/30/2030
07/29/2025
07/30/2025
325,000.00
324,007.22

0.00 0.00
324,025.62
5,270.21
6,296.88

34.79 1,061.46

18.41 0.00

3.875 07/31/2030
08/26/2025
08/27/2025
225,000.00
226,023.36

0.00 0.00
226,004.73
2,914.15

0.00 3,648.61
734.46

0.00 (18.63)
(18.63)
715.83
715.83
91282CNX5 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.625 08/31/2030
09/16/2025
09/17/2025
500,000.00
500,898.63

0.00 0.00
500,882.57
4,606.35

0.00 6,158.49
1,552.14

0.00 (16.07)
(16.07)
1,536.08
1,536.08
91282CPN5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030
12/09/2025
12/10/2025
150,000.00

0.00 148,154.30

0.00 148,176.66

0.00 (144.23)
461.54
317.31

22.36 0.00

22.36 339.67
339.67
91324PEY4 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC

4.6 04/15/2027
09/18/2024
09/19/2024
240,000.00
242,247.48

0.00 0.00
242,098.92
1,410.67

0.00 2,330.67
920.00

0.00 (148.55)
(148.55)
771.45
771.45
92970QAE5 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29
10/15/2029
10/17/2024
10/24/2024
110,000.00
109,987.28

0.00 0.00
109,987.56
209.73
393.25
209.73
393.25

0.28 0.00

0.28 393.53
393.53
931142FN8 WALMART INC 4.35
04/28/2030
04/23/2025
04/28/2025
185,000.00
184,717.98

0.00 0.00
184,723.42
737.69

0.00 1,408.31
670.63

5.43 0.00

5.43 676.06
676.06
Total Fixed Income 20,945,220.94
20,729,650.90
148,154.30
(14,398.52)
20,865,868.83
173,558.97
71,661.12
188,371.46
86,473.61
4,809.88
(2,347.73)
2,462.15
88,935.76 88,935.76
TOTAL PORTFOLIO 21,039,428.43
20,900,936.52
234,872.94
(162,697.05)
20,960,076.32
173,558.97
72,175.89
188,371.46
86,988.38
4,809.88
(2,347.73)
2,462.15
89,450.53 89,450.53
Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 40 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 25
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount JANUARY 2026
01/09/2026 Coupon 02665WFK2 200,000.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP 4.9 07/09/2027 4,900.00 4,900.00
01/09/2026 Coupon 89236TNA9 170,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 4.95 01/09/2030 4,207.50 4,207.50 01/12/2026 Coupon 3133ENZY9 1,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP

3.96 07/12/2027 19,800.00 19,800.00
01/12/2026 Effective Maturity 3133ENZY9 1,000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP

3.96 07/12/2027 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
01/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 01/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 01/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 01/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 01/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 01/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 826.67 826.67 01/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 15,108.74 15,108.74 01/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 01/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 198.40 198.40 01/15/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 6,280.61 6,280.61 01/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 01/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 220.00 220.00 01/15/2026 Coupon 91282CKZ3 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375 07/15/2027 8,203.13 8,203.13 01/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 01/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 01/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 01/20/2026 Coupon 025816EJ4 170,000.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 4.351 07/20/2029 3,595.62 3,595.62 01/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 01/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 01/26/2026 Coupon 06051GMK2 150,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 4.979 01/24/2029 3,734.25 3,734.25 01/26/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,701.83 1,701.83 01/26/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 21,773.50 21,773.50 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 641.47 641.47 01/26/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 489.60 489.60 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 41 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 26
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 367.51 367.51 01/26/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 164.92 164.92 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 01/26/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 01/26/2026 Coupon 46647PDG8 150,000.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.851 07/25/2028 3,638.25 3,638.25 01/26/2026 Coupon 46647PEU6 115,000.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.915 01/24/2029 2,826.13 2,826.13 01/27/2026 Coupon 06368MJG0 100,000.00 BANK OF MONTREAL 5.004 01/27/2029 2,502.00 2,502.00 January 2026 Total 1,043,817.37 66,741.24 1,110,558.61
FEBRUARY 2026
02/02/2026 Coupon 13063EGT7 205,000.00 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.5 08/01/2029 4,612.50 4,612.50 02/02/2026 Coupon 89115A3E0 225,000.00 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 4.861 01/31/2028 5,468.63 5,468.63 02/02/2026 Coupon 91159HJK7 200,000.00 US BANCORP 4.653 02/01/2029 4,653.00 4,653.00 02/02/2026 Coupon 91282CLC3 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 07/31/2029 7,000.00 7,000.00 02/02/2026 Coupon 91282CNN7 225,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875 07/31/2030 4,359.38 4,359.38 02/09/2026 Coupon 63743HFX5 250,000.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP 4.95 02/07/2030 6,187.50 6,187.50
02/09/2026 Coupon 89236TMK8 225,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 4.55 08/09/2029 5,118.75 5,118.75 02/16/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 02/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 02/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 02/16/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 02/16/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 02/16/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 764.22 764.22 02/16/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 12,111.47 12,111.47 02/16/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 02/16/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 174.17 174.17 02/16/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 6,185.35 6,185.35 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 42 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 27
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 02/16/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 02/16/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 220.00 220.00 02/17/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 02/17/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 02/17/2026 Coupon 26442CAY0 250,000.00 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC 2.45 08/15/2029 3,062.50 3,062.50
02/17/2026 Coupon 532457CQ9 235,000.00 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.2 08/14/2029 4,935.00 4,935.00 02/17/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 02/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 02/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 02/24/2026 Coupon 17275RBW1 250,000.00 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.55 02/24/2028 5,687.50 5,687.50 02/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,607.84 1,607.84 02/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 21,547.28 21,547.28 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 640.20 640.20 02/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 490.70 490.70 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 367.10 367.10 02/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 165.39 165.39 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 02/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 February 2026
Total 40,500.19 64,236.77 104,736.96
MARCH 2026
03/02/2026 Coupon 91282CGP0 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 02/29/2028 7,500.00 7,500.00 03/02/2026 Coupon 91282CKD2 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25 02/28/2029 7,968.75 7,968.75 03/02/2026 Coupon 91282CLK5 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625 08/31/2029 7,250.00 7,250.00 03/02/2026 Coupon 91282CNX5 500,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625 08/31/2030 9,062.50 9,062.50 03/09/2026 Coupon 3130B7QM9 500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 3.5 09/09/2027 8,652.78 8,652.78 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 43 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 28
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 03/16/2026 Coupon 00287YDY2 125,000.00 ABBVIE INC 4.65 03/15/2028 2,906.25 2,906.25 03/16/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 03/16/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 03/16/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 03/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 03/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 03/16/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 03/16/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 03/16/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 714.16 714.16 03/16/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 8,454.91 8,454.91 03/16/2026 Coupon 571748CA8 250,000.00 MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES INC 4.65 03/15/2030 5,812.50 5,812.50
03/16/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 03/16/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 150.30 150.30 03/16/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 6,024.06 6,024.06 03/16/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 03/16/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 220.00 220.00 03/16/2026 Coupon 91282CKE0 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25 03/15/2027 7,437.50 7,437.50 03/16/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 03/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 03/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 03/20/2026 Coupon 459058LR2 125,000.00 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 4.125 03/20/2030 2,578.13 2,578.13
03/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,514.82 1,514.82 03/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 20,950.17 20,950.17 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 638.92 638.92 03/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 2,927.23 2,927.23 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 366.69 366.69 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 44 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 29
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 03/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 206.86 206.86 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 03/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 03/31/2026 Coupon 91282CFM8 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 09/30/2027 7,218.75 7,218.75 03/31/2026 Coupon 91282CKG5 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 03/31/2029 7,218.75 7,218.75 03/31/2026 Coupon 91282CLN9 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5 09/30/2029 7,000.00 7,000.00 03/31/2026 Coupon 91282CMU2 300,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 03/31/2030 6,000.00 6,000.00 March 2026 Total 38,563.22 99,589.30 138,152.52
APRIL 2026
04/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 04/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 04/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 04/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 04/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 04/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 679.21 679.21 04/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 10,475.70 10,475.70 04/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 04/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 127.06 127.06 04/15/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 6,163.25 6,163.25 04/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 04/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 220.00 220.00 04/15/2026 Coupon 91282CJC6 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625 10/15/2026 8,671.88 8,671.88 04/15/2026 Coupon 91324PEY4 240,000.00 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 4.6 04/15/2027 5,520.00 5,520.00 04/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 04/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 04/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 04/16/2026 Coupon 459058LN1 350,000.00 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029 6,781.25 6,781.25
04/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 04/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 04/20/2026 Coupon 61748UAK8 155,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY 4.133 10/18/2029 3,131.90 3,131.90 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 45 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 30
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 04/21/2026 Coupon 38141GD27 105,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 4.153 10/21/2029 2,180.33 2,180.33
04/22/2026 Coupon 857477CP6 250,000.00 STATE STREET CORP 4.33 10/22/2027 5,412.50 5,412.50 04/27/2026 Coupon 06051GLG2 150,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 5.202 04/25/2029 3,901.50 3,901.50 04/27/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,424.39 1,424.39 04/27/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 21,054.70 21,054.70 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 631.31 631.31 04/27/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 488.32 488.32 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 366.18 366.18 04/27/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 166.49 166.49 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 04/27/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 04/28/2026 Coupon 931142FN8 185,000.00 WALMART INC 4.35 04/28/2030 4,023.75 4,023.75 04/30/2026 Coupon 91282CJF9 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.875 10/31/2028 9,140.63 9,140.63 04/30/2026 Coupon 91282CKP5 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625 04/30/2029 8,671.88 8,671.88 04/30/2026 Coupon 91282CLR0 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 10/31/2029 8,250.00 8,250.00 04/30/2026 Coupon 91282CMZ1 500,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875 04/30/2030 9,687.50 9,687.50 April 2026 Total 38,348.45 88,199.74 126,548.19
MAY 2026
05/08/2026 Coupon 69371RT71 230,000.00 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.55 05/08/2030 5,232.50 5,232.50 05/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 05/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 05/15/2026 Coupon 14913UAU4 250,000.00 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP 4.7 11/15/2029 5,875.00 5,875.00
05/15/2026 Coupon 30303MAB8 250,000.00 META PLATFORMS INC 4.2 11/15/2030 5,600.00 5,600.00 05/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 05/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 46 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 31
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 05/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 05/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 635.91 635.91 05/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 10,100.28 10,100.28 05/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 05/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 103.28 103.28 05/15/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 5,843.42 5,843.42 05/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 05/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 220.00 220.00 05/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 05/18/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 05/18/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 05/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 05/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 05/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,333.50 1,333.50 05/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 20,281.78 20,281.78 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 630.04 630.04 05/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 513.84 513.84 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 365.76 365.76 05/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 180.56 180.56 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 05/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 05/26/2026 Final Maturity 62479MES8 350,000.00 MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York Branch 05/26/2026 350,000.00 350,000.00 May 2026 Total 386,919.89 29,374.50 416,294.38
JUNE 2026
06/01/2026 Coupon 91282CMA6 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 11/30/2029 8,250.00 8,250.00 06/01/2026 Coupon 91282CNG2 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 05/31/2030 7,000.00 7,000.00 06/01/2026 Coupon 91282CPN5 150,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5 11/30/2030 2,625.00 2,625.00 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 47 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 32
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 06/11/2026 Coupon 24422EXT1 225,000.00 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 4.85 06/11/2029 5,456.25 5,456.25 06/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 06/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 06/15/2026 Coupon 06406RBG1 225,000.00 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP 3.992 06/13/2028 4,491.00 4,491.00
06/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 06/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 06/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 06/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 594.16 594.16 06/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 9,117.23 9,117.23 06/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 06/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 80.73 80.73 06/15/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 5,320.01 5,320.01 06/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 06/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 220.00 220.00 06/15/2026 Principal Paydown 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 351.27 351.27 06/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 06/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 06/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 06/22/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 06/22/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 06/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,245.95 1,245.95 06/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 19,974.38 19,974.38 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 628.71 628.71 06/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 490.58 490.58 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 365.31 365.31 06/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 167.49 167.49 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 48 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 33
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 06/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 06/25/2026 Coupon 437076DB5 225,000.00 HOME DEPOT INC 4.875 06/25/2027 5,484.38 5,484.38 06/30/2026 Coupon 91282CEV9 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.25 06/30/2029 5,687.50 5,687.50 06/30/2026 Coupon 91282CHK0 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 06/30/2028 7,000.00 7,000.00 06/30/2026 Coupon 91282CMD0 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375 12/31/2029 8,750.00 8,750.00 06/30/2026 Coupon 91282CNK3 325,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875 06/30/2030 6,296.88 6,296.88 June 2026 Total 35,420.96 73,554.37 108,975.33
JULY 2026
07/09/2026 Coupon 02665WFK2 200,000.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP 4.9 07/09/2027 4,900.00 4,900.00
07/09/2026 Coupon 89236TNA9 170,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 4.95 01/09/2030 4,207.50 4,207.50 07/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 07/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 07/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 07/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 07/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 07/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 556.48 556.48 07/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 9,329.01 9,329.01 07/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 07/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 60.21 60.21 07/15/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 5,215.18 5,215.18 07/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 07/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 218.71 218.71 07/15/2026 Principal Paydown 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 3,302.26 3,302.26 07/15/2026 Coupon 91282CKZ3 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375 07/15/2027 8,203.13 8,203.13 07/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 07/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 07/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 220.00 220.00 07/16/2026 Principal Paydown 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 3,281.22 3,281.22 07/20/2026 Coupon 025816EJ4 170,000.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 4.351 07/20/2029 3,698.35 3,698.35 07/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 49 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 34
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 07/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 07/24/2026 Coupon 06051GMK2 150,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 4.979 01/24/2029 3,734.25 3,734.25 07/24/2026 Coupon 46647PEU6 115,000.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.915 01/24/2029 2,826.13 2,826.13 07/27/2026 Coupon 06368MJG0 100,000.00 BANK OF MONTREAL 5.004 01/27/2029 2,502.00 2,502.00 07/27/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,159.73 1,159.73 07/27/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 19,543.51 19,543.51 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 627.43 627.43 07/27/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 1,505.92 1,505.92 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 364.90 364.90 07/27/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 181.49 181.49 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 07/27/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 07/27/2026 Coupon 46647PDG8 150,000.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.851 07/25/2028 3,638.25 3,638.25 07/31/2026 Coupon 89115A3E0 225,000.00 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 4.861 01/31/2028 5,468.63 5,468.63 07/31/2026 Coupon 91282CLC3 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 07/31/2029 7,000.00 7,000.00 07/31/2026 Coupon 91282CNN7 225,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875 07/31/2030 4,359.38 4,359.38 July 2026 Total 42,358.58 62,903.55 105,262.14
AUGUST 2026
08/03/2026 Coupon 13063EGT7 205,000.00 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.5 08/01/2029 4,612.50 4,612.50 08/03/2026 Coupon 91159HJK7 200,000.00 US BANCORP 4.653 02/01/2029 4,653.00 4,653.00 08/07/2026 Coupon 63743HFX5 250,000.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP 4.95 02/07/2030 6,187.50 6,187.50
08/10/2026 Coupon 89236TMK8 225,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 4.55 08/09/2029 5,118.75 5,118.75 08/14/2026 Coupon 532457CQ9 235,000.00 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.2 08/14/2029 4,935.00 4,935.00 08/17/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 08/17/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 50 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 35
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 08/17/2026 Coupon 26442CAY0 250,000.00 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC 2.45 08/15/2029 3,062.50 3,062.50
08/17/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 08/17/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 308.00 308.00 08/17/2026 Principal Paydown 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 386.89 386.89 08/17/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 207.97 207.97 08/17/2026 Principal Paydown 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 3,022.44 3,022.44 08/17/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 08/17/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 08/17/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 517.92 517.92 08/17/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 9,600.20 9,600.20 08/17/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 08/17/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 40.08 40.08 08/17/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 4,393.59 4,393.59 08/17/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 08/17/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 206.60 206.60 08/17/2026 Principal Paydown 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 3,215.24 3,215.24 08/17/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 08/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 08/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 08/24/2026 Coupon 17275RBW1 250,000.00 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.55 02/24/2028 5,687.50 5,687.50 08/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 1,075.37 1,075.37 08/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 18,146.29 18,146.29 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 623.52 623.52 08/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 40,810.52 40,810.52 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 364.45 364.45 08/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 168.50 168.50 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 51 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 36
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 08/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 08/31/2026 Coupon 91282CGP0 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 02/29/2028 7,500.00 7,500.00 08/31/2026 Coupon 91282CKD2 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25 02/28/2029 7,968.75 7,968.75 08/31/2026 Coupon 91282CLK5 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625 08/31/2029 7,250.00 7,250.00 08/31/2026 Coupon 91282CNX5 500,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625 08/31/2030 9,062.50 9,062.50 August 2026 Total 79,743.66 78,232.40 157,976.06
SEPTEMBER 2026
09/09/2026 Coupon 3130B7QM9 500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 3.5 09/09/2027 8,750.00 8,750.00 09/15/2026 Coupon 00287YDY2 125,000.00 ABBVIE INC 4.65 03/15/2028 2,906.25 2,906.25 09/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 09/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 09/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 461.00 461.00 09/15/2026 Principal Paydown 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 7,252.27 7,252.27 09/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 09/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 09/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 478.24 478.24 09/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 11,162.58 11,162.58 09/15/2026 Coupon 571748CA8 250,000.00 MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES INC 4.65 03/15/2030 5,812.50 5,812.50
09/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 09/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 23.13 23.13 09/15/2026 Principal Paydown 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 4,187.03 4,187.03 09/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 09/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 194.81 194.81 09/15/2026 Principal Paydown 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 3,160.43 3,160.43 09/15/2026 Coupon 91282CKE0 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25 03/15/2027 7,437.50 7,437.50 09/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 09/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 306.51 306.51 09/16/2026 Principal Paydown 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 3,486.23 3,486.23 09/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 196.89 196.89 09/16/2026 Principal Paydown 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 3,326.96 3,326.96 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 52 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 37
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 09/21/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 362.58 362.58 09/21/2026 Principal Paydown 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 928.99 928.99 09/21/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 09/21/2026 Coupon 459058LR2 125,000.00 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 4.125 03/20/2030 2,578.13 2,578.13
09/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 997.04 997.04 09/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 17,576.33 17,576.33 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 517.41 517.41 09/25/2026 Final Maturity 3137BSRE5 246,720.25 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 199,003.55 199,003.55 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 364.03 364.03 09/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 168.98 168.98 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 09/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 09/30/2026 Coupon 91282CFM8 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 09/30/2027 7,218.75 7,218.75 09/30/2026 Coupon 91282CKG5 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 03/31/2029 7,218.75 7,218.75 09/30/2026 Coupon 91282CLN9 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5 09/30/2029 7,000.00 7,000.00 09/30/2026 Coupon 91282CMU2 300,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 03/31/2030 6,000.00 6,000.00 September 2026
Total 250,253.35 66,850.43 317,103.78
OCTOBER 2026
10/15/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 10/15/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 10/15/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 433.14 433.14 10/15/2026 Principal Paydown 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 4,461.74 4,461.74 10/15/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 10/15/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 10/15/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 432.10 432.10 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 53 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 38
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 10/15/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 10,286.02 10,286.02 10/15/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 458.08 458.08 10/15/2026 Principal Paydown 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 3,244.19 3,244.19 10/15/2026 Coupon 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 6.98 6.98 10/15/2026 Effective Maturity 891940AC2 51,363.98 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 1,808.18 1,808.18 10/15/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 10/15/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 183.23 183.23 10/15/2026 Principal Paydown 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 3,043.00 3,043.00 10/15/2026 Coupon 91282CJC6 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625 10/15/2026 8,671.88 8,671.88 10/15/2026 Final Maturity 91282CJC6 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625 10/15/2026 375,000.00 375,000.00 10/15/2026 Coupon 91324PEY4 240,000.00 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 4.6 04/15/2027 5,520.00 5,520.00 10/15/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 10/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 293.09 293.09 10/16/2026 Principal Paydown 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 4,298.53 4,298.53 10/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 184.69 184.69 10/16/2026 Principal Paydown 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 3,200.93 3,200.93 10/16/2026 Coupon 459058LN1 350,000.00 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029 6,781.25 6,781.25
10/19/2026 Coupon 61748UAK8 155,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY 4.133 10/18/2029 3,203.08 3,203.08 10/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 359.04 359.04 10/20/2026 Principal Paydown 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 10,056.88 10,056.88 10/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 10/21/2026 Coupon 38141GD27 105,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 4.153 10/21/2029 2,180.33 2,180.33
10/22/2026 Coupon 857477CP6 250,000.00 STATE STREET CORP 4.33 10/22/2027 5,412.50 5,412.50 10/26/2026 Coupon 06051GLG2 150,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 5.202 04/25/2029 3,901.50 3,901.50 10/26/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 921.17 921.17 10/26/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 16,087.07 16,087.07 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 54 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 39
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 363.61 363.61 10/26/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 182.88 182.88 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 10/26/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 10/28/2026 Coupon 931142FN8 185,000.00 WALMART INC 4.35 04/28/2030 4,023.75 4,023.75 October 2026 Total 431,669.42 50,898.22 482,567.64
NOVEMBER 2026
11/02/2026 Coupon 91282CJF9 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.875 10/31/2028 9,140.63 9,140.63 11/02/2026 Coupon 91282CKP5 375,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625 04/30/2029 8,671.88 8,671.88 11/02/2026 Coupon 91282CLR0 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 10/31/2029 8,250.00 8,250.00 11/02/2026 Coupon 91282CMZ1 500,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875 04/30/2030 9,687.50 9,687.50 11/09/2026 Coupon 69371RT71 230,000.00 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.55 05/08/2030 5,232.50 5,232.50 11/16/2026 Coupon 02582JKP4 170,000.00 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 606.33 606.33 11/16/2026 Coupon 02589BAE0 200,000.00 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 775.00 775.00 11/16/2026 Coupon 14913UAU4 250,000.00 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP 4.7 11/15/2029 5,875.00 5,875.00
11/16/2026 Coupon 30303MAB8 250,000.00 META PLATFORMS INC 4.2 11/15/2030 5,250.00 5,250.00 11/16/2026 Coupon 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 416.00 416.00 11/16/2026 Principal Paydown 34535VAD6 120,000.00 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61 08/15/2029 6,664.31 6,664.31 11/16/2026 Coupon 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 276.54 276.54 11/16/2026 Principal Paydown 362955AD8 80,000.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62 12/17/2029 4,218.02 4,218.02 11/16/2026 Coupon 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 172.95 172.95 11/16/2026 Principal Paydown 38014AAD3 60,000.00 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4 08/16/2029 3,140.69 3,140.69 11/16/2026 Coupon 44935XAD7 80,000.00 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 290.67 290.67 11/16/2026 Coupon 47800DAD6 100,000.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 352.50 352.50 11/16/2026 Coupon 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 389.58 389.58 11/16/2026 Principal Paydown 47800RAD5 200,000.00 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 12,049.07 12,049.07 11/16/2026 Coupon 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 445.16 445.16 11/16/2026 Principal Paydown 58773DAD6 115,000.00 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78 12/17/2029 5,817.82 5,817.82 11/16/2026 Coupon 89231HAD8 65,000.00 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 235.08 235.08 11/16/2026 Coupon 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 172.07 172.07 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 55 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 40
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

CASH FLOW REPORT
Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 11/16/2026 Principal Paydown 89239TAD4 60,000.00 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 2,984.30 2,984.30 11/16/2026 Coupon 92970QAE5 110,000.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 393.25 393.25 11/20/2026 Coupon 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 320.65 320.65 11/20/2026 Principal Paydown 362962AD4 95,000.00 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58 05/22/2028 11,577.62 11,577.62 11/20/2026 Coupon 379965AD8 90,000.00 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17 08/21/2028 312.75 312.75 11/25/2026 Coupon 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 851.72 851.72 11/25/2026 Principal Paydown 096919AD7 394,245.29 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 15,777.24 15,777.24 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJEH8 250,000.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 812.50 812.50 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FJKE8 250,000.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 816.67 816.67 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FKSH0 150,000.00 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 482.38 482.38 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FLN91 300,000.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 876.25 876.25 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 363.15 363.15 11/25/2026 Principal Paydown 3137FMCR1 147,891.42 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 169.99 169.99 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FNAE0 250,000.00 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 580.21 580.21 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FPHK4 300,000.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 606.25 606.25 11/25/2026 Coupon 3137FRUJ8 275,000.00 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 429.00 429.00 11/30/2026 Coupon 91282CMA6 400,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 11/30/2029 8,250.00 8,250.00 11/30/2026 Coupon 91282CNG2 350,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0 05/31/2030 7,000.00 7,000.00 11/30/2026 Coupon 91282CPN5 150,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5 11/30/2030 2,625.00 2,625.00 November 2026
Total 62,399.06 80,959.16 143,358.23
Grand Total 89,465,251.72 2,449,994.16 761,539.67 3,211,533.83 Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 56 of 283
CONFIDENTIAL | 41
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Execution Time: 01/06/2026 08:42:17 AM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES
Chandler Asset Management, Inc. (“Chandler”) is an SEC registered investment adviser. For additional information about our firm, please see our current disclosures (Form ADV).

To obtain a copy of our current disclosures, you may contact your client service representative by calling the number on the front of this statement or you may visit our website at www.chandlerasset.com.

Information contained in this monthly statement is confidential and is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of this statement, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice.

Custody: Your qualified custodian bank maintains control of all assets reflected in this statement and we urge you to compare this statement to the one you receive from your qualified custodian. Chandler does not have any authority to withdraw or deposit funds from/to the custodian account.

Valuation: Prices are provided by IDC, an independent pricing source. In the event IDC does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value, Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures. Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A.

Performance: Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return. The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results. These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Therefore, clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Economic factors, market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio.

Source ICE Data Indices, LLC (“ICE”), used with permission. ICE PERMITS USE OF THE ICE INDICES AND RELATED DATA ON AN “AS IS” BASIS; ICE, ITS AFFILIATES AND

THEIR RESPECTIVE THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS AND/OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, INCLUDING THE INDICES, INDEX DATA AND ANY DATA INCLUDED IN, RELATED TO, OR DERIVED THEREFROM.

NEITHER ICE DATA, ITS AFFILIATES OR THEIR RESPECTIVE THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS GUARANTEE THE QUALITY, ADEQUACY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INDICES OR THE INDEX DATA OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF, AND THE INDICES AND INDEX DATA AND ALL COMPONENTS THEREOF ARE PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS AND LICENSEE’S USE IS AT LICENSEE’S OWN RISK. ICE DATA, ITS AFFILIATES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE THIRD PARTY DO NOT SPONSOR, ENDORSE, OR RECOMMEND CHANDLER, OR ANY OF ITS PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.

Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions. Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment management fee, the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Ratings: Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement, however we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

Security level ratings for U.S. Agency issued mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) reflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated. The issuing U.S. Agency guarantees the full and timely payment of both principal and interest.

BENCHMARK INDEX & DISCLOSURES
Benchmark Disclosure
ICE BofA 1-5 Yr US Treasury & Agency
Index
The ICE BofA 1-5 Year US Treasury & Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market. Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch). Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than five years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance, a fixed coupon schedule, and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies.

Item 7.5
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 58 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Investment Report - Quarter Ending December 2025 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council approve the Investment Report for the quarter ending December 2025 and the report be noted and filed

DISCUSSION
The City invests in fixed income securities of varying maturities providing sufficient liquidity to meet the City’s operational needs as well as safety and return objectives as specified in the City’s FY 2025-26 Investment Strategy discussed with the City Council on September 16, 2025.

During the quarter ending December 31, 2025, the City’s pooled investment portfolio declined by $3.5 million to a balance of $50.4 million, as shown in Table 1. This decrease was primarily due to withdrawals from the City’s LAIF Measure O Bond accounts for project spending.

The City earned $526,000 in interest during the quarter from its LAIF, CAMP, and BNY/Chandler investment accounts. Although Table 1a indicates that the BNY/Chandler portfolio is currently yielding slightly below the returns of LAIF and CAMP, the City is strategically locking in long-term rates through new BNY/Chandler purchases, as shortterm rates decline in our LAIF and CAMP accounts.

Table 1
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 59 of 283
The City pools all cash for investment purposes, but accounts, reports, and tracks investment income, other revenue, and expenditures separately for each fund to properly meet the purpose and restrictions of each funding source. This is common and appropriate practice used in public agencies to gain the benefit of economies of scale when investing.

The following are the yields for all 3 accounts.

Table 1a
All investments are also made in accordance with the City's FY 2025-26 Investment Policy (Approved by Resolution No. 13334 on September 16, 2025) or as authorized pursuant to bond covenants. Presented within this report are the following. Staff and Chandler can assist with questions as needed on the new reporting statement. As Chandler is fully integrated and onboard, reports may also be refined over time to ensure maximum benefit and transparency:
 Summary of investments by type- Qtr. ending December 2025 (Table 2)  List of investments by institution- Qtr. ending December 2025 (Table 3)  Reconciliation of pooled cash- Qtr. ending December 2025 (Table 4)  Summary of Total Cash Invested- Qtr. ending December 2025 (Table 5)  BNY Qtrly statement (Chandler)- Qtr. ending December 2025 (Attachment A)  Cash flow projections for January 2026 through June 2026 (Attachment B)  Actual Receipts & Disbursements -Qtr. ending December 2025 (Attachment C) Table 2
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 60 of 283
Cash Flow
The cash flow projection indicates that the City of Campbell will have sufficient funds to meet anticipated expenditures from January 2026 through June 2026 (see Attachment B). As of December 31, 2025, the City held $30.5 million in liquidity, comprised of $29.4 million in highly liquid LAIF and CAMP funds and $1.1 million in cash on deposit. Of this total, $9.2 million was restricted to the Measure K sales tax escrow CAMP and Measure O bond accounts.

Over the next six months, staff projects a net incoming operational cash surplus of $10.8 million, resulting in an increase in total managed liquidity totaling $41.3 million by the end of June 2026. Of that amount, $33.4 million will be unrestricted in our cash, LAIF and CAMP investment money market accounts and $8.1 million will be restricted—$7.5 million in the Measure K escrow account and $0.6 million remaining in the Measure O project account. The primary drivers of the increase are property tax receipts offset by the remaining MEAS O project spending, debt and other operational commitments.

Table 3
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 61 of 283
* The City intends to hold treasury/agency securities to maturity or until they are called, as a result this is a paper gain and/or loss that will not be realized. In a decreasing interest rate environment, as we are experiencing, unrealized gains are expected. ** Cash with fiscal agent held for debt service payments. *** Staff prioritizes safety, liquidity, and maximizing return in that order.

Table 4
Table 5
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 62 of 283

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts for accepting this informational report.

PREPARED BY: John Formale, Accountant
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 63 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report- Investment Report- Quarter Ending December 2025.docx
Attachments: Chandler QTRLY BNY Investment Report- 12.31.25.pdf Cashflow projections.pdf
Actual Results.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

January 28, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 64 of 283

INVESTMENT REPORT
City of Campbell | As of December 31, 2025
CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT | chandlerasset.com
Chandler Team:

For questions about your account, please call (800) 317-4747, or contact [email protected]
Information contained herein is confidential. We urge you to compare this statement to the one you receive from your qualified custodian. Please see Important Disclosures at the end of the statement.

Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 65 of 283

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ECONOMIC UPDATE

ACCOUNT PROFILE

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

TRANSACTIONS
1 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 66 of 283

ECONOMIC UPDATE
2 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 67 of 283
▪
▪
▪
The near-term economic outlook continues to be distorted by the data delays from the government shutdown. Recently released government data—reflecting conditions from two to three months ago—indicate inflation remains moderately above the Federal Reserve’s target, while labor market conditions have continued to soften. As the flow of economic data normalizes, the Chandler team expects further yield curve steepening as the Federal Reserve moves the policy rate toward a more neutral range. U.S. trade and fiscal policy also remain sources of elevated market uncertainty.

The Federal Reserve's December Federal Open Market Committee meeting concluded with the third consecutive 25-basis-point rate cut in 2025, lowering the target range to 3.50%–3.75%. However, policymakers remain divided on the path forward. Four Fed governors project one additional 25-basis-point cut in 2026, another four anticipate no further easing, eight expect multiple cuts, and three call for a potential rate hike. Chair Jerome Powell noted that the Fed is now “well placed to wait and see” how labor market conditions and inflation evolve in the near term.

The US Treasury yield curve steepened in December, as the 2-year Treasury yield dropped 2 basis points to 3.48%, the 5-year Treasury was up 13 basis points to 3.73%, and the 10-year Treasury yield was 15 basis points higher at 4.17%. The spread between the 2-year and 10- year Treasury yield points on the curve was 17 basis points wider from November at +69 basis points at December month-end. The spread between the 2-year Treasury and 10-year Treasury yield one year ago was +33 basis points. The spread between the 3-month and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve was +54 basis points in December versus +21 basis points in November.

ECONOMIC UPDATE
3 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 68 of 283
-400
-200
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
MOM Change In Thousands (000's)
Nonfarm Payroll (000's)
Non-farm Payroll (000's)
3-month average (000's)
-1.0%

3.0%

7.0%

11.0%

15.0%
Unemployment Rate
Underemployment Rate (U6)
Unemployment Rate (U3)
Rate (%)
The December Nonfarm Payrolls report showed weaker-than-expected job growth, with payrolls rising by 50,000 compared with the consensus estimate of 70,000. This follows a downwardly revised gain of 56,000 in November. Employment declines were most pronounced in retail trade and construction, while leisure and hospitality posted the strongest gains. Notably, the unemployment rate edged down to 4.4% after increasing to 4.6% in November.

Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Labor

EMPLOYMENT
4 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 69 of 283
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Job Openings
Recession
Historical Average In Thousands (000's)
The Labor Department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) reported that job openings fell to 7.1 million in November from a downwardly revised 7.4 million in October. The drop in vacancies, alongside slower hiring, suggests the labor market continues to soften, though employers remain cautious about laying off workers. The number of openings now roughly matches the number of unemployed individuals, pointing to a labor market that is approaching equilibrium.

Source: US Department of Labor

JOB OPENINGS & LABOR TURNOVER SURVEY
5 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 70 of 283

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
CPI YOY % Change
Core CPI YOY % Change
YOY (%) Change

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)
PCE Price Deflator
YOY % Change
PCE Core Deflator
YOY % Change
Fed Target
YOY (%) Change
Inflation came in lower than expected in November, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rising 2.7% year over year and core CPI easing to

2.6%. Notably, both Owners’ Equivalent Rent and Rent of Primary Residence contributed to the slowdown in services inflation. Shelter costs typically lag broader market trends by 12 to 18 months. Services, meanwhile, have remained the dominant driver of inflation throughout the post-pandemic period. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Index for September, released on December 5, showed headline inflation up 0.3% from August and 2.8% year over year. Core PCE rose 0.2% on the month and 2.8% on an annual basis.

Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Commerce

INFLATION
6 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 71 of 283

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
Retail Sales YOY % Change
YOY (%) Change
October Retail Sales, released with a one-month delay, were flat from the prior month butup 3.5% year over year. Eight of thirteen major categories posted gains, while motor vehicle sales declined following the expiration of federal tax incentives for electric vehicles, and gas station sales weakened amid lower fuel prices. The government shutdown may have weighed on consumer confidence regarding jobs, incomes, and overall financial conditions, both current and in the future. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index declined to

89.1 in December from an upwardly revised 92.9 in November, marking its fifth consecutive monthly drop. Consumers were pessimistic about both business conditions and the labor market.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
Index Level
Consumer Confidence
Recession
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: The Conference Board All time high is 144.70 (1/31/00); All time low is 25.30 (2/28/09)

CONSUMER
7 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 72 of 283
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%
Leading Economic Indicators (LEI)
Recession
YOY (%) Change
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25

0.00 0.25

0.50 0.75

1.00 Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI)
Recession
3 Month Average
The Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index (LEI) declined 0.3% in September, marking its second consecutive monthly decrease after a revised 0.3% drop in August. On a year-over-year basis, the index fell 3.3%. According to the Conference Board, weakening expectations among consumers and businesses contributed most to the LEI’s overall decline. The index continues to signal slower economic growth through the end of 2025 and into 2026. The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) came in at -0.21 in September, following a downwardly revised -0.31 in August, signaling that U.S. economic activity remained below its historical trend for the sixth consecutive month. The three-month moving average ticked down to -0.21 in September from -0.18 in August, reinforcing signs of ongoing below-trend national growth. Employment-related indicators turned slightly positive, contributing +0.01 in September after a -0.11 result in August.

Source: The Conference Board Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

LEADING INDICATORS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
8 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 73 of 283
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
In Thousands of Units
Annualized Housing Starts
Multi Family Housing Starts
Single Family Housing Starts
The S&P Cotality Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index rose 1.3% year over year in October, slightly down from a 1.4% gain in September and marking the slowest annual increase since mid‑2023. Short-term momentum also weakened, with 80 percent of the 20 tracked markets recording month-over-month price declines on a non-seasonally adjusted basis. Housing starts declined in October to an annualized rate of 1.25 million units, down from 1.29 million in September. Existing home sales inched higher in November to a 4.13 million-unit pace, indicating only modest improvement despite some relief in mortgage rates. The Freddie Mac 30‑year fixed mortgage rate fell throughout 2025 and averaged 6.18% at the end of December.

Source: US Department of Commerce Source: S&P
-20.0%
-16.0%
-12.0%
-8.0%
-4.0%

0.0%

4.0%

8.0%

12.0%

16.0%

20.0%

24.0%
S&P/Case-Shiller 20 City Composite Home Price Index
Recession
YOY (%) Change

HOUSING
9 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 74 of 283
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 Institute of Supply Management (ISM) Surveys
ISM Manufacturing ISM Services

EXPANDING

CONTRACTING
The Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) manufacturing index slipped to 47.9 in December, down from 48.2 in November, marking continued weakness across the sector. Manufacturing activity has now been in contraction for 36 of the past 38 months, as readings below 50 indicate contraction and those above 50 signal expansion. The latest decline was driven primarily by pullbacks in the Production and Inventories components. In contrast, the ISM services index remained in expansion territory, rising to 54.4 in December from 52.6 in November. Respondents attributed the improvement to seasonal strength, though many remained cautious about the potential impact of tariffs.

Source: Institute for Supply Management

SURVEY BASED MEASURES
10 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 75 of 283
Components of GDP 12/24 3/25 6/25 9/25

2.6% 0.4% 1.7% 2.4%
-1.3% 3.8% -2.7% 0.0%
-0.1% -4.7% 4.8% 1.6%

0.3% -0.4% -0.4% 0.2%

0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2%

1.9% -0.6% 3.8% 4.3%
State and Local (Consumption and Gross
Investment)
Personal Consumption Expenditures
Gross Private Domestic Investment
Net Exports and Imports
Federal Government Expenditures
Total
-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
GDP QOQ % Change
GDP YOY % Change
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: US Department of Commerce The U.S. inflation adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) report demonstrated continued strength in the third quarter, with the first estimate showing a 4.3% annualized quarter-over-quarter increase, up from 3.8% in the second quarter. Consumer spending accelerated, while exports contributed 1.6 percentage points to growth—both key drivers of the quarter’s performance. The stronger-than-expected result represented the fastest pace of U.S. economic expansion in two years. The consensus projection calls for 1.1% growth in the fourth quarter and 2.0% growth for the full year 2025.

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)
11 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 76 of 283
Source: Federal Reserve Source: Bloomberg
0 1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Assets
Recession
In $ millions
The Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate by a quarter point to a target range of 3.50% to 3.75% at its December meeting, citing concerns about emerging weakness in the labor market. A few policymakers dissented, arguing that tighter monetary policy may still be warranted to ensure progress on price stability. Beginning December 1, the Fed also halted its balance sheet runoff, announcing that principal and interest payments from its holdings will be reinvested in Treasury securities to maintain ample reserves and support market stability.

FEDERAL RESERVE

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
Effective Federal Funds Rate
Recession
Yield (%)
12 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 77 of 283
Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%
US Treasury Note Yields
2-Year
5-Year
10-Year
Yield (%)

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%
US Treasury Yield Curve
Dec-25
Sep-25
Dec-24
Yield (%)
At the end of December, the 2-year yield was 77 basis points lower, and the 10-year yield was 40 basis points lower, year-over-year. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve increased to +69 basis points at December month-end versus +52 basis points at November month-end. The prior 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion, which spanned from July 2022 to August 2024, was historically long. The average historical spread (since 2005) is about +95 basis points. The spread between the 3-month and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve was +54 basis points in December versus +21 basis points in November.

BOND YIELDS
13 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 78 of 283

ACCOUNT PROFILE
14 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 79 of 283

OBJECTIVES
Investment Objectives
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs.

Chandler Asset Management Performance Objective
The performance objective for the portfolio is to earn a total rate of return through a market cycle that is equal to or above the return on the benchmark index.

Strategy
In order to achieve this objective, the portfolio invests in high-quality fixed income securities that comply with the investment policy and all regulations governing the funds. 15 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 80 of 283

PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Benchmark* 12/31/2025
Portfolio
9/30/2025
Portfolio
Average Maturity (yrs) 2.64 3.06 3.22
Average Modified Duration 2.47 2.57 2.71
Average Purchase Yield 4.20% 4.21%
Average Market Yield 3.55% 3.81% 3.87%
Average Quality** AA+ AA AA+
Total Market Value 21,361,145 21,122,551
*Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index **The credit quality is a weighted average calculation of the highest of S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. 16 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 81 of 283

SECTOR DISTRIBUTION
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Sector as a Percentage of Market Value
Sector 12/31/2025 09/30/2025
US Treasury 41.55% 41.22%
Corporate 26.56% 25.57%
Agency CMBS 10.00% 10.08%
ABS 9.49% 9.72%
Agency 7.07% 7.15%
Supras 2.26% 2.28%
Comm Paper 1.63% 1.63%
Muni Bonds 0.99% 1.00%
Money Mkt Fd 0.44% 1.35%
17 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 82 of 283

ISSUERS
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Issuer Investment Type % Portfolio
United States US Treasury 41.55%
FHLMC Agency CMBS 10.00%
Farm Credit System Agency 4.71%
Federal Home Loan Banks Agency 2.37%
International Bank for Recon and Dev Supras 2.26%
Toyota Motor Corporation Corporate 1.91%
BMW Vehicle Owner Trust ABS 1.88%
American Express Credit Master Trust ABS 1.77%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. Comm Paper 1.63%
Bank of America Corporation Corporate 1.45%
John Deere Owner Trust ABS 1.43%
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Corporate 1.27%
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Corporate 1.22%
Caterpillar Inc. Corporate 1.21%
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Corporate 1.20%
Cisco Systems, Inc. Corporate 1.20%
State Street Corporation Corporate 1.19%
Meta Platforms, Inc. Corporate 1.18%
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Corporate 1.14%
Eli Lilly and Company Corporate 1.12%
Duke Energy Corporation Corporate 1.12%
PACCAR Inc Corporate 1.11%
Deere & Company Corporate 1.09%
The Home Depot, Inc. Corporate 1.08%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank Corporate 1.08%
BNY Mellon Corp Corporate 1.06%
State of California Muni Bonds 0.99%
American Honda Finance Corporation Corporate 0.96%
U.S. Bancorp Corporate 0.96%
Walmart Inc. Corporate 0.89%
18 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 83 of 283

ISSUERS
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Issuer Investment Type % Portfolio
GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trus ABS 0.88%
Toyota Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS 0.84%
American Express Company Corporate 0.81%
Morgan Stanley Corporate 0.73%
GM Financial Securitized Term ABS 0.67%
Abbvie Inc. Corporate 0.60%
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust ABS 0.57%
Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust ABS 0.55%
WF Card Issuance Trust ABS 0.52%
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Corporate 0.50%
Bank of Montreal Corporate 0.48%
Money Market Fund Money Mkt Fd 0.44%
Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust ABS 0.38%
Cash Cash 0.00%
TOTAL 100.00%
19 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 84 of 283

QUALITY DISTRIBUTION
Rating 12/31/2025 09/30/2025
AAA 11.76% 12.94%
AA 60.34% 58.96%
A 21.66% 22.31%
BBB 0.50% --
A-1 1.61% 1.61%
NA 4.14% 4.18%
Rating 12/31/2025 09/30/2025
Aaa 9.28% 10.32%
Aa 65.46% 64.16%
A 20.09% 20.21%
P-1 1.61% 1.61%
NA 3.56% 3.69%
Rating 12/31/2025 09/30/2025
AAA 14.31% 14.57%
AA 59.22% 60.26%
A 11.88% 10.75%
NA 14.58% 14.42%
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 S&P Rating Moody’s Rating Fitch Rating
20 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 85 of 283

DURATION DISTRIBUTION
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Date 0-.25 .25-.5 .5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-7 7+
12/31/2025 0.4% 1.9% 5.7% 29.7% 17.5% 36.3% 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% 09/30/2025 1.4% 0.3% 6.8% 26.1% 16.5% 35.5% 13.5% 0.0% 0.0% 21 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 86 of 283
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN* 3 Months 12 Months 2 Years 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years Since Inception City of Campbell 1.13% 4.53%
Benchmark 1.11% 4.20%
*Periods over 1 year are annualized.

Total rate of return: A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending market value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains and losses in the portfolio.

Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index

INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Total Rate of Return : Inception | 03/01/2025
22 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 87 of 283

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS
23 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 88 of 283

HOLDINGS REPORT
City of Campbell | Account #11214 | As of December 31, 2025 Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase
Date
Purchase
Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt
Price
Mkt
YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
ABS
891940AC2 TAOT 2023-A A3 4.63 09/15/2027 51,363.98 11/14/2024

4.63%
51,384.05
51,372.22
100.23

4.00%
51,482.02
105.70

0.24%
109.80
NA/AAA
AAA

1.71 0.34
362962AD4 GMALT 2025-2 A3 4.58
05/22/2028 95,000.00 05/20/20254.84%
94,998.42
94,998.73
100.90

3.87%
95,852.53
132.95

0.45%
853.80
NA/AAA
AAA

2.39 1.18
379965AD8 GMALT 2025-3 A3 4.17
08/21/2028 90,000.00 08/05/20254.18%
89,986.32
89,988.07
100.52

3.85%
90,469.53
114.68

0.43%
481.46
NA/AAA
AAA

2.64 1.45
47800RAD5 JDOT 2024 A3 4.96 11/15/2028 200,000.00 02/20/2025

4.63%
201,203.13
200,824.21
100.88

3.98%
201,752.60
440.89

0.95%
928.39
Aaa/NA
AAA

2.88 0.85
096919AD7 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18
02/26/2029 394,245.29 --4.69%
398,341.74
397,084.51
100.91

3.98%
397,843.57
340.37

1.88%
759.06
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.16 0.73
89239TAD4 TAOT 2024-D A3 4.4 06/15/2029 60,000.00 10/10/2024

4.51%
59,996.65
59,997.52
100.70

3.86%
60,417.30
117.33

0.29%
419.78
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.45 1.19
02589BAE0 AMXCA 2024-3 A 4.65 07/15/2027 200,000.00 02/20/2025

4.57%
200,546.88
200,350.40
101.37

3.76%
202,737.40
413.33

0.96%
2,387.00
NA/AAA
AAA

1.54 1.46
34535VAD6 FORDO 2024-D A3 4.61
08/15/2029 120,000.00 11/19/20244.66%
119,996.15
119,997.05
101.10

3.89%
121,319.88
245.87

0.57%
1,322.83
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.62 1.43
38014AAD3 GMCAR 2024-4 A3 4.4
08/16/2029 60,000.00 10/08/20244.32%
59,988.44
59,991.33
100.75

3.76%
60,449.88
110.00

0.29%
458.55
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.62 1.10
47800DAD6 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 100,000.00 03/04/2025

5.09%
99,993.71
99,994.84
100.75

3.85%
100,746.00
188.00

0.48%
751.16
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.71 1.77
92970QAE5 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29 10/15/2029 110,000.00 10/17/2024

4.29%
109,983.65
109,987.56
100.97

3.76%
111,065.57
209.73

0.52%
1,078.01
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.79 1.69
89231HAD8 TAOT 2025-B A3 4.34 11/15/2029 65,000.00 04/24/2025

4.82%
64,996.28
64,996.83
100.78

3.93%
65,510.06
125.38

0.31%
513.22
NA/AAA
AAA

3.87 1.72
362955AD8 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62
12/17/2029 80,000.00 01/09/20255.03%
79,994.06
79,995.22
101.03

3.89%
80,821.60
154.00

0.38%
826.38
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.96 1.32
58773DAD6 MBART 2025-1 A3 4.78
12/17/2029 115,000.00 01/14/20254.84%
114,975.54
114,980.23
101.45

3.85%
116,664.40
244.31

0.55%
1,684.17
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.96 1.47
44935XAD7 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 80,000.00 06/03/2025

4.36%
79,992.78
79,993.67
100.95

3.87%
80,763.76
155.02

0.38%
770.09
NA/AAA
AAA

3.96 1.79
02582JKP4 AMXCA 2025-2 A 4.28 04/15/2030 170,000.00 05/06/2025

4.28%
169,996.92
169,997.32
101.14

3.79%
171,940.38
323.38

0.81%
1,943.06
NA/AAA
AAA

4.29 2.14
24 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 89 of 283

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
1,996,374.72 100.97 2,009,836.46 9.49% 3.21
Total ABS 1,990,609.27 4.61% 1,994,549.72 3.88% 3,420.93 15,286.74 1.29 AGENCY
3133ENZY9 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 3.96 07/12/2027 1,000,000.00 07/12/20223.96% 1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00

99.69 4.17%
996,942.00
18,590.00

4.71%
(3,058.00)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.53 1.44
3130B7QM9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 3.5
09/09/2027 500,000.00 09/23/20253.63%
498,795.00
498,961.85
100.18

3.39%
500,886.00
5,347.22

2.37%
1,924.15
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.69 1.61
1,498,795.00 99.86 1,497,828.00 7.07% 1.58
Total Agency 1,500,000.00 3.85% 1,498,961.85 3.91% 23,937.22 (1,133.85) 1.50

AGENCY CMBS
3137BSRE5 FHMS K-059 A2 3.12 09/25/2026 246,720.25 11/21/2024

4.55%
240,494.42
244,371.06

99.38 3.77%
245,195.52
641.47

1.16%
824.46
Aa1/AAA
AAA

0.73 0.65
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 250,000.00 11/21/2024

4.53%
244,335.94
246,025.89
100.08

3.79%
250,210.00
812.50

1.18%
4,184.11
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.65 2.45
3137FJKE8 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 250,000.00 06/10/2025

4.27%
246,992.19
247,508.84
100.21

3.76%
250,516.25
816.67

1.18%
3,007.41
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.74 2.48
3137FKSH0 FHMS K-086 A2 3.859 11/25/2028 150,000.00 09/18/2024

3.82%
150,005.86
150,004.04

99.97 3.81%
149,949.00
482.38

0.71%
(55.04)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.90 2.66
3137FLN91 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505 03/25/2029 300,000.00 11/14/2024

4.62%
287,074.22
290,448.32

98.88 3.84%
296,650.50
876.25

1.40%
6,202.18
Aa1/AAA
AA+

3.23 2.90
3137FMCR1 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982 05/25/2029 147,891.42 10/16/2024

4.15%
140,912.80
142,757.72

97.33 3.84%
143,939.61
367.51

0.68%
1,181.89
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.40 2.98
3137FNAE0 FHMS K-095 A2 2.785 06/25/2029 250,000.00 03/13/2025

4.39%
234,707.03
237,584.42

96.49 3.87%
241,236.25
580.21

1.14%
3,651.83
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.48 3.15
3137FPHK4 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425 08/25/2029 300,000.00 10/17/2024

4.26%
276,445.31
282,333.98

95.07 3.90%
285,204.90
606.25

1.35%
2,870.92
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.65 3.34
3137FRUJ8 FHMS K-105 A2 1.872 01/25/2030 275,000.00 03/17/2025

4.43%
244,868.16
249,815.44

92.31 3.95%
253,861.03
429.00

1.20%
4,045.59
Aa1/AA+
AAA

4.07 3.78
2,065,835.93 97.64 2,116,763.05 10.00% 2.99
Total Agency CMBS 2,169,611.67 4.37% 2,090,849.71 3.84% 5,612.23 25,913.35 2.72 25 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 90 of 283

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
CASH
CCYUSD Receivable 266.55 -- 266.55
266.55

1.00 266.55

0.00 0.00%

0.00 Aaa/AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00
Total Cash 266.55
266.55
266.55

1.00 266.55

0.00 0.00%

0.00 0.00

0.00 COMMERCIAL
PAPER
62479MES8 MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York
Branch 05/26/2026 350,000.00 09/23/20253.99%
340,758.06
344,530.28

98.46 3.91%
344,614.20

0.00 1.63%

83.92 P-1/A-1
NA

0.40 0.39
Total Commercial
Paper 350,000.00 3.99%
340,758.06
344,530.28

98.46 3.91%
344,614.20

0.00 1.63%

83.92 0.40

0.39 CORPORATE
91324PEY4 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 4.6
04/15/2027 240,000.00 09/18/20243.83%
244,346.40
242,098.92
100.84

3.92%
242,010.48
2,330.67

1.14%
(88.44)
A2/A+
A

1.29 1.15
437076DB5 HOME DEPOT INC 4.875
06/25/2027 225,000.00 08/12/20244.25%
228,663.00
226,836.91
101.69

3.69%
228,804.75
182.81

1.08%
1,967.84
A2/A
A

1.48 1.34
02665WFK2 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE
CORP 4.9 07/09/2027 200,000.00 09/18/20244.03%
204,578.00
202,479.19
101.35

3.97%
202,702.20
4,682.22

0.96%
223.01
A3/ANA1.52

1.42 857477CP6 STATE STREET CORP 4.33
10/22/2027 250,000.00 11/07/20244.54%
248,537.50
249,105.95
101.01

3.74%
252,529.00
2,074.79

1.19%
3,423.05
Aa3/A
AA1.811.63
89115A3E0 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 4.861
01/31/2028 225,000.00 01/28/20254.86%
225,000.00
225,000.00
101.64

4.03%
228,684.83
4,587.57

1.08%
3,684.83
A2/AAA2.08

1.92 17275RBW1 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.55
02/24/2028 250,000.00 03/11/20254.32%
251,557.50
251,119.08
101.62

3.75%
254,061.25
4,012.85

1.20%
2,942.17
A1/AANA2.15

1.92 00287YDY2 ABBVIE INC 4.65 03/15/2028 125,000.00 02/18/2025

4.70%
124,833.75
124,879.91
101.68

3.85%
127,096.00
1,711.46

0.60%
2,216.09
A3/ANA2.21

1.98 06406RBG1 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORP 3.992 06/13/2028 225,000.00 09/05/20244.31%
223,128.00
224,021.37
100.04

4.33%
225,083.03
449.10

1.06%
1,061.65
Aa3/A
AA2.451.39
46647PDG8 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.851
07/25/2028 150,000.00 08/12/20244.62%
150,933.00
150,494.25
101.29

4.64%
151,928.40
3,153.15

0.72%
1,434.15
A1/A
AA2.571.47
26 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 91 of 283

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
46647PEU6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 4.915
01/24/2029 115,000.00 01/16/20254.92%
115,000.00
115,000.00
101.86

4.14%
117,137.85
2,465.01

0.55%
2,137.85
A1/A
AA3.071.91
06051GMK2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 4.979
01/24/2029 150,000.00 01/17/20254.98%
150,000.00
150,000.00
101.87

4.19%
152,807.10
3,257.10

0.72%
2,807.10
A1/AAA3.07

1.91 06368MJG0 BANK OF MONTREAL 5.004
01/27/2029 100,000.00 01/22/20255.01%
100,000.00
100,000.00
101.89

4.15%
101,894.70
2,140.60

0.48%
1,894.70
A2/AAA3.07

1.91 91159HJK7 US BANCORP 4.653 02/01/2029 200,000.00 09/05/2024

4.47%
201,116.00
200,683.25
101.25

4.31%
202,500.00
3,877.50

0.96%
1,816.75
A3/A
A

3.09 1.93
06051GLG2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 5.202
04/25/2029 150,000.00 08/12/20244.69%
152,550.00
151,594.93
102.56

4.41%
153,841.20
1,430.55

0.73%
2,246.27
A1/AAA3.31

2.15 24422EXT1 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 4.85
06/11/2029 225,000.00 08/12/20244.40%
229,338.00
228,092.95
102.76

3.98%
231,202.80
606.25

1.09%
3,109.85
A1/A
A+

3.44 3.14
025816EJ4 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 4.351
07/20/2029 170,000.00 07/21/20254.35%
170,000.00
170,000.00
100.73

4.18%
171,240.32
3,205.24

0.81%
1,240.32
A2/AA3.55

2.35 89236TMK8 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

4.55 08/09/2029 225,000.00 08/12/20244.49%
225,567.00
225,409.53
101.62

4.06%
228,653.55
4,038.13

1.08%
3,244.02
A1/A+
A+

3.61 3.24
532457CQ9 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.2 08/14/2029 235,000.00 08/12/2024

4.22%
234,769.70
234,833.39
100.97

3.91%
237,277.62
3,756.08

1.12%
2,444.23
Aa3/A+
NA

3.62 3.21
26442CAY0 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC

2.45 08/15/2029 250,000.00 12/18/20244.72%
226,517.50
231,738.90

94.67 4.05%
236,663.50
2,313.89

1.12%
4,924.60
Aa3/A
NA

3.62 3.38
61748UAK8 MORGAN STANLEY 4.133
10/18/2029 155,000.00 10/17/20254.25%
155,019.50
155,018.23

99.97 4.27%
154,950.09
1,227.85

0.73%
(68.14)
A1/AA+3.80

2.59 38141GD27 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

4.153 10/21/2029 105,000.00 10/14/20254.37%
105,000.00
105,000.00

99.98 4.27%
104,976.48
847.90

0.50%
(23.52)
A2/BBB+
A

3.80 2.60
14913UAU4 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES
CORP 4.7 11/15/2029 250,000.00 11/12/20244.74%
249,592.50
249,684.44
102.60

3.97%
256,494.25
1,501.39

1.21%
6,809.81
A2/A
A+

3.87 3.50
89236TNA9 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

4.95 01/09/2030 170,000.00 01/06/20255.00%
169,636.20
169,707.33
102.97

4.14%
175,043.05
4,020.50

0.83%
5,335.72
A1/A+
A+

4.02 3.54
63743HFX5

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES
COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP 4.95
02/07/2030
250,000.00
02/20/2025

4.90%
250,550.00
250,453.03
102.92

4.17%
257,293.75
4,950.00

1.22%
6,840.72
A2/NA
A

4.10 3.55
571748CA8 MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES INC 4.65 03/15/2030 250,000.00 03/24/20254.67% 249,755.00
249,793.05
102.00

4.12%
255,011.75
3,422.92

1.20%
5,218.70
A3/AA4.20

3.67 27
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 92 of 283

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
931142FN8 WALMART INC 4.35 04/28/2030 185,000.00 04/23/2025

4.39%
184,679.95
184,723.42
101.58

3.95%
187,918.75
1,408.31

0.89%
3,195.33
Aa2/AA
AA

4.32 3.82
69371RT71 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.55
05/08/2030 230,000.00 05/05/20254.59%
229,643.50
229,689.97
101.85

4.08%
234,247.87
1,540.68

1.11%
4,557.90
A1/A+
NA

4.35 3.89
30303MAB8 META PLATFORMS INC 4.2
11/15/2030 250,000.00 11/13/20254.16%
250,482.50
250,470.39
100.21

4.15%
250,528.25
1,691.67

1.18%

57.86 Aa3/AANA4.87

4.27 Total Corporate 5,555,000.00 4.50%
5,550,794.50
5,547,928.39
101.24

4.06%
5,622,582.81
70,886.17

26.56%
74,654.42

3.16 2.60

MONEY MARKET
FUND
X9USDDGCM DREYFUS GVT CM INST 93,940.94 --

3.65%
93,940.94
93,940.94

1.00 3.65%
93,940.94

0.00 0.44%

0.00 Aaa/AAAm
NA

0.00 0.00
Total Money Market
Fund 93,940.94 3.65%
93,940.94
93,940.94

1.00 3.65%
93,940.94

0.00 0.44%

0.00 0.00

0.00 MUNICIPAL BONDS
13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.5 08/01/2029 205,000.00 10/30/2024

4.38%
206,080.35
205,816.82
102.47

3.76%
210,063.50
3,843.75

0.99%
4,246.68
Aa2/AAAA3.58

3.23 Total Municipal
Bonds 205,000.00 4.38%
206,080.35
205,816.82
102.47

3.76%
210,063.50
3,843.75

0.99%
4,246.68

3.58 3.23

SUPRANATIONAL
459058LN1

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029
350,000.00
12/13/2024

4.29%
343,689.50
345,051.71
100.70

3.68%
352,449.30
2,824.50

1.66%
7,397.59
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.79 3.47
459058LR2

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 4.125 03/20/2030
125,000.00
03/14/2025

4.20%
124,553.75
124,623.89
101.49

3.74%
126,860.13
1,446.61

0.60%
2,236.24
Aaa/AAA
NA

4.22 3.80
Total Supranational 475,000.00 4.27%
468,243.25
469,675.60
100.91

3.69%
479,309.43
4,271.11

2.26%
9,633.83

3.90 3.56

US TREASURY
28 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 93 of 283

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CJC6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
10/15/2026 375,000.00 08/30/20243.90%
380,507.81
377,037.04
100.81

3.57%
378,021.38
3,716.52

1.79%
984.34
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.79 0.76
91282CKE0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
03/15/2027 350,000.00 08/20/20243.86%
353,322.27
351,554.65
100.85

3.52%
352,966.95
4,437.85

1.67%
1,412.30
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.20 1.15
91282CKZ3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
07/15/2027 375,000.00 08/08/20243.91%
379,804.69
377,514.60
101.33

3.48%
379,980.38
7,578.97

1.79%
2,465.77
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.54 1.45
91282CFM8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
09/30/2027 350,000.00 10/31/20244.17%
349,521.48
349,713.25
101.07

3.48%
353,746.05
3,688.70

1.67%
4,032.80
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.75 1.65
91282CGP0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
02/29/2028 375,000.00 08/08/20243.87%
376,552.73
375,943.11
101.04

3.49%
378,911.25
5,096.69

1.79%
2,968.14
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.16 2.03
91282CHK0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
06/30/2028 350,000.00 08/20/20243.76%
353,007.81
351,944.72
101.17

3.51%
354,101.65

38.67 1.67%
2,156.93
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.50 2.36
91282CJF9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.875
10/31/2028 375,000.00 08/08/20243.85%
389,765.63
384,888.38
103.54

3.54%
388,286.25
3,131.04

1.83%
3,397.87
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.84 2.61
91282CKD2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
02/28/2029 375,000.00 11/26/20244.21%
375,585.94
375,435.12
102.02

3.57%
382,587.75
5,415.23

1.81%
7,152.63
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.16 2.90
91282CKG5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
03/31/2029 350,000.00 11/18/20244.31%
347,498.05
348,138.85
101.66

3.58%
355,797.05
3,688.70

1.68%
7,658.20
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.25 2.99
91282CKP5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
04/30/2029 375,000.00 08/08/20243.84%
387,583.01
383,862.82
103.23

3.58%
387,114.38
2,970.48

1.83%
3,251.56
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.33 3.05
91282CEV9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.25
06/30/2029 350,000.00 11/18/20244.31%
334,591.80
338,324.90

98.86 3.60%
346,007.90

31.42 1.63%
7,683.00
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.50 3.27
91282CLC3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
07/31/2029 350,000.00 08/20/20243.70%
354,634.77
353,356.04
101.29

3.61%
354,525.50
5,858.70

1.67%
1,169.46
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.58 3.26
91282CLK5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2029 400,000.00 --3.60%
400,687.50
400,405.13

99.98 3.63%
399,937.60
4,926.80

1.89%
(467.53)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.67 3.36
91282CLN9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
09/30/2029 400,000.00 --4.09%
389,617.18
392,020.36

99.54 3.63%
398,140.80
3,576.92

1.88%
6,120.44
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.75 3.45
91282CLR0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
10/31/2029 400,000.00 --4.33%
396,388.68
397,178.64
101.71

3.64%
406,843.60
2,825.97

1.92%
9,664.96
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.83 3.49
91282CMA6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
11/30/2029 400,000.00 12/11/20244.09%
400,546.88
400,430.81
101.73

3.65%
406,906.40
1,450.55

1.92%
6,475.59
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.91 3.58
91282CMD0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
12/31/2029 400,000.00 --4.45%
398,679.69
398,935.03
102.67

3.65%
410,687.60

48.34 1.94%
11,752.57
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.00 3.65
29 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 94 of 283

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CMU2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
03/31/2030 300,000.00 04/07/20253.75%
303,375.00
302,877.48
101.27

3.67%
303,820.20
3,065.93

1.43%
942.72
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.25 3.84
91282CMZ1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
04/30/2030 500,000.00 09/16/20253.57%
506,425.78
506,021.79
100.78

3.68%
503,906.50
3,318.37

2.38%
(2,115.29)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.33 3.93
91282CNG2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
05/31/2030 350,000.00 06/09/20254.08%
348,742.19
348,884.18
101.27

3.68%
354,456.90
1,230.77

1.67%
5,572.72
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.41 4.00
91282CNK3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
06/30/2030 325,000.00 07/29/20253.95%
323,933.59
324,025.62
100.75

3.69%
327,450.18

34.79 1.55%
3,424.55
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.50 4.09
91282CNN7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
07/31/2030 225,000.00 08/26/20253.77%
226,081.05
226,004.73
100.74

3.70%
226,661.18
3,648.61

1.07%
656.44
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.58 4.10
91282CNX5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2030 500,000.00 09/16/20253.58%
500,937.50
500,882.57

99.64 3.71%
498,222.50
6,158.49

2.35%
(2,660.07)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.67 4.20
91282CPN5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030 150,000.00 12/09/20253.77%
148,154.30
148,176.66

98.99 3.73%
148,488.30
461.54

0.70%
311.64
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.91 4.45
Total US Treasury 8,700,000.00 3.95%
8,725,945.33
8,713,556.47
101.13

3.61%
8,797,568.23
76,400.05

41.55%
84,011.75

3.32 3.04
Total Portfolio 21,039,428.43 4.20%
20,947,034.63
20,960,076.32
100.23

3.81%
21,172,773.16
188,371.46
100.00%
212,696.84

3.06 2.57
Total Market Value +
Accrued 21,361,144.63
30 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 95 of 283

TRANSACTIONS
31 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 96 of 283

TRANSACTION LEDGER
City of Campbell | Account #11214|10/01/2025 Through 12/31/2025| Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/DispYield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 10/21/2025 38141GD27 105,000.00

GOLDMAN SACHS
GROUP INC 4.153
10/21/2029
100.000 4.37% (105,000.00) 0.00 (105,000.00) 0.00
Purchase 10/22/2025 61748UAK8 75,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY

4.133 10/18/2029 100.026 4.12% (75,019.50) 0.00 (75,019.50) 0.00 Purchase 10/22/2025 61748UAK8 80,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY

4.133 10/18/2029 100.000 4.36% (80,000.00) 0.00 (80,000.00) 0.00 Purchase 11/17/2025 30303MAB8 250,000.00 META PLATFORMS INC

4.2 11/15/2030 100.193 4.16% (250,482.50) (408.33) (250,890.83) 0.00 Purchase 12/10/2025 91282CPN5 150,000.00

UNITED STATES
TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030

98.770 3.77% (148,154.30) (144.23) (148,298.53) 0.00
Total Purchase 660,000.00 (658,656.30) (552.56) (659,208.86) 0.00 TOTAL
ACQUISITIONS 660,000.00 (658,656.30) (552.56) (659,208.86) 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Sale 11/14/2025 78017FZQ9 (250,000.00)

ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA 4.51
10/18/2027
100.387 4.66% 250,967.50 814.31 251,781.81 1,617.58
Total Sale (250,000.00) 250,967.50 814.31 251,781.81 1,617.58 TOTAL
DISPOSITIONS (250,000.00) 250,967.50 814.31 251,781.81 1,617.58 32 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 97 of 283

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES
2025 Chandler Asset Management, Inc, An Independent Registered Investment Adviser.

Information contained herein is confidential. Prices are provided by ICE Data Services Inc (“IDS”), an independent pricing source. In the event IDS does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value, Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures. Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A.

Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return. The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results. These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Therefore, clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Economic factors, market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio.

Source ICE Data Indices, LLC (“ICE”), used with permission. ICE permits use of the ICE indices and related data on an “asis” basis; ICE, its affiliates and their respective third party suppliers disclaim any and all warranties and representations, express and/or implied, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use, including the indices, index data and any data included in, related to, or derived therefrom. Neither ICE data, its affiliates or their respective third party providers guarantee the quality, adequacy, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the indices or the index data or any component thereof, and the indices and index data and all components thereof are provided on an “as is” basis and licensee’s use it at licensee’s own risk. ICE data, its affiliates and their respective third party do not sponsor, endorse, or recommend chandler asset management, or any of its products or services.

This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice. Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change. This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as indicator of future results. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This report is not intended to constitute an offer, solicitation, recommendation or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment.

Fixed income investments are subject to interest, credit and market risk. Interest rate risk: the value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise. Credit risk: the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal. Low rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk. Market risk: the bond market in general could decline due to economic conditions, especially during periods of rising interest rates.

Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement, however we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

BENCHMARK DISCLOSURES
Benchmark Disclosure
ICE BofA 1-5 Yr Unsubordinated US
Treasury & Agency Index
The ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market. Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch). Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than five years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance, a fixed coupon schedule, and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies. 34 Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 99 of 283
Cashflow Projections for the Month of January 2026
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rentals 290,000 Outstanding checks 706,226 Environmental Services Fees 25,000 Bills & Claims 1,700,000 Franchise Fees 12,000 Bills & Claims- Meas O 800,000
Property Taxes 7,500,000 Wire payments- Lathrop retention escrow 42,105 Other Taxes 67,000 Payroll 1,800,000
Licenses and Permits 565,000 CalPERS- health & retirement pmts 750,000 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 5,000 Mission Square retirement payments 240,000 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 120,000 Other charges & bank fees 16,000 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 1,100,000 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 580,000 Investment earnings & interest 222,640
Charges for Current Services 600,000
Sales & Use Tax 1,440,000
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 580,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 370,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 150,000
Spec Assessment 805,000
Sub-total (Receipts) 13,851,640 Sub-total (Expenditure) 6,634,331 Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. - Available for investment. 7,217,309 Total $ 13,851,640 Total $ 13,851,640
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 100 of 283
Cashflow Projections for the Month of February 2026
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rentals 250,000 Bills & Claims 2,000,000 Environmental Services Fees 35,000 Bills & Claims- Meas O 700,000 Franchise Fees 105,000 Wire payments- Lathrop retention escrow 36,842 Property Taxes 50,000 Payroll+ Spec vacation payout run 2,100,000 Other Taxes 62,000 MEAS O semi-annual debt service 856,725 Licenses and Permits 885,000 CalPERS 730,000
Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 27,000 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 580,000 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 95,000 Mission Square retirement contributions 140,000 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 165,000 Other charges & bank fees 25,000 Investment earnings & interest 45,000
Charges for Current Services 500,000
Sales & Use Tax 1,440,000
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 580,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 290,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 7,000
Misc Rec- JPA/798 61,000
Sub-total (Receipts) 4,597,000 Sub-total (Expenditure) 7,168,567 Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. 2,571,567 Available for investment. - Total $ 7,168,567 Total $ 7,168,567
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 101 of 283
Cashflow Projections for the Month of March 2026
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rental 225,000 Bills & Claims 2,900,000 Franchise Fees 20,000 Bills & Claims- Meas O 600,000
Environmental Services Fees 350,000 Wire payments- Lathrop retention escrow 31,579 Property Taxes 1,750,000 Payroll 1,800,000
Licenses and Permits 740,000 LRB & TARB debt service payments 989,250 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 10,000 CalPERS 700,000
Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 85,000 Mission Square retirement contributions 140,000 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 395,000 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 580,000 Investment earnings & interest 45,000 Other charges & bank fees 35,000 Charges for Current Services 900,000
Sales & Use Tax 1,440,000
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 580,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 330,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 60,000
Misc Rec- JPA/798 67,000
Sub-total (Receipts) 6,997,000
Sub-total (Expenditure) 7,775,829
Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. 778,829 Available for investment. - Total $ 7,775,829 Total $ 7,775,829
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 102 of 283
Cashflow Projections for the Month of April 2026
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rentals 275,000 Bills & Claims 2,300,000 Environmental Services Fees 45,000 Bills & Claims- Meas O 700,000 Franchise Fees 840,000 Lathrop retention escrow pmts 36,842 Property Taxes 3,300,000 Payroll 1,800,000
Other Taxes 85,000 CalPERS- health & retirement pmts 850,000 Licenses and Permits 250,000 Mission Square retirement payments 150,000 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 13,000 Other charges & bank fees 30,000 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 115,000 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 580,000 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 260,000
Investment earnings & interest 195,000
Charges for Current Services 475,000
Sales & Use Tax 1,200,000
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 580,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 350,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 120,000
Misc Rec- JPA/798 125,000
Sub-total (Receipts) 8,228,000 Sub-total (Expenditure) 6,446,842 Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. - Available for investment. 1,781,158 Total $ 8,228,000 Total $ 8,228,000
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 103 of 283
Cashflow Projections for the Month of May 2026
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rentals 260,000 Bills & Claims 3,600,000 Environmental Services Fees 33,677 Bills & Claims- Meas O 500,000 Franchise Fees 115,333 Lathrop retention escrow pmts 26,316 Property Taxes 3,500,000 Payroll 1,800,000
Other Taxes 60,000 CalPERS 700,000
Licenses and Permits 555,000 Mission Square retirement contribu 150,000 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 10,000 Other charges & bank fees 30,000 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 60,000 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 580,000 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 400,000
Investment earnings & interest 50,000
Charges for Current Services 500,000
Sales & Use Tax 1,440,000
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 580,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 330,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 200,000
Misc Rec- JPA/798 130,000
Sub-total (Receipts) 8,224,010 Sub-total (Expenditure) 7,386,316 Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. Available for investment. 837,694 Total $ 8,224,010 Total $ 8,224,010
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 104 of 283
Cashflow Projections for the Month of June 2026
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rentals 275,000 Bills & Claims 4,000,000 Environmental Services Fees 21,000 Bills & Claims- Meas O 655,000 Franchise Fees 350,000 Lathrop retention escrow pmts 34,474 Property Taxes 5,900,000 Payroll 1,800,000
Other Taxes 35,000 CalPERS 700,000
Licenses and Permits 435,000 Mission Square retirement contribution 150,000 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 10,000 Other charges & bank fees 30,000 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 120,000 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 580,000 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 2,000,000
Investment earnings & interest 50,000
Charges for Current Services 550,000
Sales & Use Tax 1,440,000
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 580,000
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 375,000
Miscellaneous Receipts 60,000
Misc Rec- JPA/798 45,000
12,246,000 Sub-total (Expenditure) 7,949,474
Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. - Available for investment. 4,296,526 Total $ 12,246,000 Total $ 12,246,000
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 105 of 283
Actual Results for the Month of October 2025
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Rentals 263,453 Outstanding Checks 1,505,505 Environmental Services Fees 43,920 Bills & Claims 2,408,663 Franchise Fees 10,217 Bills & Claims- Meas O 2,109,673
Other Taxes 62,132 Payroll 1,681,219
Licenses and Permits 661,034 CalPERS- Health & Retirement pmts 646,974 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 16,116 Lathrop retention withheld Escrow deposit 89,871 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 118,970 Mission Square Retirement payments 213,671 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 536,234 Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K escrow deposit 468,172 Investment earnings & interest 383,804 Other charges & bank fees 28,213 Charges for Current Services 450,797
Sales & Use Tax 1,173,594
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 468,172
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 363,208
Miscellaneous Receipts 71,402
Misc Rec- JPA/798 142,614
Sub-total (Receipts) 5,565,210 Sub-total (Expenditure) 9,151,961 Amount withdrew from Investments Amount of expected revenue to cover this month's expenditures. 3,586,751 Available for investment. - Total $ 9,151,961 Total $ 9,151,961
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 106 of 283
Actual Results for the Month of November 2025
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Ren 210,373 Bills & Claims 4,086,788 Environmental Services Fees 31,234 Bills & Claims- Meas O 1,454,829 Property Taxes 2,803,033 Payroll 2,736,518
Other Taxes 53,610 CalPERS 649,639
Licenses and Permits 428,902 Mission Square retirement contributions 136,117 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 87,175 Lathrop retention withheld Escrow depo 61,351 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 96,165 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 607,898 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTT 242,068 Other charges & bank fees Investment earnings & interest 40,486
Charges for Current Services 341,283
Sales & Use Tax 1,520,972
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 607,898
Transient Occupancy Tax (monthly) 394,944
Parkland Dedication fee 429,200
Miscellaneous Receipts 465,721
Misc Rec- JPA/798 84,644
Sub-total (Receipts) 7,929,655 Sub-total (Expenditure) 9,733,140 Amount of expected revenue
Amount withdrew from Investments
to cover this month's expenditures. 1,803,485 Available for investment. - Total $ 9,733,140 Total $ 9,733,140
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 107 of 283
Actual Results for the Month of December 2025
Revenue Receipt Expenditure Payment
Description Amount Description Amount
Community Center/Dev. Leases/Renta 225,803 Bills & Claims 3,918,944 Environmental Services Fees 42,835 Bills & Claims- Meas O 2,517,000 Property Taxes 2,855,496 Lathrop retention withheld Escrow deposit 93,754 Other Taxes 75,664 Payroll 1,718,631
Licenses and Permits 456,219 CalPERS 848,949
Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 11,432 Mission Square retirement contributions 69,868 Intergovernmental--Gas Taxes 107,717 Meas K sales tax escrow deposit 562,623 Intergovernmental--Other incl RPTTF 154,590 Other charges & bank fees 18,153 Investment earnings & interest 45,776
Charges for Current Services 579,515
Sales & Use Tax 1,590,318
Sales & Use Tax- MEAS K 562,623
Transient Occupancy Tax 242,931
Miscellaneous Receipts 60,600
Misc Rec- JPA/798 164,340
Sub-total (Receipts) 7,175,858 Sub-total (Expenditure) 9,747,922 Amount of expected revenue
Amount withdrew from Investments
to cover this month's expenditures. 2,572,064 Available for investment. - Total $ 9,747,922 Total $ 9,747,922
Item 7.6
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 108 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Adoption of Ordinance 26-2341 – Speed Limits
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council take second reading and adopt Ordinance 26-2341 amending Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 10.32.010 – Establishing state speed limit in certain areas.

BACKGROUND
Per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), posted speed limits must first be adopted by ordinance or resolution.

Additionally, California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22358.4 allows a local authority to determine a lower speed zone for school and elderly facilities. The City Council support staff’s recommendation to establish a prima facie speed limit of 15 mph for selected streets within 500 feet of schools.

DISCUSSION
At the regular meeting of January 20, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to introduce and take first reading of Ordinance 26-2341 to amend CMC Chapter 10.32 entitled “Vehicles and Traffic” and approve the 2025 Quinquennial Speed Survey and recommendations.

The City Council unanimously approved Ordinance 26-2341 and staff is returning to the City Council for second reading of the ordinance. In addition, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933, if approved the full ordinance will be published in the Metro Silicon Valley, a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara on February 11, 2026. Ordinance 26-2341 will become effective 30 days following adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT
Nominal publication costs are associated with the second reading of Ordinance 26-2341 to meet requirements of Government Code Section 36933 but can be absorbed with the current FY 2026 Operating budget. Other fiscal impacts are included in the January 20, 2026, staff report introducing the item.

Item 7.7
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 109 of 283

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not adopt the ordinance and retain the existing provisions of Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 10.32.010.

2. Continue the item to a future City Council meeting to allow staff additional time to conduct further analysis, or explore alternative approaches to speed limit regulation.

3. Direct staff to modify the proposed ordinance to address specific concerns raised by the City Council and return with a revised ordinance for consideration.

PREPARED BY: Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 7.7
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 110 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Second Reading of Ordinance 26-2341 approving the 2025 Quinquennial Speed Survey and recommendations.docx Attachments: Ordinance 26-2341 Amendment to CMC 10-32 Speed Limits.docx Final Approval
Date:

January 27, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 7.7
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 111 of 283
ORDINANCE NO. __________

BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED “VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC” APPROVING
THE QUINQUENNIAL (5-YEAR) SPEED SURVEY

AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION ONE: That Section 10.32.010, establishing state speed limit in certain areas, of the Campbell Municipal Code be amended as follows:

Under Paragraph B, Prima facie speed limit declared twenty-five miles per hour Delete Location “Paine Avenue between Winchester Boulevard and Almarida Drive”
Add Location “Payne Avenue between Winchester Boulevard and Almarida Drive” Delete Location “Virginia Avenue between Campbell Avenue and Budd Avenue” Add Location “Virginia Avenue between Campbell Avenue and Hacienda Avenue” Add Location “White Oaks Road between Redding Road and Bascom Avenue” Add Paragraph F, Prima facie speed limit declared fifteen miles per hour “When Children Are Present”
Add Location “California Street between Catalpa Avenue and Cherry Lane” Add Location “Chapman Drive between Virginia Avenue and Capri Drive” Add Location “Eden Avenue between Hamilton Avenue and northerly city limit” Add Location “Hedegard Avenue between Victor Avenue and Amato Avenue” Add Location “Manchester Avenue between Sheffield Avenue and Cronwell Drive” Add Location “McCoy Avenue between Neville Avenue and westerly city limit” Add Location “More Avenue north of Pollard Road”
Add Location “Payne Avenue between Central Avenue and westerly city limit” Add Location “Sheffield Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Nottingham Way”
Add Location “Sobrato Drive between Sobrato Way and Gamma Court” Add Location “Vale Avenue between Audrey Avenue and West Parr Avenue” Add Location “Victor Avenue between Campbell Avenue and Hedegard Avenue” Add Location “Virginia Avenue between Hazel Avenue and Budd Avenue” Add Location “Virginia Avenue between Chapman Drive and Virginia Court Add Location “West Parr Avenue between Dardanelli Lane and Capri Drive” Add Location “Waldo Road Between Virginia Avenue and Kenneth Avenue” SECTION TWO: Effective Date.

Item 7.7
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 112 of 283
This Ordinance shall become effective (30) days following its passage and adoption and shall be published once within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in the Metro, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____day of ___________, 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:
_____________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 7.7
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 113 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Accept resignations from the Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council accept the resignation of Cori Majewski from the Planning Commission and Rene Carballo from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and direct the City Clerk to prepare the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy.

BACKGROUND
Planning Commissioner Cori Majewski submitted a letter of resignation stating they were unable to commit the necessary time and energy required to serve. Attached is her letter of resignation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Member Rene Carballo submitted a letter of resignation stating they were moving outside of City limits. Attached is their letter of resignation. City Council Policy 1.9a states that the City advisory commissions (with the exception of the Building Board of Appeals and Landlord Representatives on the Rental Increase Fact Finding Committee) shall be limited to persons residing within the City limits.

DISCUSSION
Staff recommends the City Council accept the resignation of Cori Majewski from the Planning Commission and prepare the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy for one (1) shortterm expiring August 2027.

BPAC Member Carballo's current term is set to expire this August 2026. Given that recent recruitment efforts have needed to be extended in order to receive sufficient applications to fill vacant positions, it is recommended that the City Council accept the resignation and direct the City Clerk to prepare the Notice of the Unscheduled Vacancy for the remainder of the current term and an additional full term, with a term expiration of August, 2030.

FISCAL IMPACT
Item 7.8
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 114 of 283
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting the resignation of Commissioner Majewski from the Planning Commission and Board Member Caballo from the BPAC and preparing the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not accept the resignations.

2. Accept the resignations and have the BPAC Notice of Vacancy prepared for the remainder of the current term.

PREPARED BY: Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 7.8
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 115 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Accept Resignations from the Planning Commission and Bicycler and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.docx
Attachments: Cori Majewski resignation - Planning Commission - Redacted.pdf Rene Carballo resignation - BPAC_Redacted.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

January 28, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 7.8
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 116 of 283
From: Andrea Sanders
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: RE: Cori Majewski resignation - Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:23:08 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image007.png
image008.png
From: Cori Majewski >
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 10:14 AM
To: Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning commission update
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

Hi Rob,
Hope this email finds you well!
After much thought, I have decided to step down from my position on the Planning Commission. Between work and life, I’m not able to commit the time and energy to the role and the City the way I’d like to.

I’ve really enjoyed getting to know you and the staff, and am truly so amazed by the talent, knowledge, and dedication every member of staff provides to help make our City the fantastic place it is!
I plan to attend tonight’s meeting, and can discuss more with you today or when convenient for you.

Thank you and see you this evening,
Cori
Item 7.8
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 117 of 283
From: Rene Carballo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 12:50 PM
To: Matthew Jue <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BPAC Letter of Resignation
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

Hi Matthew,
I am writing to submit my resignation for the Campbell Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. I am moving out of Campbell, and unfortunately cannot continue serving the committee as a non resident.

I would like to thank you, the city staff, the rest of the committee for allowing me to be a part of this wonderful opportunity to contribute feedback for Campbell's pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure for these past 2 years. Campbell has been a lovely city to call home and I look forward to all of it's improvements in the coming years.

Thank you!
--
Rene D. Carballo
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026, 12:32 PM Matthew Jue <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 7.8
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 118 of 283
Could we get an email of resignation from you today? Our city clerk would like to prepare a council report to advertise the BPAC vacancy at the next council meeting. The deadline for the council report is tomorrow.

Matthew Jue, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Traffic Engineer
City of Campbell | Public Works Department
70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008
www.campbellca.gov | 408.866.2150
From: Matthew Jue
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 12:35 PM
To: Rene Carballo - Offsite <[email protected]>
Subject: BPAC Letter of Resignation
Hi Rene,
We checked with the City Clerk’s Office. A person cannot serve on the BPAC if he or she is not a Campbell resident. Thank you for offering to attend the meetings, but we aren’t allowed non-residents to sit on the board.

With that, could you send us a brief email or letter of resignation explaining that you have moved out of Campbell?
Meanwhile, we appreciate your volunteering and participating in the BPAC meetings and activities.

Matthew Jue, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Traffic Engineer
City of Campbell | Public Works Department
70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008
www.campbellca.gov | 408.866.2150
Item 7.8
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 119 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Accept donation of $4,000 from the Water Tower Kitchen for the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship Fund and approve an associated budget adjustment (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to accept a donation of $4,000 from the Water Tower Kitchen for the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship Fund.

BACKGROUND
Water Tower Kitchen hosts an ongoing fundraiser each quarter to benefit local non-profit organizations aimed at supporting youth in the Campbell community. Staff was approached by Water Tower Kitchen inquiring about the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship fund and worked to incorporate the Youth Scholarship as the final recipient for their 2025 program.

DISCUSSION
During the months of October, November and December 2025 a percentage of sales from the Water Tower Kitchen “Beer of the Month” program along with a percentage of food sales from Wednesday, October 22, 2025 were collected with the intent that it be donated to the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship fund. This fund provides youth access to recreation programs through the City Council Financial Assistance Program Policy to eligible families. This donation will allow another 15-20 Campbell youth access to the financial assistance program.

FISCAL IMPACT
This donation increases the Recreation Youth Scholarship fund, 101.524.4821, by $4,000.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Not approve staff recommendation.

2. Provide different direction to staff.

PREPARED BY: Lauren Merriman, Recreation Services Manager Item 7.9
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 120 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Accept donation of $4,000 from the Water Tower Kitchen.docx
Attachments: RESOLUTION Water Tower Kitchen 2026.docx
BA-11 (FY 2026) - Water Tower Kitchen Donation.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

January 28, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Natasha Bissell, Recreation and Community Services Director Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 7.9
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 121 of 283
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ACCEPTING A $4,000 DONATION FROM WATER TOWER KITCHEN FOR

THE CAMPBELL YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM AND APPROVING

AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, Water Tower Kitchen is a local Campbell business; and WHEREAS, Water Tower Kitchen is looking for ways to give back to the community through their Beer of the Month program; and
WHEREAS, Water Tower Kitchen identified the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship program as their recipient for October, November and December 2025; and
WHEREAS, donations to the Youth Scholarship program provide recreation opportunities for children in Campbell; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the donation of $4,000 for the Campbell Youth Scholarship Program approves an associated budget adjustment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:
________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 7.9
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 122 of 283
City of Campbell
Request for Budget Adjustments
Department/Program Division Date Request No.

February 3, 2026 BA-11
Budget to be Reduced
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount
Budget to be Increased
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount

REVENUES
101.524 4821 4,000.00
REASON FOR REQUEST - BE SPECIFIC:

Recreation
Will Fuentes Natasha Bissell Brian Loventhal
524 - RCS Administration
Donations - Youth Scholarships
To accept a donation from the Water Tower Kitchen to support the Campbell Recreation Youth Scholarship fund.

Finance Director Recreation and Community Svcs Director City Manager Item 7.9
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 123 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Campbell Municipal Code to clarify the timeline of Council Committee Appointments
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending Section

2.04.050 of the Campbell Municipal Code to amend when Council committee appointments may occur.

BACKGROUND
The Campbell Municipal Code, Section 2.04.050, currently provides:
“Annually, the Mayor may appoint members to committees as deemed appropriate and necessary.”
To ensure flexibility and prevent unnecessary interruptions in governance, City Council members have previously requested that the language be revised to allow for committee appointments to occur when circumstances require to do so, as deemed necessary by the Mayor. This flexibility supports efficient administration and remains responsive to evolving priorities and/or operational needs.

DISCUSSION
Revising the language in Section 2.04.050 of the Campbell Municipal Code requires an ordinance. Attached to this staff report, for City Council consideration, is an ordinance amending Section 2.04.050 to allow for Council Committee appointments to occur when circumstances require, as deemed necessary by the Mayor. Should the Council wish to proceed, it would need to introduce the attached ordinance. The ordinance would then go through a second reading and become effective thirty days after the second reading, on March 17, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the attached ordinance.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not adopt the ordinance and retain the existing language.

Item 8.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 124 of 283

2. Provide staff with alternative direction.

PREPARED BY: Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City Manager
Item 8.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 125 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report City Council Committee Appointments.docx Attachments: Ordinance Council Committee Assignments .docx Final Approval Date: January 28, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City Manager
Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Item 8.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 126 of 283
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING COUNCIL COMMITTEE – APPOINTMENTS
WHEREAS, Campbell City Council Ordinance #1312, as subsequently amended by Ordinance #2117, established the timeline for committee appointments of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.050 provides that the Mayor may appoint Councilmembers to committees on an annual basis.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the timeline to be annually and thereafter, as needed, at the discretion of the Mayor;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: 2.04.050 of the Campbell Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows with strikethroughs (strikethroughs) indicating deleted text, and underlining (underlining) indicating added text:

2.04.050 – Committees – Appointment.

Annually, Tthe Mayor may appoint Councilmembers to committees at the beginning of the Mayor’s term and at any time thereafter as deemed appropriate and necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ___, 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:
__________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 8.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 127 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance No. 2326 which established urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits at new locations in the City of Campbell. Project File No.: PLN-2025-12. (Ordinance / Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council adopt an ordinance extending Interim Ordinance No. 2326, which established urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits at new locations in the City of Campbell.

BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 2326 establishing urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits at new locations in the City of Campbell (City). Because interim ordinances are initially effective for no more than 45 days, staff returned to the City Council on April 15, 2025, with a subsequent ordinance to request and receive an extension of Interim Ordinance No. 2326 for an additional 10 months and 15 days, which is now set to expire on March 2, 2026.

DISCUSSION
The subject item proposes an ordinance to further extend Interim Ordinance No. 2326, for one additional year (until March 2, 2027), or until superseded by permanent standards, whichever occurs first. If the Interim Ordinance is not extended, the temporary moratorium on new permits will expire on March 2, 2026.

Considering Interim Ordinance No. 2326 has operated as intended during its effective period by preventing the establishment of new smoke shops while allowing existing operators to continue without disruption, staff recommends its extension until permanent regulations can be adopted. Once work begins on the permanent regulations, expected to occur later this year, staff will engage with stakeholders and develop and present regulatory measures to the City Council to manage and limit the number of smoke shops permitted within the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires agencies to identify the potential environmental effects of “projects”. While adoption of the proposed ordinance Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 128 of 283
extending Interim Ordinance No. 2326 is considered a "project" under Section 15378(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it may be found exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) because it does not create environmental impacts and merely preserves the status quo. The ordinance may also be found categorically exempt under Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a temporary regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 in the interest of evaluating and preventing potential environmental harms related to tobacco sales.

FISCAL IMPACT
If the temporary moratorium on Tobacco Retailers is extended, existing revenue from Tobacco Retail sales will not be impacted, but the City could miss out on potential revenue from new operators.

On average, stand-alone1 tobacco retail businesses result in approximately $3,196 dollars in revenue for the City per year. Given that the City has issued an average of three (3) Tobacco Retailers per year between 2022-2024, the total fiscal impact can be roughly estimated to $10,000 if past trends were to continue. However, considering that the City has the highest number of tobacco retailers per capita in the surrounding region, the anticipated fiscal impact may be less.

NEXT STEPS
If the temporary moratorium is extended, staff will begin work on a permanent ordinance later this year that will include:
• Engaging with stakeholders, including public health officials, business owners, and community members; and
• Developing and returning with regulatory recommendations for City Council consideration within the temporary moratorium period.

ALTERNATIVES
In consideration of the subject item, staff has identified the following alternatives:

1. Take no action. Should the Council take no action on the subject item, the Interim Ordinance will expire on March 2, 2026. Staff does not recommend pursuing this alternative as it would permit the establishment of new tobacco retailers without appropriate regulatory measures that align Campbell’s policies with best practices seen in other jurisdictions.

2. Extend the Interim Ordinance for shorter than one-year. Under this alternative, the City Council could extend the Interim Ordinance for less than the maximum allowable one-year period. While this option would maintain the temporary moratorium for a limited time, staff does not recommend this alternative, as a shorter extension may not provide sufficient time to complete the ongoing policy analysis and develop permanent regulatory measures consistent with City policies and best practices in other jurisdictions.
1 The City does not have a precise sales tax data for tobacco retailers when part of another land use (i.e., as part of a grocery store).

Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 129 of 283
Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 130 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Tobacco Moratorium Extension.docx
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Tobacco Moratorium _ Extending Ordinance.docx
Attachment 2 - CC Ordinance No. 2326.pdf
Attachment 3 - CC Ordinance No. 2329.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

January 28, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 131 of 283
Ordinance No. _____

BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

EXTENDING URGENCY MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM

ON THE ISSUANCE OF TOBACCO RETAILER PERMITS AT NEW LOCATIONS IN THE CITY. FILE NO. PLN-2025-12
WHEREAS, after notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.

WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California has, in Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Government Code Sections 65302 and 65800, conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry.

WHEREAS, in 2012, the City Council for the City of Campbell (City) adopted an ordinance requiring all tobacco retailers to obtain a “Tobacco Retailer Permit” to ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws and City business standards (CC Ord. No. 2165; CMC Chapter 5.58).

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65858 of the Government Code and Section

21.60.090 of the Campbell Municipal Code, the City Council may take appropriate action to adopt urgency measures as an interim ordinance.

WHEREAS, as of January 2025, the City had approximately 42 “active” Tobacco Retailers, which equates to roughly one tobacco retailer per 1,000 residents.

WHEREAS, while the majority of tobacco retailers operate in conjunction with another land use activity (i.e., part of a grocery store, liquor store, convenience store), in the past four years the City has seen a significant increase in the number of “stand-alone” tobacco retail stores.

WHEREAS, the prevalence of tobacco retail establishments in the City may contribute to various adverse effects, including:
• Health impacts resulting from increased availability and accessibility of tobacco products, leading to higher rates of use and associated health risks. • Social and economic burdens due to smoking-related illnesses, which place greater demands on community health resources and increase healthcare costs. • Environmental concerns as cigarette butts and packaging contribute to litter and environmental degradation.
• Crime and safety challenges, as a higher concentration of retailers can make it more difficult to monitor and enforce age restrictions and tobacco sales laws.

Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 132 of 283

Page 2 of 4 ends

• Land use issues, as an overconcentration of tobacco retailers may be found to contribute to visual blight (i.e., frequently found to be in violation of City sign ordinance), result in reduced retail diversity, and alter the character of the community.

These and other concerns highlight the need for thoughtful regulation of tobacco retail uses to protect public health, safety, and overall community well-being.

WHEREAS, several neighboring jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, San Jose, Los Gatos, and Saratoga, have implemented restrictions on tobacco retailers, such as density limitations, proximity restrictions near schools, or limiting the sale of flavored tobacco or vaping products; and, the City currently lacks these regulatory measures, making it an outlier in the region with also a higher per capita concentration of tobacco retailers.

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2326 establishing urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits at new locations in the City, finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and that approval of additional Tobacco Retailer Permits would result in and exacerbate that threat to public health, safety and welfare.

WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2329, which extended City Council Ordinance No. 2326 for a period of 10 months and fifteen days, or until it was superseded by the adoption of a superseding ordinance, whichever came first.

WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 2326 was not superseded by the adoption of a superseding ordinance, and will expire on March 2, 2026, unless extended.

WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a study to update its Municipal Code to take into account best practices for tobacco retail, which shall be completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed one (1) year from the date City Council Ordinance No. 2329 would otherwise expire, and shall expire on March 2, 2027, unless superseded by the adoption of a permanent or subsequent ordinance.

WHEREAS, this ordinance serves to extend urgency measures which are protecting the public peace, health, safety, or welfare in the City of Campbell as set forth by the City Council Ordinance No. 2326.

WHEREAS, it is not the intent of this ordinance to adopt permanent standards, requirements, or permitting procedures; and, the City Council reserves the right to adopt permanent standards, requirements, and permitting procedures that will supersede those contained in City Council Ordinance No. 2326.

WHEREAS, considering the foregoing findings, the City Council further finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that adherence to existing standards, requirements, and permitting procedures in conflict with the urgency measures as set forth by the Ordinance No. 2326 that would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 133 of 283

Page 3 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance may be found categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it does not create environmental impacts and merely preserves the status quo; and, this ordinance may also be found categorically exempt under Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a temporary regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 in the interest of evaluating and preventing potential environmental harms related to tobacco sales.

WHEREAS, in consideration of the adoption of the subject ordinance, the City Council provided due consideration of all evidence presented and provided in the entire administrative record.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 (SEVERABILITY): If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 2 (CEQA): Extension of City Council Ordinance No. 2326 is categorically exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not create environmental impacts and merely preserves the status quo and under Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a temporary regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 in the interest of evaluating and preventing potential environmental harms related to tobacco sales.

SECTION 3 (PUBLICATION): The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published and shall be published, or summary thereof, one time within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, such as the Metro Silicon Valley, for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.

SECTION 4 (EFFECTIVENESS): City Council Ordinance No. 2326 is hereby extended for a period of one year, commencing on March 2, 2026, the date City Council Ordinance No. 2329 would otherwise expire, and shall expire on March 2, 2027, or until it is superseded by adoption of permanent or superseding Ordinance, whichever comes first.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 134 of 283

Page 4 of 4 ends

APPROVED:

Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 135 of 283
ORDINANCE NO. 2326

BEING AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF CAMPBELL ESTABLISHING URGENCY MEASURES TO

IMPLEMENT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE

OF TOBACCO RETAILER PERMITS AT NEW LOCATIONS IN THE
CITY. FILE NO. PLN- 2025- 12
WHEREAS, after notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65858 of the Government Code and Section 21. 60. 090 of the Campbell Municipal Code, the City Council may take appropriate action to adopt urgency measures as an Interim Ordinance ( hereinafter " Ordinance").

WHEREAS, in 2012, the City adopted an Ordinance requiring all tobacco retailers to obtain a " Tobacco Retailer Permit" to ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws and City business standards ( CC Ord. No. 2165; CMC Chapter 5. 58).

WHEREAS, as of January 2025, the city has city has approximately 42 " active" Tobacco Retailers, which equates to roughly one tobacco retailer per 1, 000 residents.

WHEREAS, while the majority of tobacco retailers operate in conjunction with another land use activity ( i. e., part of a grocery store, liquor store, convenience store), in the past four years the City has seen a significant increase in the number of" stand- alone" tobacco retail stores.

WHEREAS, several neighboring jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, San Jose, Los Gatos, and Saratoga, have implemented restrictions on tobacco retailers, such as density limitations, proximity restrictions near schools, or limiting the sale of flavored tobacco or vaping products. Campbell currently lacks these regulatory measures, making it an outlier in the region with also a higher per capita concentration of tobacco retailers.

WHEREAS, the prevalence of tobacco retail establishments in the City may contribute to various adverse effects, including:

Health impacts resulting from increased availability and accessibility of tobacco products, leading to higher rates of use and associated health risks.

Social and economic burdens due to smoking- related illnesses, which place greater demands on community health resources and increase healthcare costs.

Environmental concerns as cigarette butts and packaging contribute to litter and environmental degradation.

Crime and safety challenges, as a higher concentration of retailers can make it more difficult to monitor and enforce age restrictions and tobacco sales laws.

Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 136 of 283
City Council Ordinance No. 2326
PLN- 2025- 12 — Tobacco Retailer Permits Moratorium Page 2 of 3 Land use issues, as an overconcentration of tobacco retailers may be found to contribute to visual blight( i. e., frequently found to be in violation of City sign ordinance), result in reduced retail diversity, and alter the character of the community.

These and other concerns highlight the need for thoughtful regulation of tobacco retail uses to protect public health, safety, and overall community well-being.

WHEREAS, the Community Development Department plans to study changes to the City zoning ordinances and other ordinances within a reasonable time to address the foregoing concerns, with which the uses currently authorized by Tobacco Retailer Permits may be in conflict.

WHEREAS, considering the foregoing findings, the City Council further finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and that approval of additional Tobacco Retailer Permits would result in and exacerbate that threat to public health, safety and welfare.

WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed Ordinance is considered a " project" under Section 15378( a)( 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance may be found categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15061( b)( 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not create environmental impacts and merely preserves the status quo.

WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance may also be found categorically exempt under Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a temporary regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 in the interest of evaluating and preventing potential environmental harms related to tobacco sales.

WHEREAS, in consideration of the adoption of the subject Ordinance, the City Council provided due consideration of all evidence presented and provided in the entire administrative record.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 ( PURPOSE). This Ordinance establishes urgency measures to implement a temporary moratorium on the issuance of tobacco retailer permits at new locations in the City.

SECTION 2 ( MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED). This Ordinance imposes a moratorium on the issuance of any Tobacco Retailer Permit, as set forth by Chapter 5. 58 ( Tobacco Retailer Permit) of the Campbell Municipal Code. This moratorium shall not apply to the renewal of any existing tobacco retailer's permit previously issued by the City of Campbell.

SECTION 3 ( EXCEPTIONS TO THE MORATORIUM). This Ordinance shall not apply to the issuance of Tobacco Retailer Permits for a business operating at the exact same physical location where a valid Tobacco Retailer Permit had been previously issued. For the Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 137 of 283
City Council Ordinance No. 2326
PLN- 2025- 12 — Tobacco Retailer Permits Moratorium Page 3 of 3 purposes of this Section, ' same physical location' means the identical tenant space as previously permitted by the City of Campbell for a Tobacco Retailer Permit, in accordance with Chapter 5. 58 ( Tobacco Retailer Permit) of the Campbell Municipal Code, without any enlargement, relocation, or reconfiguration, that would alter its location or gross floor area within the property.

SECTION 4 ( SEVERABILITY). If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Ordinance, or the validity of this Ordinance, shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision.

SECTION 5 ( CEQA DETERMINATION) The proposed Ordinance is exempt under Section 15061( b)( 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not create environmental impacts and merely preserves the status quo and under Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a temporary regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 in the interest of evaluating and preventing potential environmental harms related to tobacco sales.

SECTION 6 ( EFFECTIVE DATES). This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and shall remain in effect for 45 days, unless extended or repealed by the City Council in accordance with applicable law.

SECTION 7 ( PUBLICATION). The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published and shall be published, or summary thereof, one time within fifteen ( 15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, such as the Metro Silicon Valley, for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Bybee, Hines, Scozzola, Furtado, Lopez NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
APPROVED:

Sergio Lopez, Mayor
ATTEST I41 / fl44
Andrea Sand , City Clerk
Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 138 of 283
Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 139 of 283
Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 140 of 283
Item 8.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 141 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Acceptance of Final Feasibility Study for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City of Campbell adopt a resolution accepting the Final Feasibility Study for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing.

BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12935 authorizing the Public Works Director to submit a 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program grant application for the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Study. This study would evaluate how best to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility across State Route 17 near the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge.

On June 1, 2023, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board approved a recommended project list for the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program call for projects for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 to FY2023.

This list includes the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project.

Later in 2023, the City was awarded $266,000 in 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant Program funds to prepare the Hamilton Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study (Project 24-YY). On April 5, 2024, a VTA funding agreement between the City and VTA was executed for this project.

On July 17, 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide consultant services for the Project. The consultant team led by HMH Engineers was selected to provide consultant services.

Public Engagement
To inform the feasibility study, several public engagement activities were held. On February 8, 2025, HMH and staff hosted a pop-up meeting at the City’s Valentine Fun Run to publicize an online community survey and Public Meeting No. 1. Project staff held approximately 75 face-to-face conversations with members of the public and over 400 survey responses were received.

Key themes from comments over the event included:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 142 of 283
- General support for the project
- The importance of safety and, particularly, the physical separation between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians
- Importance of connectivity and ease of access from existing bikeways to key destinations such as transit stations, the Pruneyard Shopping Center, and the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

On February 20, 2025, Public Meeting No. 1 was held to introduce the project and learn from the public what they felt would be a successful project.

Stakeholder Interviews
In March/April, HMH and staff interviewed stakeholders including the Campbell BPAC, VTA, and San Jose Department of Transportation. Stakeholders shared their views, provided feedback on how to score design alternatives, and identified concerns regarding conflict points at freeway ramps.

Design Alternatives
Based on stakeholder and public feedback, HMH prepared four overcrossing alternative alignments. The alternatives vary in length, directness, degree of separation from cars, and steepness of grade. All four alignments are located south of the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge where key destinations are located.

Access for westbound Hamilton Avenue bicyclists to the south side would be achieved by converting Hamilton/Salmar and Hamilton/Creekside to “protected intersections” wherein one-way or two-way bike crossings would be striped adjacent to pedestrian crosswalks within each intersection to facilitate bicycles crossing Hamilton Avenue to access each overcrossing alternative.

Caltrans Stakeholder Interview
Caltrans is a key stakeholder since the State owns the right-of-way where any overcrossing would be located. Any alternative would need to comply with Caltrans design standards and receive Caltrans’ approval to proceed toward design and construction. HMH and staff presented the four alternatives. Caltrans’ initial feedback from their Design and Bike Pedestrian teams was that none of the alternatives has fatal flaws. Caltrans staff favored two of the alternatives: the Southern Route and Campbell Loop, both of which are described in more detail below. Caltrans staff noted that their feedback is high-level and may be refined as the project progresses and has more details.

Oktoberfest Fun Run Pop-up Meeting
On October 18, 2025, HMH and staff hosted a pop-up meeting at City’s Oktoberfest Fun Run to publicize Public Meeting No. 2. Approximately 70 contacts with the public were made.

Public feedback included the following:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 143 of 283
- Overwhelmingly positive and supportive of the project - Community members optimistic about the potential of improving user experience on Hamilton Avenue over State Route 17
- Public was evenly split between the Southern Route and the Campbell Loop (both alternatives to be described later).

Public Meeting No. 2
On November 13, Public Meeting No. 2 was held via Zoom. Staff shared the project team’s progress since the project began. The HMH team provided an overview of public engagement efforts, detailed descriptions of the four alignments, advantages, and disadvantages of each alignment, and options for overcrossing structure types. Of the four alternatives, a majority of those in attendance favored the Southern Route.

Regarding structure options, those in attendance were split between a concrete girder and a steel girder. The public favored a structure with aesthetic value.

DISCUSSION
The project was named a bicycle overcrossing project when submitted to be included in the 2016 Measure B ballot measure since bicyclists are more at risk if sharing a lane with motorists and dealing with weaving traffic on Hamilton Avenue over State Route 17. Both bicyclists and pedestrians share a common risk when crossing the freeway ramps at this interchange. The term “pedestrian overcrossing” is more commonly used for structures spanning freeways and used by bicyclists and pedestrians. For these reasons, the feasibility study uses the terms “pedestrian overcrossing” (POC) and “bicycle overcrossing” interchangeably since both bicyclists and pedestrians use this type of facility.

The attached Final Feasibility Study provides the following information.

Existing Conditions
The project corridor falls within Caltrans right-of-way between Salmar Avenue to the west and Creekside Way to the east. The feasibility study describes the project setting including nearby land uses and zoning, bike facilities, activity generators, and light rail and transit connections. Potential construction-related and long-term noise impacts are discussed. A five-year history of bike and pedestrian collisions is summarized.

Constraints include limited space within available Caltrans right-of-way and nearby utilities including PG&E overhead utility lines. In addition, VTA light rail and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) facilities must be considered when developing potential alignment alternatives.

Bicycle Overcrossing Criteria
The feasibility study summarizes the various bicycle and pedestrian design guides used in developing alternatives. These guidelines establish design criteria for a variety of design components such as drainage, bike path widths, hours when the facility should be open to the public, and rail heights.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 144 of 283
Public Outreach
The study summarizes the staff’s and the design team’s efforts to engage the public as discussed in the Background section of this report. Public feedback fell into several areas.

Safety is the highest concern. There is a desire for a physical separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. There is a desire for a route that connects both sides of State Route 17, non-vehicle options to access nearby shopping and dining areas, and access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The public also expressed a desire for a userfriendly route that is well-maintained and that can be delivered in a timely manner.

Alternatives Analysis
One No Build alternative and four Build alternatives were evaluated based on multimodal use/access, traffic operations, environmental concerns, Caltrans approvability, estimated project cost, right-of-way concerns, and consistency with public input.

Of these factors, multimodal use/access and public input were weighted most heavily in selecting a preferred alternative. Estimated project cost was weighted lower based on public input; since funding sources are available that are specifically designated for bicycle and pedestrian projects. In the case of the 2016 Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital Program, only projects included in the Measure B ballot measure are eligible for program funds. The Hamiliton Avenue/State Route 17 Project is included; therefore, it is eligible for these funds.

No Build Alternative. This alternative proposes no change to existing facilities.

Currently, there are no bike markings on Hamilton Avenue between Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way. The No Build alternative does nothing to improve safety and connectivity and is most inconsistent with public input. The main advantage of this alternative is there is no financial cost.

The following four Build alternatives were analyzed. Table 1 below provides a brief summary of each Build alternative.

Table 1
Summary of Bicycle Overcrossing Build Alternatives
Alt.

No.

Alternative Total
Travel
Distance
(feet)
Estimated
Construction
Cost
(2026 $)
Features
1 Southern
Route
1,400 $9.5M-$11M  Parallels SB SR 17 on-ramp
 Crosses over SR 17 near VTA
light rail bridge
 Runs between NB SR 17 loop
on-ramp and VTA bridge wall
 Separated crossings with
freeway ramps
 Redundant westbound bike lane
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 145 of 283
2 Campbell
Loop
1,350 $7.5M-$9M  Parallels SB SR 17 on-ramp
 Loops within and under NB SR
17 loop on-ramp
 At-grade crossing with freeway
ramp (SB SR 17)
 Redundant westbound bike lane
3 Straight
Shot
1,050 $4.0M-$4.5M  POC parallels existing Hamilton
Avenue bridge
 At-grade crossing with freeway
ramps
 Redundant westbound bike lane
4 Minimalist 1,000 $0.6M-$0.8M  Existing south sidewalk replaced with bike/ped path
 At-grade crossing with freeway
ramps
 No westbound bike lane
Abbreviations:

NB = northbound, SB = southbound
SR 17 = State Route 17, POC = pedestrian overcrossing
M = million
The Southern Route Alternative. This alternative begins at Salmar Avenue, travels parallel to the State Route 17 southbound on-ramp, crosses over State Route 17, splits between the VTA light rail bridge and eastbound Hamilton Avenue to northbound State Route 17 loop on-ramp, and touches down to the ground on Hamilton Avenue at the UPRR tracks. This alternative includes a new striped bike lane on westbound Hamilton Avenue. To make room for this bike lane, the raised median island on Hamilton Avenue would be shifted south and the south sidewalk would be removed.

The advantage of the Southern Route is the absence of at-grade crossings. Bicyclists and pedestrians would not conflict with Hamilton Avenue traffic. One disadvantage of the Southern Route—especially for pedestrians—is its length. The alignment is a bit circuitous. However, of all the new overcrossing alternatives, the Southern Route has the flattest grades ranging between 2.4 and 2.6 percent. Of the alternatives considered, the Southern Route is the most expensive.

The total travel distance between Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way is approximately 1,400 feet. The construction cost (in 2026 dollars) is estimated to be between $9.5 million and $11 million. The soft costs attributable to design, Caltrans permit processing, and construction engineering would add an estimated additional 30% to the total project cost.

The Campbell Loop Alternative. The Campbell Loop begins at Salmar Avenue, travels at-grade across the State Route 17 southbound on-ramp, crosses over State Route 17 close to the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge, descends with a loop structure within and under the existing eastbound Hamilton Avenue to northbound State Route 17 loop onramp via an undercrossing, and ascends to the existing grade on Hamilton Avenue at the UPRR tracks. As with the Southern Route, to make room for a new westbound bike lane, the Campbell Loop would require the raised median island on Hamilton Avenue to be Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 146 of 283
shifted south, and the south sidewalk would be removed. To reduce pedestrian impacts, a staircase would be included to provide a shortcut path for pedestrians who do not wish to walk along the loop alignment. The Campbell Loop eliminates only one at-grade crossing, and its 4.5-percent grades are steeper than the Southern Route. This alternative would be less expensive than the Southern Route.

The total travel distance between Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way is approximately 1,350 feet. The construction cost (in 2026 dollars) is estimated to be between $7.5 million and $9 million. The soft costs attributable to design, Caltrans permit processing, and construction engineering would add an estimated additional 30% to the total project cost.

The Straight Shot Alternative. The alignment for this alternative begins at Salmar Avenue, crosses the State Route 17 southbound on-ramp at grade, parallels the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge, crosses the loop on-ramp at grade, and ends on Hamilton Avenue at the UPRR tracks. To provide room for a westbound bike lane, the raised median island would need to be relocated, and the south sidewalk would be removed.

The Straight Shot has a straightforward alignment. The main disadvantage of the Straight Shot is its two at-grade crossings. These crossings would need to be supplemented with traffic control devices (e.g., flashing beacon systems) to alert motorists of bicyclists and pedestrians in the crosswalks. The grades of the overcrossing would be similar to the grades of the Campbell Loop (between 4.3 and 4.5 percent). The Straight Shot would cost less than both the Southern Route and the Campbell Loop.

The total travel distance between Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way is approximately 1,050 feet. The construction cost (in 2026 dollars) is estimated to be between $4 million and $4.5 million. The soft costs attributable to design, Caltrans permit processing, and construction engineering would add an estimated additional 30% to the total project cost.

The Minimalist Alternative. This alternative would replace the existing south sidewalk on the Hamilton Avenue bridge with a new two-way shared-use path. The alignment would begin at Salmar Avenue, cross at-grade at the State Route 17 southbound onramp, continue on the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge over State Route 17, cross the loop ramp at grade, and terminate at the UPRR at-grade crossing. This alternative would not include a westbound bike lane on Hamilton Avenue. The raised median island would shift to the north to make room for the new shared-use path. The disadvantage of the Minimalist Alternative is its two at-grade crossings. As with the Straight Shot, the Minimalist Alternative would need to be supplemented with traffic control devices (e.g., flashing beacon systems) to alert motorists of bicyclists and pedestrians in the crosswalks. This alternative would follow the grade of the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge. This alternative would be less expensive than the Straight Shot.

The total travel distance between Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way is approximately 1,000 feet. The construction cost (in 2026 dollars) is estimated to be between $0.6 million and $0.8 million. The soft costs attributable to design, Caltrans permit processing, and construction engineering would add an estimated additional 30% to the total project cost.

Traffic Analysis
The four Build alternatives were evaluated for their impacts AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service at the Hamilton Avenue/Salmar Avenue and Hamilton Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 147 of 283
Avenue/Creekside Way intersections, respectively. All of the Build alternatives assumed Hamilton Avenue/Salmar Avenue intersection would be redesigned to include a two-way bicycle crossing across the south leg and a one-way northbound bicycle crossing across the west leg of the intersection. Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way would also be redesigned to include a two-way bicycle crossing adjacent to pedestrian crosswalks across the south and east legs of this intersection. Accordingly, signal timing changes such as right-turn on red restrictions and right-turn overlaps would accompany the operational changes at these intersections. Overall, there was no significant difference in future traffic operations among the four Build alternatives at these two intersections.

Study Recommendation
The final feasibility study recommends the Southern Route as the preferred alternative since this alternative is most consistent with public input regarding user safety concerns and the user experience. This alternative offers the safest conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians by separating them from Hamilton Avenue vehicular traffic and removing conflict points with freeway ramp traffic—a significant concern mentioned by the public.

While the Southern Route requires the longest travel distance, the grades are relatively flat. This alternative would reduce vehicular traffic delay to some extent since at-grade crossing conflicts at freeway ramp crosswalks would be eliminated. The Southern Route alternative best meets the intent of moving pedestrians and bicyclists across State Route 17 near the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge while providing a separation from vehicular traffic.

The feasibility study notes that Caltrans expressed concerns about the Southern Route’s potentially limiting the ability to widen the eastbound Hamilton to northbound State Route 17 loop on-ramp in the future. In the event Caltrans determines this constraint to be unacceptable and does not approve the Southern Route, the feasibility study identifies the Campbell Loop as the next most desirable alternative due to its lesser right-of-way needs and fewer conflicts with future ramp modifications. When compared to the Straight Shot and the Minimalist, the Campbell Loop is more closely aligned with public input and would have less impact on traffic operations.

As mentioned earlier, of the factors considered in evaluating each alternative, multimodal use/access and public input were weighted most heavily in selecting a preferred alternative. While cost is an important consideration, the feasibility study notes that funding sources are available specifically for bicycle and pedestrian projects, active transportation, safety improvements, and projects identified in the 2016 Measure B ballot measure. The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project’s inclusion in the 2016 Measure B ballot measure may help to offset concerns regarding cost.

Next Steps
Should the City Council approve the Final Feasibility Study, the next phase would be to pursue funding to engage Caltrans in preparing a Project Initiation Document (PID). The PID refines a project concept like the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing into a formal plan that defines the project’s purpose, need, scope, estimated costs, potential impacts, schedule, and feasibility for funding and approval within Caltrans.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 148 of 283

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City with the acceptance of the final study. However, with a Council-accepted final study, the project would be in a better position to compete for grant opportunities such as the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not accept the final feasibility study. This alternative is not recommended since the public and Caltrans generally support the project, and the project appears to be feasible. Also, acceptance of the final feasibility study lays the groundwork for the next phase of work (i.e., engaging Caltrans to prepare the PID).

PREPARED BY: Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 149 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: report-accept final feasibility study for hamilton-sr17 bpoc 2-3-26 new business.docx
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Resolution-Accept final feasibility study for hamilton-sr17 bpoc 2-3-26 new business.docx
Attachment 2 - Final Feasibility Study for Hamilton-SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

January 29, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 150 of 283
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE HAMILTON
AVENUE/STATE ROUTE 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2023, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board approved a recommended project list for the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program call for projects for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 to FY2023; and
WHEREAS, this list included the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project; and
WHEREAS, later in 2023, the City was awarded $266,000 in 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant Program funds to prepare the Hamilton Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study (Project 24-YY); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Hamilton Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study is to evaluate how best to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility across SR 17 near the existing Hamilton Avenue bridge; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide consultant services for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the consultant team led by HMH Engineers was selected to provide consultant services; and
WHEREAS, the outreach process included pop-up events at the City’s Valentine Fun Run and Oktoberfest Fun Run, an online community survey, and public meetings pertaining to the project; and
WHEREAS, HMH and staff interviewed stakeholders including the Campbell Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), VTA, San Jose Department of Transportation, and Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, recurrent themes included general support for the project, the importance of safety and limiting car interactions at freeway ramps, and connectivity and ease of access from existing bikeways to key destinations including transit stations, the Pruneyard Shopping Center, and the Los Gatos Creek Trail; and
WHEREAS, the final feasibility study documents existing conditions, bicycle overcrossing criteria, public outreach, and alternative analysis; and Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 151 of 283
WHEREAS, the final feasibility study evaluates the No Build and four Build alternatives were evaluated based on multimodal use/access, traffic operations, environmental concerns, Caltrans approvability, estimated project cost, right-of-way concerns, and consistency with public input; and
WHEREAS, the four Build Alternatives were named 1) The Southern Route, 2) the Campbell Loop, 3) The Straight Shot, and 4) The Minimalist; and WHEREAS, preliminary construction cost estimates and travel distances for each Build Alternative are included in the final feasibility study; and WHEREAS, the final feasibility study recommends the Southern Route as the preferred alternative; and
WHEREAS, there is no fiscal impact to the City with the acceptance of the final feasibility study; and
WHEREAS, the final feasibility study accepted by Council with a documented public engagement process positions the City to compete well for grant opportunities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Campbell that the final feasibility study for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Final Feasibility Study is accepted.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 152 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/
SR 17 Bicycle
Overcrossing

FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF CAMPBELL | JANUARY 2026
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 153 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 154 of 283

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................

2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................

4. BICYCLE OVERCROSSING CRITERIA..................................................................

5. PUBLIC OUTREACH ...............................................................................................

6. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................

7. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS................................................

8. APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................

A. ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS
B. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS & COMMENTS
C. TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
HMH
1 5
122022263442 HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 155 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 156 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
The existing interchange at State Route 17 and Hamilton Avenue is perceived as a barrier to multimodal users who wish to cross from east to west and vice versa. While there are numerous destination points on either side of the
highway, including the Pruneyard/ Creekside District, the VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station, the Los Gatos Creek Trail, and local schools, the existing facilities for bicycles and pedestrians are deficient in addressing these users' needs.

The Hamilton Avenue/ State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing project envisions bridging this gap by providing a higher level of connectivity with a more convenient, inviting, and safer facility for active transportation users of all levels and abilities. This feasibility study explores various alternatives to accomplish this goal. These alternatives and goals were presented to the community and discussed with various
stakeholders to come up with a locally preferred alternative that could move forward into a future project phase.

All of the alternatives explored by the feasibility study were consistent with other City of Campbell studies and
objectives, such as those presented in the City of Campbell's General Plan 2040 and the 2018 County Bicycle Plan.

Image 1.1 Bicyclists on Hamilton Avenue 1 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 1 | HAMILTON AVENUE POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 157 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing bike and pedestrian facilities along Hamilton Avenue over SR-17 are dated and deficient in meeting the needs of users looking to travel across the highway. These facilities are perceived as unwelcoming to active transportation users. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along the Hamilton Avenue overcrossing over SR-17. Existing vehicle travel lanes are 11 and 12 feet wide with no shoulders. Narrow 5-foot sidewalks extend from the west to east end of the project and provide little protection for users on the north side adjacent to the high volume of vehicles traveling along Hamilton Avenue.

Pedestrians traveling on the south side are separated from vehicle traffic by a short concrete barrier next to the narrow shoulder.

The planned alignment is almost entirely within Caltrans rightof-way. Because of this, the City of Campbell will need to have extensive coordination not only with Caltrans but also utility providers and agencies such as San Jose Water (SJW), Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD), all of which have facilities in the project are.

Critical Locations
The project impacts two critical, high-volume intersections.

The west end connects Hamilton Avenue to SR-17 at Salmar Avenue. The east end connects Hamilton Avenue to
Creekside Way just beyond the northbound SR-17
interchange. These are high volume intersections, especially at peak travel times with vehicles entering and exiting the freeway.

PUBLICOUTREACH
The project held community outreach meetings, tabled at local events, and conducted online surveys during the
preparation of the Study. A coordination meeting with The City of Campbell’s Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was held.

Residents of Campbell expressed a desire for improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities that prioritize safety and comfort for all users. The existing conditions feel uncomfortable and deter residents from using the interchange for multimodal travel. The Campbell Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee expressed concerns about the current lack of bike facilities, which make the area unsafe and unwelcoming for cyclists, with unclear travel paths and conflicts with freeway ramps. Additionally, the interchange design prioritizes cars, creating equity issues for communities that rely on biking for commuting.

HAMILTON AVENUE POC | 2 Image 1.3 Hamilton Avenue & SR 17 Northbound Ramps Image 1.2 Hamilton Avenue & SR 17 Southbound Ramps HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |2 Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 158 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS
The project considered several alternative alignments which include alignments with a fully separated bike/ped
overcrossing, alignments which partially utilize on- street alternatives, and alternatives which fully utilize on-street facilities.

Alternative Description
No Build
No change to current conditions. Requires on-street
bike travel in the vehicle trave lane.

Sidewalk on the north side of the structure is 5 feet
wide and unprotected. Sidewalk on the south side
has a short concrete barrier and railing. All SR 17
ramp crossings are at-grade.

The Southern Route
Provides a new, fully grade-separated 1,400-foot
alignment for bicyclists and pedestrians
along the south side of the overcrossing from
Salmar Avenue to Creekside Way. The north
side has a Class II bike lane and sidewalk with atgrade crossings at the SR 17 ramps.

The Campbell Loop
Provides a new, mostly grade-separated 1,300-foot
bicycle and pedestrian alignment along the
south side of the Hamilton Avenue overcrossing.

The route includes a loop and
undercrossing beneath the northbound SR 17
on-ramp, an at-grade crossing of the diagonal
southbound on-ramp, and an optional stair
connection to shorten pedestrian travel. A
Class II bike lane and sidewalk are also provided
along the north side of Hamilton Avenue with atgrade crossings at the SR 17 ramps.

The Straight Shot
Provides a direct 1,050-foot
bicycle and pedestrian alignment on a detached
structure that parallels Hamilton Avenue on the
south side. The route Includes at-grade crossings of
the SR 17 ramps. A Class II bike lane and sidewalk
are also provided along the north side of Hamilton
Avenue with at-grade crossings at the SR 17 ramps.

The Minimalist
Retains users on the existing Hamilton Avenue
bridge structure, creating a dedicated bicycle
and pedestrian route primarily through
restriping and shifting the median island. The
alignment travels approximately 1,000 feet
from Salmar Avenue to Creekside Way, using
at-grade crossings of the SR 17 ramps. This
alternative includes no bicyclist or pedestrian
facilities on the north side of Hamilton Avenue as
those facilities would no longer fit within the
existing structure.
3 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING HAMILTON HAMILTON AVENUE AVENUE POC POC Table 1.1 Summary of Alignment Alternatives of the Hamilton Avenue Bicycle Overcrossing The project considered several alternative alignments
which include alignments with a fully separated bike/ped overcrossing, alignments which partially utilize on-street alternatives, and alternatives which fully utilize on-street facilities.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 159 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

EVALUATION
The Study qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated the proposed alternatives with respect to its peers using the following evaluation categories:
• Multimodal Use/ Access
• Traffic Operations
• Environmental Considerations
• Caltrans Approvability
• Estimated Project Cost
• Right-of-Way
• Consistency with Public Input
The scoring of these categories are not weighted equally as some categories (e.g. User Safety) carry more significance than others.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
After evaluation of Alternatives, the Study recommends
The Southern Route alternative, a fully grade separated facility, be progressed forward. This alternative scored well when evaluated against its peers, for meeting the goals of the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan and the
Countywide Bike Plan, for its ability to provide safe and convenient access to nearby destinations and for its safety benefits in separating cyclists and pedestrians from onstreet vehicular conflicts. See table 1.2 below for scoring results, and Table 6.6 in Section 6 for a full score breakdown.

Scoring Rubric
Alternatives were scored qualitatively using the rubric below:

Alternative Name Weighted Total Score*
No Build Alternative
The Southern Route
The Campbell Loop
The Straight Shot
The Minimalist
The alternative scores very
well as compared to its peers.

The alternative scores well
as compared to its peers.

The alternative scores
moderately well as
compared to its peers.

The alternative scores
slightly well as compared
to its peers.

The alternative doesnot
score well as compared
to its peers.

Table 1.2 Summary of Alignment Alternative Evaluation | 4 *Each evaluation criteria category was assigned an individual weight with emphasis on Consistency with Public Input HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |4
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 160 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

2.INTRODUCTIO
VISION
The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle
Overcrossing Feasibility Study aims to enhance
connectivity across Highway 17 for all types of users.

The project team gathered public input through a series of outreach activities, hearing directly from the
community about their challenges and priorities for a
new facility. It is evident that the existing facilities have shortcomings that discourage many potential cyclists
and pedestrians from using this route. A detailed
discussion about the current conditions at the project
site can be found in this document.

The goal of this project is to create a facility that
encourages active transportation by providing a safe
and inviting route for traveling east and west.

Additionally, the facility will need to comply with
current design standards to gain approval from
overseeing agencies. Adhering to these standards will
also ensure that best practices are implemented for the benefit of the community who will ultimately use the
overcrossing.

Stakeholders associated with the project are The City of Campbell, Campbell Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC), Caltrans, VTA, San Jose, and Campbell residents. Collaboratively, these stakeholders share goals to create and maintain open-space access for
pedestrians and cyclists through developing joint-use
agreements, capital projects, grants, and partnerships.

Image 2.1 Hamilton Avenue Sidewalk at Railroad Tracks HAMILTON AVENUE POC Image 2.1 Hamilton Avenue Sidewalk at Railroad Tracks HAMILTON AVENUE POC N
5 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 5 |
Image 2.1 Crosswalk at Hamilton Avenue & SB SR 17 loop
on-ramp
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 161 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |6 C | 6
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 162 of 283
Figure 2.1 Hamilton Avenue Vicinity Map HAMILTON AVENUE POC HAMILTON AVENUE POC 7 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 7 | HAMILTON H AVENUE POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 163 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |8
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 164 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

BACKGROUND
City of Campbell 2040 General Plan
In April 2023, the City of Campbell adopted the 2040
General Plan, also known as Envision Campbell. It is a
comprehensive planning document that guides the city’s
growth and development through 2040. It outlines
policies for land use, transportation, sustainability, and public services to ensure future development aligns with community priorities and state mandates. The plan
supports higher-density and mixed-use developments
near transit corridors to encourage walkable, sustainable neighborhoods. It also promotes environmental
sustainability through energy efficiency, water
conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction, while
enhancing mobility with improved public transit, bike
lanes, and pedestrian infrastructure. Developed through extensive community input, the plan reflects the shared vision of Campbell residents.

City of Campbell Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan
As part of the 2040 General Plan, the City of Campbell
adopted the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan that will guide the City toward achieving its vision of creating an inviting,safe, and connected network between Winchester Blvd and Bascom Ave. This effort focuses on infrastructure improvements to improve connectivity and livability along the corridor.

The Hamilton Avenue area serves as Campbell’s northern
gateway and is divided by SR 17. Today, the corridor is dominated by auto-oriented commercial and retail uses,
flanked by single-family neighborhoods to the north and south. Looking forward, the City envisions transforming the corridor into a vibrant, mixed-use, transit-oriented district supported by a thoughtfully designed, multi-modal
streetscape.
• Plan for Regional Growth: Balance local and
regional transportation needs while preserving
Campbell’s small-town character
• Support Alternative Transportation: Promote
alternative transportation methods to reduce
congestion and improve accessibility.
• Enhance Multimodal Transportation: Improve
transportation options for all modes, including
walking, biking, and public transit, to support
community connectivity and sustainability.
• Mixed-Use & TOD Development: Support transitoriented development with residential, commercial, and office spaces.
• Pedestrian & Transit-Oriented Design: Enhance
pedestrian and bicycle access, including safer
routes to transit.
• Gateway Design & Connectivity: Enhance SR
17/Hamilton Ave as city gateways and improve
east-west access.
9 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 9 |HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOCPOC City of Campbell 2040 General Plan Goals
Plan for Regional Growth: Balance local and regional transportation needs while preserving Campbell's small-town character
Support Alternative Transportation:Promote alternative transportation methods to reduce congestion and improve accessibility
Enhance Multimodal Transportation: Improve transportation options for all modes, including walking, biking, and public transit, to support community connectivity and sustainability

BACKGROUND
City of Campbell 2040 General Plan
In April 2023, the City of Campbell adopted the 2040 General Plan, known as Envision Campbell, which serves as a comprehensive planning document guiding growth and development through the year 2040. The General Plan establishes a comprehensive framework of goals, policies, and actions related to land use, transportation, sustainability, housing, economic development, and public services, ensuring that future development aligns with community priorities, local values, and state planning requirements. A key focus of the 2040 General Plan is the promotion of higher-density and mixed-use development within proximity to major transit corridors and activity centers. This approach is intended to support walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods that reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, improve access to daily destinations, and enhance overall quality of life for residents.

The General Plan also places a strong emphasis on environmental sustainability with policies that encourage energy-efficient building practices, water conservation, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Improving mobility and access for all users is another central objective of Envision Campbell. The plan calls for investments in public transit, expanded and connected bicycle networks, and enhanced pedestrian infrastructure to create a safe, accessible, and multimodal transportation system. These improvements are intended to serve users of all ages and abilities while supporting active transportation and reducing transportation-related emissions.

The 2040 General Plan was developed through an extensive public engagement process. This collaborative approach ensured that the plan reflects the shared vision, priorities, and values of Campbell residents and stakeholders.

The Hamilton Ave/ SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing project is consistent with the goals of the 2040 General Plan by providing an improved bicycle and pedestrian facility that promotes active transportation for users of all ages and abilities across State Route 17.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 165 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Bikeway Classifications
The Bike Plan recommends bikeway treatments that will collectively form a bicycle transportation network and will accommodate the safety needs of all mobility types, users, and ability levels.

Class I Shared-Use Paths
Class I bicycle or shared-use paths are designated
bicycle and pedestrian travel routes that are
completely separated from automobile traffic. These
facilities provide safe passageways for users and
promote local green spaces. Class I facilities can be
popular for recreational bicycling for users of all
abilities as well as commuting.

Class II Bike Lanes
Class II bike lanes are bicycle travel routes located
along roads and are visually separated from
automobile traffic by road striping. Because these
roads often connect key businesses and community
centers, they are viewed as vital commuter routes for
community members. Bike lanes can be further
enhanced by green paint, which highlights areas of
potential conflict with vehicles.

Class III Bike Routes
Class III bike routes are roads where automobile and
bicycle traffic share travel lanes. Signage and striping are used to indicate the shared condition and travel lanes
tend to be wider to allow for parallel travel. These types of paths are often used on slower streets, where parallel travel is safer.

Class IV Separated Bikeways
Class IV separated bikeways are a type of bicycle travel route located along roads similar to Class II bike lanes, but physically separated by elements such as curbs,
planting areas, posts, barriers, parking, and grade
separation. The added physical separation provides
increased safety for cyclists along higher speed roadways that may serve as commuter routes.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |10
| 10
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 166 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Agencies & Stakeholders
The City is sensitive to the needs of partner agencies.

Of particular concern are the existing Caltrans Right
of Way, UPRR tracks, and the existing VTA Light Rail
facilities. Early and continued engagement with
Caltrans and other partner agencies will be needed to
support future project development into the next
phase.

PG&E owns and operates three utility lines along
Hamilton Avenue, within Caltrans right-of-way, which
support electric and communication facilities. VTA
light rail facilities are also present throughout the
project site and will require design considerations for the light rail station and overhead rail line. UPRR
operates street level lines near Hamilton Avenue and
Creekside Way intersection with railroad gates and
lighting that the project will need to work around.

Throughout design and construction of the project,
careful consideration shall be taken to protect these
existing utilities and facilities and preserve agency’s rights to accessibility and maintenance.

Caltrans
Caltrans will be a key partner in this project, as it takes place almost entirely within their right of way. Therefore Caltrans has the ultimate approving authority of what will be built. They will take into consideration how this project could not only impact their current operations but also any future improvements they may want to consider.

Other considerations from the Caltrans perspective
include: Impacts to environment, impacts to traffic
operations, adherence to Caltrans design standards,
among others.

THE STUDY
The purpose of the feasibility study is to define the project, identify major constraints, and assess the feasibility of developing the 1/4 mile shared-use facility along Hamilton Avenue between Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way.

The study evaluated alternatives to identify preferred
alignments, access points, and roadway features in
consideration of constraining factors and the goals set forth by the VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan and City of Campbell General Plan.

The following categories were used to evaluate the various design alternatives:
• Multimodal Use/ Access
• Traffic Operations
• Environmental Considerations
• Caltrans approvability
• Estimated Project Cost
• Right-of-Way
• Consistency with Public Input
11 |
ace

ace

Agencies & Stakeholders
The City is sensitive to the needs of partner agencies.

Other considerations from the Caltrans perspective
include: Impacts to environment, impacts to traffic
operations, adherence to Caltrans design standards,
among others.
11 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 167 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS

LAND USE AND ZONING
Land Use
The Hamilton Avenue project resides approximately one- half mile from The Pruneyard, Campbell’s iconic shopping and dining destination. Itis a key commercial and recreational hub in Campbell, withamixofretail,dining, andentertainmentoptions.

Downtown Campbell is located southwest of Hamilton
Avenue. It is a destination that combines historical charm with modern attractions, offering a variety of locally
owned businesses, cultural events, and community spaces.

Its walkability, proximity to parks and trails, and excellent transit connectivity make it an important center for both residents and visitors.

Zoning
The zoning designations in the immediate
vicinity of the study area:
• GC: General Commercial
• TO-MU: Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use
• P-D: Planned Development
• C-PD: Condominium Planned Development
Figure 3.1: Hamilton Avenue Area Land Use Diagram Figure 3.1: Hamilton Avenue Area Land Use Diagram HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |12 HAMILTON AVE POC | 12

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 168 of 283

EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 interchange is a
high-stress crossing with heavy, fast-moving vehicular
traffic, particularly near the freeway on-ramps.

Currently, Hamilton Avenue east of Salmar Avenue
lacks designated bike lanes, signage, and shoulders,
forcing cyclists to either share lanes with motor
vehicles or ride on the sidewalk. The entirety of the
project has been identified in VTA’s Santa Clara
Countywide Bicycle Plan as a bicycle level of traffic
stress three (LTS3). This means the area is designed for “enthused and confident” cyclists- those who are
comfortable cycling with traffic.

Hamilton Avenue west of SR-17 is designated as a Class
II Bikeway. The existing bikeway ends at the Hamilton
Avenue and Salmar Avenue intersection, leaving cyclists to decide between riding in traffic or on the narrow
sidewalk with pedestrians.

Hamilton Avenue east of SR-17 currently has no bike
route classification. The Los Gatos Creek Trail, a Class I bikeway, is approximately 700 ft east of the Hamilton
Avenue and Creekside Way intersection and is a vital
recreational and transportation resource that connects
Campbell, San Jose, and Los Gatos, offering a safe,
comfortable route for biking, walking, and running.

Bascom Avenue has existing Class II and III Bikeways and crosses Hamilton Avenue approximately 1000 ft east of
Creekside Way. The Bascom Avenue Complete Streets
Corridor Study (2020) focuses on improving bike
infrastructure along Bascom Avenue. VTA is designing
Phase 1 of the project, which extends from Interstate
880 near Hedding Street to Hamilton Avenue. This
phase will reduce traffic lanes from three to two in each direction and introduce Class IV bike lanes, separated
from vehicle traffic by raised islands. Phase 1 will
address bike improvements at the Hamilton
Avenue/Bascom Avenue intersection, including
removing pork-chop islands and tightening corner radii
to improve bike safety. The environmental stage of the
Bascom Avenue project has been completed, and the
design and engineering phase is underway. The rightof-way phase of the project was funded from a twomillion-dollar federal grant and the project is still seeking funding for the construction phase.

Figure 3.2 Campbell Bikeways
11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON || REGNART REGNARTAVENUE AVENUE CREEK CREEKPOC POC TRAIL TRAIL HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 13 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 13 |
highway
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 169 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

ACTIVITY GENERATORS
The area surrounding the project alignment contains
several schools, parks, residences, retail, and municipal buildings. The addition bicycle and pedestrian facilities would offer a safe alternative for students and residents to various destinations nearby.

Parks & Recreation
• Campbell Park
Campbell Park is approximately one mile from
the project and includes basketball courts, play
equipment, horseshoe pits, and a water
feature. The park also provides direct access
to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.
• Marijane Hamann Park
Marijane Hamann Park is ¾ of a mile
from the project. The Park includes
softball, soccer, and tennis facilities
with a playground and picnic areas.

Schools
• Rosemary Elementary School

0.8 miles from the project
• Castlemont Elementary School

0.9 miles from the project
• San Jose Christian School

1.0 mile from the project
• Blackford Elementary School

1.0 mile from the project
Commercial and Retail
• Hamilton Plaza

0.5 miles from the project
• The Pruneyard

0.7 miles from the project
• Downtown Campbell

1.3 miles from the project
Campbell Community Center
The community center is located one mile from the project and includes
• Athletic Fields
• Tennis Center
• Banquet Halls
• Community Programs
Photo : Campbell Park
Photo : The Pruneyard
Photo 3.6: Campbell Community Center
Image 3.1 Campbell Park Image 3.2 The Pruneyard Image 3.3 Campbell Community Center HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |14 HAMILTON AVE POC | 14

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 170 of 283

LIGHT RAIL & TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
The VTA’s Hamilton Light Rail Station is located between the SR-17 interchange and Creekside Way. This station
serves as a key transit hub, offering important connections for local commuters to regional rail services including Caltrain, ACE, and Amtrak. Based on VTA’s 2024 daily
ridership statistics, the station serves over 5,000
passengers starting or ending their journeys here each day.

In addition to light rail service, several VTA bus routes operate in the surrounding area. Route 56 directly serves the Hamilton station, while Route 61 runs along nearby
Bascom Avenue. Route 202 provides late-night service on Creekside Way, and Routes 60 and 102 operate along
Winchester Boulevard, roughly three-quarters of a mile
from the Hamilton/SR-17 interchange. See figure 3.4 for a map of the transit routes that run within the City of
Campbell limits. Collectively, these bus routes support around 400 daily riders, according to the latest VTA
ridership data.

Photo 3.8: VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station
Photo 3.7: VTA System Map
Photo 3.8: Route 56 Hamilton Avenue Bus Stop
Image 3.4 Hamilton Avenue Light Rail Station Image 3.5 Hamilton Avenue Bus Stop Figure 3.4 Campbell VTA Map 11HAMILTON | REGNARTAVENUE CREKPOC TRAIL Figure 3.4 VTA Campbell Map Hacienda
Campbell
Civic
Center
Orchard
City
Hamilton
Meridian
Moorpark
Fruitdale Renova
Parkmoor
Williams
Bur
Winchester
Santa
Bascom
101
101
ion
Ginger
Curtner
aratoga
Cu
Dry Cr
Camd
17 10
103
280
Hamilton Pin
Thornton
57 61
61 25
25 60
60 27 37 37
25 56 56
26 26
Hamilton
Bascom
Fruitdale
Race
Downtown
Campbell
Winchester
61 Southwest
Expwy
SCVMC
Shuttle
te
Pruneyard
Campbell
City Hall
Santa Clara Valley
Medical Center
San Jose
City College
Campbell
.4 Hamilton Avenue Light Rail Station Image 3.4 Hamilton Light Rail Station 11HAMILTON | REGNARTAVENUE CREKPOC TRAIL HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 15 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 15 |
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 171 of 283

LIGHT RAIL & TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
The VTA’s Hamilton Light Rail Station is located just past the interchange of Hamilton Avenue and northbound SR17, and just before the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way. This station serves as a key transit hub, offering important connections for local commuters to
regional rail services including Caltrain, ACE, and Amtrak.

Based on VTA’s 2024 daily ridership statistics, the station sees over 5,000 passengers starting or ending their
journeys here each day.

In addition to light rail service, several VTA bus routes operate in the surrounding area. Route 56 directly serves the Hamilton station, while Route 61 runs along nearby
Bascom Avenue. Route 202 provides late-night service on Creekside Way, and Routes 60 and 102 operate along
Winchester Boulevard, roughly three-quarters of a mile
from the Hamilton/SR-17 interchange. Collectively, these bus routes support around 400 daily riders, according to the latest VTA ridership data.

Photo 3.8: VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station
Photo 3.7: VTA System Map
Photo 3.8: Route 56 Hamilton Avenue Bus Stop
11HAMILTON | REGNARTAVENUE CREKPOC TRAIL
Image 7 - View facing
west from the south side
of Hamilton Avenue at
the east end of the
uncontrolled crosswalk
that crosses the SR 17
northbound loop
on-ramp.

Image 8 - View facing
east from the south side
of Hamilton Avenue at
the west end of the
uncontrolled crosswalk
that crosses the SR 17
southbound on-ramp.

Image 9 - View facing
east from the south side
of Hamilton Avenue at
the west end of the
signalized crosswalk that
crosses Salmar Avenue.

Image 10 - View facing
south from the north
side of Hamilton Avenue
just west of Salmar
Avenue. The signalized
crosswalk crosses the
west leg of Hamilton
Avenue at Salmar
Avenue.

Image 1 - View facing
east from the north side
of Hamilton Avenue at
the west end of the
uncontrolled crosswalk
that crosses southbound
right-turn lane of the SR
17 Southbound
Off-ramp.

Image 2 - View facing
west from the north side
of Hamilton Avenue at
the east end of the
signalized crosswalk that
crosses southbound
left-turn lanes of the SR
17 southbound off-ramp.

Image 3 - View facing
east from the north side
of Hamilton Avenue at
the eastern end of the
uncontrolled crosswalk
that crosses SR 17
southbound loop
on-ramp.

Image 4 - View facing
west from the north side
of Hamilton Avenue east
of the VTA light rail
bridge. EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |16 Image 6 - View facing
northeast from the
southwest corner of
Hamilton Avenue/
Creekside Way
intersection. The
uncontrolled crosswalk
provides access to the
Hamilton Light Rail station
and nearby VTA bus stops.

Image 5 - View facing
south from the north
end of the signalized
crosswalk that crosses
the east leg of
Hamilton Avenue at
Creekside Way. This
crosswalk provides
access to the Hamilton
Light Rail station and
nearby VTA bus stops. western
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 172 of 283
Table 3.1 Bike and Pedestrian Incidents
Permitting
The proposed project would require permitting from
Caltrans, UPRR, and VTA with special consideration of the sidewalk adjacent to the UPRR tracks.

Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources was beyond the scope of this study but will likely need to be studied in future phases, especially due to the project's proximity to Los Gatos Creek.

Proximity to creek banks can be an indicator of the
potential presence of cultural resources.

Construction-related Impacts
The project area is primarily developed with Planned
Development and Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use areas.

Residential users are sensitive to construction dust, heavy equipment emissions and noise. These potential impacts
will be evaluated in the CEQA Initial Study; however, due to the temporary nature of construction, impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Standard construction
measures and conformance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce or avoid any potential impacts.

Long-term Noise Impacts
Users of the new bicycle and pedestrian facilities adjacent to existing residential uses can generate additional noise when compared to existing conditions; however, the new
structure project would not be located adjacent to rear yard fences and would result in no significant noise impact from the study. A noise analysis would be required during the preparation of the CEQA document for the project.

Conformance with the City’s Municipal Code related to
hours of use may reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Geology
The project is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic
Province and is mapped to be underlain by Holocene-aged alluvial fans and levees. Alluvial fans are composed of sand, gravel, silt, and clay. Alluvial fan levees are
composed of loose, moderately well-sorted sand, silt, and clay.

Subsurface Condition
Overall, the logs indicate a transition from stiff
near-surface cohesive soils to very dense granular soils at depth, characteristic of alluvial fan and levee deposits.

Given the geomorphological position of the Project in the Santa Clara Valley, depth to bedrock is likely greater than 500 feet below the surface. Data from well completion
reports in the vicinity of the Project and from borings drilled in the project vicinity indicate that the depth to groundwater in the Project area is expected to be greater than about 50 feet below the surface. 11HAMILTON | REGNARTAVENUE CREKPOC TRAIL 17 | HAMILTON AVENUE POC Seismicity
The USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database shows the
Project is not located within 1,000 feet of an unzoned fault that is Holocene/Latest Pleistocene (15,000 years) or
younger in age. The closest active fault to the Project is the Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone located about 3.3 miles to the southwest. The closest section of the San Andreas fault zone is located about 7.7 miles to the southwest of the Project. The closest section of the Hayward fault zone is located about 8.3 miles to the northeast of the Project.

Bike & Pedestrian Incidents
Table 3.1 summarizes recorded bicycle and pedestrian
incidents within the project area between January 2020
and December 2024. 17 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 173 of 283

MAJOR CONSTRAINTS
Hamilton Avenue has several unique and challenging
characteristics which are potential challenges and
constraints for the implementation of the Hamilton
Avenue POC.

Available Right of Way
The project is sensitive to the needs of partner agencies, with Caltrans being of particular importance given that the project is located almost entirely within their right-of-way.

As part of the alternatives analysis, each option was
reviewed for its potential impacts to Caltrans facilities, standards, and operations to ensure that right-of-way
constraints were respected and disturbances minimized.

The alternatives also considered the presence of VTA light rail facilities and UPRR tracks within the project limits, both of which require compatibility with Caltrans
right-of-way requirements. These intersecting facilities reinforce the importance of coordination and underscore the need to preserve safe and reliable operations for all agencies involved.

Early and continued engagement with Caltrans and other
partner agencies will be critical for project advancement.

Caltrans will remain a key partner, as their review and approval will guide which alternative is most feasible
within the state’s transportation network. The study team met with Caltrans to present the alternatives under
consideration and provide them the chance to review.

While they did not commit to concurring with a single
preferred alternative, they did not find any fatal flaws on the Evaluation findings.

Overall, the alternatives analysis demonstrates the City’s commitment to evaluating improvements in a way that
minimizes disturbance to Caltrans facilities and preserves long-term accessibility, safety, and operational needs
within the public right-of-way.

Utilities
All design alternatives were evaluated with careful
attention to the presence of existing utilities to ensure that disturbance would be minimized throughout both design
and construction. PG&E owns and operates three utility
lines along Hamilton Avenue within Caltrans right-of-way that support overhead electric and communication
facilities. These facilities were reviewed during alternative analysis, and alignments were refined to avoid
unnecessary conflicts. In addition, VTA light rail facilities extend throughout the project limits, requiring thoughtful consideration of the overhead rail line. The alternatives account for the need to maintain safe clearances, protect rail infrastructure, and preserve operational reliability.

At the Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way intersection,
UPRR operates at-grade rail lines equipped with railroad gates and lighting. Going forward, engagement with UPRR will be necessary to understand what is acceptable for the study at that crossing. All alternatives have considered measures to work around these facilities to minimize
impacts to railroad safety features or accessibility.

Overall, the project alternatives carefully considered each utility and agency facility. Efforts were made to reduce impacts, provide adequate protection, and preserve all
agencies’ rights to accessibility and ongoing maintenance.

This approach ensures the project could be implemented
with minimal disruption to existing infrastructure while maintaining reliable service to the surrounding community.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |18 HAMILTON AVE POC | 18

HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 174 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HAMILTON AVE POC HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 19 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 19 |
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 175 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

4. BICYCLE

OVERCROSSING

CRITERIA

OVERCROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
There exists many guidance documents regarding the
planning, design, and construction of POCs. The following references were used as a basis for the design,
construction, and maintenance of the project:
•Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (SCCBP)
• City of Campbell General Plan (CCGP)
•VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG)
•Caltrans Highway Design Manual – (HDM)
•CityofCampbell Streetscape Standards
•California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)
•APolicy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(AASHTO)
•NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NBDG)
•NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (NSDG)
•Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design (ADA)
These guidelines establish design criteria and provide direction for the planning and implementation of the proposed bike and pedestrian overcrossing. Several key documents provide
authoritative and advisory input for the project. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design set forth definitive, mandatory standards that must be met.

Additional guidance is drawn from resources such as the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan, VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines, City of Campbell Streetscape Standards, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide. These documents provide recommended practices and best design approaches but are not strictly mandatory.

The design of the overcrossing will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration given to site-specific conditions, user needs, and the surrounding land use context. Content from the referenced documents, in conjunction with direct input from relevant local agencies, will serve as key resources throughout the design process.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |20 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOC POC There exist many guidance documents regarding the
planning, design, and construction of a Bicycle
Overcrossing. The following references were used as a
basis for the design, construction, and maintenance of
the project:
•Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (SCCBP)
• City of Campbell General Plan (CCGP)
•VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG)
•Caltrans Highway Design Manual – (HDM)
•CityofCampbell Streetscape Standards
•California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)
•APolicy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(AASHTO)
•NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NBDG)
•NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (NSDG)
•Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design (ADA)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 176 of 283

BICYCLE OVERCROSSING DESIGN CRITERIA
Drainage
- For proper drainage, the surface of a bike path should have a minimum cross slope of 1 percent to reduce
ponding and a maximum of 2 percent per Caltrans Design
Information Bulletin (DIB) 82. Sloping of the traveled way in one direction usually simplifies longitudinal drainage design and surface construction, and accordingly is the preferred practice. The bike path shoulder shall slope away from the traveled way at 2 percent to 5 percent to reduce ponding and minimize debris from flowing onto the bike
path (HDM 1003.1(16))
POC Structures
- The clear width of a bicycle path on structures between railings shall be no less than 10 feet. It is desirable that the clear width of structures (inclusive of traveled way and shoulders) be equal to the minimum clear width of the
path plus shoulders (HDM 1003.1(2))
- Bike bridge live loads should allow for the passage of an occasional maintenance/service vehicle. Also, depending on the emergency service providers’ routes, a bike bridge might be designed to accommodate an occasional
ambulance or other emergency vehicle. (BTG 9.3.6)
- Considering that all bike bridges will also be open to pedestrians, the bridge performance should consider the vibrations caused by runners and walkers (BTG 9.3.7)
- The pavement material and structure of a bike path
should be designed in the same manner as a highway, with a recommendation from the District Materials Branch.
(HDM 1003.1(15))
- The surface to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes, and with uniform pavement edges
(1003.5(1))
POC Safety
- Optimally, bike paths should be lit at night year-round to increase safety and to maximize the number of trips made by bicycle. If lighting is provided, special attention should be given to the design and placement of lighting on bike paths located within environmentally sensitive areas and near residential areas. (BTG 9.1.3)
- Providing an interconnected network of bikeways will
improve safety for all users and access for bicycles. (HDM 1002.1 (2))
Design and Construction Practices
- Typically 25 feet of right of way is required to
accommodate the trail tread...Occasionally a bike path is forced to be contained within a restricted
right of way. (BTG 9.1.4)
- Traveled Way. The minimum paved width of travel way
for a two-way bike path shall be 8 feet, 10-foot preferred. (HDM 1003.1 (1a))
- An overcrossing/undercrossing of the arterial (road)
should be considered if trail volumes are very high and/or the arterial volumes are high enough that trail users
benefit from reduced delay and so that progression is
maintained on the arterial. (BTG 9.2.2)
- A clear width of 16’ -20’ is optimum where bridge has extremely high use by pedestrians and bicyclists; Consider design cues to separate users (BTG 9.3.3)
- The minimum height of bicycle rail in certain
circumstances is 48 inches; however, in most situations 42 inches above the deck surface is appropriate (HDM
209.10(6))
-The best way of discouraging non-authorized motor
vehicles is through design. Past solutions of installing bollards or other barrier treatments should be considered a last resort (BTG 9.4)
Monitoring and Maintenance
- Bike paths that are used for transportation, (i.e. virtually all paved trails and many unpaved trails) should be open 24 hours a day just as roads are. (BTG 9.1.3)
HAMILTON AVE POC HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOCPOC Salmar Avenue HAMILTON AVE POC HAMILTON AVE POC 21 |
HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOCPOC Salmar Avenue HAMILTON AVE POC 21 |
HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOCPOC Salmar Avenue 21 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 21 |
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 177 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

5. PUBLIC OUTREACH

OUTREACH PLAN & STRATEGIES
TheCity committedto providing a robust community outreach process as part of this study, developing multiple formats for community dialogue and interaction. The primary purpose wasto listen to potential facility users and the community at large to gain an understanding of current concerns and
desires for the proposed project. The City wanted to learn how and why people might use this route, important
destinations and connections, barriers to using this
overcrossing, and amenities the community would like to see.

To reach as many residents and community members as
possible, the project and outreach events were
announced through several channels online and through
mailings. The City also shared information about the
events through social media on NextDoor, Twitter,
Instagram, and Facebook. The City maintained an active
online presence by posting outreach materials, meeting
presentations, and outreach summaries following each
event on the project website and various social media.

Project promotion materials were provided in English
and Spanish, and the first survey used geo-targeted ads to promote the survey to the project area including
equity priority communities.

OUTREACH EVENTS
Valentine Fun Run - February 8, 2025
Community outreach for the project focused on in-person engagement at the Fun Run event, where project staff held approximately 75 face-to-face conversations with
members of the public. The event also served as a key
opportunity to share a QR code for Public Meeting No. 1, helping draw attention to and increase participation in the online survey. Based on interactions at this event, the general sentiment was supportive of a project to address existing deficiencies for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing SR 17.

Public Outreach Meeting – February 20, 2025
On Thursday, February 20, the City hosted a public
outreach meeting to engage community members in the
early stages of the study. The purpose of the meeting was to gather input and share information regarding potential improvements to bicycle and pedestrian crossings at the SR 17/Hamilton Avenue Interchange.

City staff and project team members provided an overview of the project area, including existing conditions, design constraints, and key objectives. To illustrate potential approaches, several example treatments were displayed.

These visuals were intended to help residents better
understand the range of features and options that could be considered to enhance safety and connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians at the project site.

The meeting also included an open question-and-answer
session, allowing attendees to seek clarification, raise concerns, and share their perspectives. In addition, the project team presented a project schedule outlining next steps in the study and implementation process. Attendees were invited to provide further feedback through comment cards and an online survey, accessible via a QR code
displayed at the event.

Community Survey – February 2, - March 14, 2025
Following the first community outreach meeting, the project team launched an online community survey to gather more detailed input on potential bicycle and pedestrian
improvements at the SR 17/Hamilton Avenue Interchange.

The survey was designed to better understand
Figure 5.1 Survey Results
Q1 Please rank the aspects of a bicycle/ pedestrian facility that you consider most important. (Toggle the options on the left, or click the drop down menu to rank your order of preferences)
Answered: 426 Skipped: 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Minimize distance
traveled...

Ease of use
Safety
Connectivity/Ea
se of access
(to bikeways...

Minimizing cost
Minimizing
environmental
impacts Minimizing number of potential... Physical
separation from
vehicles Minimize
acquisition of private... Direct access
to Light Rail Station/ Los...

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |22 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOC POC

OUTREACH EVENTS
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 178 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
The survey included seven multiple-choice questions
focused on user priorities, travel patterns, and facility preferences. Participants were asked to rank various
aspects of the proposed design—such as safety,
connectivity, and convenience—based on what they
considered most important. Consistent with feedback
received during outreach meetings, safety emerged as the top priority among respondents (Fig. 5.1).

In addition to ranking priorities, respondents were asked to describe their level of cycling experience. Most
participants identified themselves as advanced or
experienced riders, suggesting that many current users of the interchange are already comfortable navigating more complex traffic conditions. This provides insight into
existing travel demand while also underscoring the need to create a facility that is accessible to riders of all skill levels, including less experienced cyclists and pedestrians.

The survey also gathered information on destinations
commonly accessed through the interchange. Responses
were relatively evenly split among three nearby
commercial areas and the Los Gatos Creek Trail, reflecting the corridor’s importance as both a utilitarian and
recreational route. When asked about trip purposes,
participants most often cite tasks or errands, along with recreational activities, as their primary reasons for travel.

Survey respondents were predominantly between the
ages of 25 and 44, with respondents’ areas of residence within Campbell being evenly distributed. Approximately two-thirds of respondents identified as male. Thirteen
percent identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish in origin.

In terms of race and ethnicity, 68 percent identified as White, and just under 15 percent identified as Asian or Asian American. Representation from other demographic
groups was limited, and 13 percent of respondents
declined to state their race or ethnicity.

Overall, survey responses demonstrated strong
community support for improvements for bicyclists and
pedestrians at the SR 17/Hamilton Avenue Interchange.

Many participants expressed concern about the safety and usability of the existing crossing, reinforcing the
importance of designing a facility that prioritizes safety, accessibility, and connectivity for all users.

Public Outreach Event – October 18, 2025
On Saturday, October 18th the city hosted a table at the Campbell Oktoberfest Fun Run community event to share an overview of the project and solicit feedback on possible features and alternatives. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Community members seemed
optimistic about the potential of the city doing something to improve the user experience at the intersection.

Image 5.2 Oktoberfest Fun Run Community Event Image 5.2 Oktoberfest Fun Run Community Event Image 5.1 Oktoberfest Fun Run Community Event HAMILTON AVENUE POC HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 23 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 23 |
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 179 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Public Outreach Meeting – November 13, 2025
On Thursday, November 13th, the City hosted a public
outreach meeting to give an overview of the study,
background and goals, and a recap of previous community engagement and its influence on the alternatives
presented. The public had the option to attend or watch a recording virtually. There was a question-and-answer
session that allowed community members to speak
directly with the team to better understand what was
being proposed and how it could work with existing
conditions.

Most attendees indicated a preference for the Southern
Route, noting its greater separation from vehicle traffic, gentler grade, and avoidance of freeway on-ramps.

Feedback on bridge design was divided between the Box
Girder and Steel Truss options, while the Network Tied
Arch received no support due to its higher cost and
maintenance needs. Several participants selected the Box Girder option primarily because any overcrossing would
improve current conditions, though many agreed the
Steel Truss would be aesthetically preferable if funding allows. Attendees also asked clarifying questions about overcrossing maintenance, how the project aligns with
broader active-transportation planning efforts, and
whether typical community destinations are being
considered in the proposed design.

Figure 5.3 Community Meeting Posting
HAMILTON AVE / SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING

FEASIBILITY STUDY MEETING
We want to hear from you! A new bicycle
and pedestrian overcrossing above SR 17
along Hamilton Avenue is being
considered to improve accessibility. Learn
more and share your thoughts at the
upcoming Virtual Community Meeting on
November 13th at 6 p.m.

October 23rd at 6 p.m.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |24 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 180 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

FEEDBACK DURING EVENTS
Feedback received from the community meetings,
comment cards, community discussions, online surveys,
letters, and emails during and after outreach meetings fell into several “themes.” Many comments touched on multiple themes. The themes were as follows:

Safety
• Concern about the number of areas, specifically
at the intersections within the project, where
bicyclists and pedestrians must cross vehicle
traffic
• A desire for physical separation from vehicles for
both bicyclists and pedestrians from traffic
Connectivity
• The desire for an improved route that provides
connectivity for users coming from either side of SR 17 • The need for a connection to local public transit options • The desire for non-vehicle options to access nearby
shopping and dining areas
• Access to the nearby Los Gatos Creek Trail
• Improved connections to nearby neighborhoods
Ease of Use
• The desire for an easy-to-use route through the project area
• Clear and intuitive wayfinding
• An upgraded design that is user friendly
Maintenance/ Cost
• Concerns about the potential for bike lanes to become covered in debris
• The need for a maintenance plan
• The lack of maintenance becoming a hazard
Timeframe
• Concerns about the potential time frame being longer
than users desire
These are the most common concerns that were voiced by
residents; a more comprehensive list of the public’s specific comments and concerns is provided in Appendix C.

SUMMARY
Respondents broadly emphasized the need for safer
and better-maintained bike and pedestrian
infrastructure, with many calling for clearer separation from vehicle traffic and more consistent upkeep of any
future projects. They also highlighted the importance of improving connections between existing routes and key
destinations, while noting that changes should avoid
worsening traffic congestion. Overall, respondents were supportive of improvements in the area with some
concern as to the short-term effects of construction and possible expense.

CE
| 24
POC25 HAMILTON AVENUE POC HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 25 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 23 |
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 181 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

6. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The bicycle overcrossing alternatives were compiled based on reviews of existing conditions, property ownership, public input, and recommendations from the City of Campbell.

Alternativesforthe route, elements, and features are presented to addressthe followingmajorthemes of the project:

Improved Recreation
and Transportation
Options
Safety,
Security,
and Privacy
Crossing
Busy
Streets
HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |26 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 182 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

BICYCLE OVERCROSSING ALIGNMENT
Four design alternatives were evaluated to address the goals and objectives of the project, the Campbell General Plan, and the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan.

Route Descriptions
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative will not provide new bicycle or pedestrian facilities and does not propose any improvements to any existing facilities. This alternative was evaluated as a control against its peers (Alternatives 1 through 4).

The Southern Route
Alternative 1, The Southern Route (Appendix A), proposes a new alignment beginning at the southbound SR 17 ramp and reconnecting with Hamilton Avenue just west of the
Hamilton Light Rail station. This option provides fully gradeseparated travel near the north bound SR 17 on-ramps and improves visibility at the Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way intersections.

Starting west of SR 17 at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue, the route parallels the right-turn lane for the southbound SR 17 on-ramp while remaining gradeseparated for approximately 600 feet. The route then turns eastward, crossing over and perpendicular to SR 17 for
approximately 350 feet, before curving north to run parallel to the VTA Light Rail tracks for another 350 feet. From there, the alignment turns east, passes beneath the light rail tracks for the final 100 feet, and ties into Hamilton Avenue at Creekside Way next to the light rail station entrance. With this alignment, the total distance traveled from the Salmar Avenue to Creekside way intersection is approximately 1,400 feet.

This alternative includes a Class II bike lane along the north side of Hamilton Avenue to cross SR 17. Beginning at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way, cyclists from any direction can access the bike lanes through the signalized intersection. The 1,200-foot bike lane runs the full length of the interchange, ending at the west side of
Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue, where riders can
continue south or west using the existing network.

Pedestrian facilities are also included, with a sidewalk running parallel to the Class II bike lane on the north side of Hamilton Avenue. To accommodate the new lane, the
Hamilton Avenue median will be shifted approximately 6
feet south, with 11-foot-wide travel lanes maintained for both through and turning movements.

The Campbell Loop
Alternative 2, The Campbell Loop (Appendix A), primarily follows the alignment of Hamilton Avenue with the addition of a loop near the northbound SR 17 on-ramp and an
undercrossing.

The route begins west of SR 17 at the intersection of
Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue. From there, it runs
parallel to the right-turn lane for the southbound SR 17 onramp for roughly 80 feet before crossing the ramp at grade via a designated crosswalk and bike crossing. The alignment then continues east, parallel to Hamilton Avenue, for
approximately 450 feet before looping clockwise and
dropping below grade. This allows the path to pass under the northbound SR 17 loop on-ramp. A new pedestrian
stairway provides a more direct connection for people
walking, allowing them to bypass the loop and take a shorter route. East of the undercrossing, the route climbs back to Hamilton Avenue grade just west of the VTA Light Rail
tracks, where it ties into the existing roadway at the
intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way near
the Light Rail entrance. With this alignment, the total distance traveled from the Salmar Avenue to Creekside way intersection is approximately 1,300 feet.

In addition to the loop alignment, Alternative 2 includes an option for cyclists to use a Class II bike lane in the westbound direction along the north side of Hamilton Avenue to cross SR 17. This route begins at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way, where riders traveling from any direction can connect to the bike lanes at the signalized intersection. The 1,200-foot bike lane spans the length of the interchange, ending at the west side of the Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue intersection. From there,
cyclists may continue traveling either south or west using the existing bike lanes.

On the north side of Hamilton Avenue, pedestrian
accommodations are also included. A continuous sidewalk will run parallel to the new Class II bike lane on the north side of Hamilton Avenue, providing a safe and direct option for walking. Additionally, stairs will be constructed at both ends of the loop, allowing pedestrians to shorten their travel distance if desired. These added connections are intended to make the facility more convenient for all types of users.

To accommodate the new bike lane, the traffic median on Hamilton Avenue will be shifted approximately 6 feet south.

As a result, travel lanes will be adjusted but will remain 11 feet wide for both through traffic and turning movements, ensuring adequate capacity and safety for vehicles.

HAMILTON AVENUE POC HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 27 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 23 |
Way Way
1,350 feet.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 183 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
The Straight Shot
Alternative 3, The Straight Shot (Figure ), primarily follows the Hamilton Avenue roadway alignment while creating a
separate, dedicated route for both bicyclists and
pedestrians. This option provides a direct connection
across SR 17, with fewer vertical changes compared to
other alternatives.

The alignment begins west of SR 17 at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue, running parallel to
the southbound SR 17 on-ramp for approximately 100
feet. It then crosses the ramp at grade using a designated crosswalk and bike crossing. From there, the route
continues east, offset about 10 feet from the existing
bridge structure for approximately 400 feet, before
turning slightly south to follow along the northbound SR 17 on-ramp traffic for 50 feet. At that point, it crosses the ramp at grade via another crosswalk and bike crossing
before rejoining eastbound Hamilton Avenue traffic.

This alternative also includes an option for cyclists to use a class II bike lane on the north side of Hamilton Avenue to cross SR17. Beginning at the intersection of Hamilton
Avenue and Creekside Way, users traveling from any
direction will be able to use bike lanes in the intersection to access the bike route. The 1200-foot route runs the
length of the interchange, ending at the west end of the Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue intersection. Cyclists can then use bike lanes to travel south or east.

The traffic median on Hamilton Avenue will be slightly
adjusted to allow for the addition of the class II bike lane.

The shifted travel lanes will be 11’ for through traffic and turning vehicles.

There is a sidewalk for pedestrians along the bike lane on the north side of Hamilton Avenue. The traffic median on Hamilton Avenue will be slightly adjusted to allow for the addition of the class II bike lane. The shifted travel lanes will be 11’ for through traffic and turning vehicles.

The Minimalist
Alternative 4 (Figure ) is the low build alternative and keeps users on the existing bridge structure alongside
eastbound traffic. The difference between this
alternative and the existing conditions is primary
restriping the existing lanes to have a dedicated bike
and pedestrian rote.

This route takes users south of the southbound SR17 on
ramp for approximately 100 feet before crossing over
the southbound lane via a crosswalk and bike crossing
and rejoining eastbound traffic on the bridge structure.

Cyclists and pedestrians will continue that route for
approximately 500 feet before turning slightly south
with the northbound SR17 on ramp traffic for 50 feet
before crossing the on-ramp traffic via a crosswalk and bike crossing and rejoining eastbound Hamilton
Avenue traffic.

This alternative includes class II bike crossings for
westbound and eastbound cyclists at the Salmar Avenue
intersection as well assouthbound travel on Salmar Avenue.

At the Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way intersection
there are class II facilities for eastbound and northbound travel. There are crosswalks for pedestrians at both
intersections to allow for seamless travel in the area. This alternative does not include any bike or pedestrian routes on the north side of the bridge.

The Straight Shot
Alternative 3, The Straight Shot (Appendix A), primarily follows the Hamilton Avenue roadway alignment while
creating a separate, dedicated route for both bicyclists and pedestrians. This option provides a direct connection
across SR 17, with fewer vertical changes compared to
other alternatives.

The alignment begins west of SR 17 at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Salmar Avenue, running parallel to
the southbound SR 17 on-ramp for approximately 100
feet. It then crosses the ramp at grade using a designated crosswalk and bike crossing. It is envisioned that additional signage and rectangular rapid flashing beacons will be
installed ahead of this crossing. From there, the route continues east, offset about 10 feet from the existing
bridge structure for approximately 450 feet, before turning slightly south to follow along the northbound SR 17
on-ramp traffic for 75 feet. At that point, it crosses the ramp at grade via another crosswalk and bike crossing
before rejoining eastbound Hamilton Avenue traffic for the remaining 350 feet. With this alignment, the total distance traveled from the Salmar Avenue to the Creekside Way
intersection is approximately 1,050 feet.

The traffic median on Hamilton Avenue will be adjusted
approximate 6 feet south to allow for the addition of the class II bike lane. The shifted travel lanes will be 11’ for through traffic and turning vehicles.

The Minimalist
Alternative 4 (Appendix A) is the low build alternative and keeps users on the existing bridge structure alongside
eastbound traffic. The difference between this alternative and the existing conditions is primary restriping the
existing lanes to have a dedicated bike and pedestrian
route.

This route takes users south of the southbound SR17
on-ramp for approximately 80 feet before crossing over
the southbound lane via a crosswalk and bike crossing and rejoining eastbound traffic on the bridge structure. Cyclists and pedestrians will continue that route for approximately 500 feet before turning slightly south with the northbound SR17 on ramp for 50 feet before crossing the on-ramp at grade via a crosswalk and bike crossing and rejoining
eastbound Hamilton Avenue traffic for the remaining 350 feet. With this alignment, the total distance traveled from the Salmar Ave to the Creekside Way intersection is
approximately 1,000 feet.

This alternative includes class II bike crossings for
westbound and eastbound cyclists at the Salmar Avenue
intersection as well as southbound travel on Salmar
Avenue. At the Hamilton Avenue and Creekside Way
intersection there are class II facilities for eastbound and northbound travel. There are crosswalks for pedestrians at both intersections to allow for seamless travel in the area.

This alternative does not include any bike or pedestrian routes on the north side of the bridge.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |28 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 184 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Structures
The proposed bicycle overcrossing will be located over
Highway 17 to the south of the existing Hamilton Ave
Overcrossing (OC) and north of the existing Hamilton Ave Underpass (UP) (light rail).

The overcrossing will be owned and maintained by the City of Campbell.

Two-Span Structure
The two-span structure option is anticipated to consist of a 200 foot long bridge with a maximum span length of
approximately 110 feet and a clear width of 12 feet. The bridge will be supported by an approximate 4’-0” diameter column and large diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH)
concrete pile in the SR 17 median and on seat type
abutments supported on CIDH concrete piles. The column
in SR 17 median will be protected from vehicular impact by the Caltrans Standard Concrete Barrier Type 60MGF.

Bent construction in the SR 17 median will require
temporary shifting of lanes to accommodate construction of the CIDH pile foundation and column. The two-span
superstructure is anticipated to be a cast-in-place
prestressed (CIP/PS) concrete box girder with anticipated structure depth of 4’-6”. The CIP/PS concrete box girder superstructure provides standard minimum permanent
vertical clearance of 18’-6” above SR 17. Temporary vertical clearance of 15’-0” above SR 17 will be provided with
standard falsework depths. A falsework bent is anticipated in the SR 17 median.

Architectural treatment can be included on the concrete surfaces and on the metal railings to improve the visual impact of the structure.

Maintenance of a concrete structure can include spall
repair and treatment of the deck with methacrylate to seal cracking in the concrete or a polyester concrete overlay.

Routine maintenance of a concrete structure is less costly than maintenance of a steel structure.

Estimated structure construction cost per square foot is $600/SF excluding mobilization and contingency.

Pros

1. Cast-in-place concrete box girder is a cost-effective structure type.

2. Cast-in-place concrete box girder is a Caltrans
standard bridge type.

3. Matches structure layout, structure type and
aesthetics of the adjacent existing bridges (Hamilton
Ave OC and Hamilton Ave UP).

4. Cast-in-place concrete box girder requires the least amount of routine maintenance.

Cons:

1. Traffic control and detouring will be required to
construct the column in the median

2. Falsework over SR 17 will be required.

Figure 1: Two-Span Option Typical Section – CIP/PS Concrete Box Girder Superstructure
Figure 2: CIP/PS Concrete Box Girder Example
Figure 6.1 Two-Span Option Typical Section - CIP/PS Concrete Box Girder Superstructure
Image 6.1 CIP/PS Concrete Box Girder Example
29 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
29 |

HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOC POC
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 185 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Single-Span Structure
Prefabricated Steel Truss
Based on the design team’s experience, Caltrans has not allowed a prefabricated steel truss bridge (designed and fabricated by the contractor during construction) to span State highways. Caltrans Structure Technical Policy 6.2 requires steel pedestrian bridges crossing state highways to be a Standard Bridge. A Standard Bridge needs to have steel member identifications including fracture critical members (FCMs). Prefabricated bridge manufacturers are not Caltrans certified and do not have the capabilities to fabricate steel structures with FCMs to meet Caltrans standards. Therefore, a special design and fabrication at a Caltrans certified manufacturing facility will be required.

Special Designed Steel Truss
A single span structure option is a special designed steel truss option with an approximate length of 200 feet. The
anticipated structure depth is approximately 4’-0”.

A special designed steel truss with a clear width of 12 feet may span approximately 200 to 220 feet. If the span length is increased beyond 220 feet, there are seismic concerns regarding meeting Caltrans seismic requirements.

The bridge will be delivered to the site in multiple pieces and will require a staging area for bridge assembly and erection.

Aesthetic options for the bridge include a painted steel truss as shown in Image 3 below or a weathering steel truss shown in Image 4. A painted steel truss requires additional
maintenance compared to a concrete superstructure option to maintain the paint system and prevent corrosion.

Estimated structure construction cost per square foot is $1,000/SF excluding mobilization and contingency.

Pros

1. A single span option clear spans SR 17 and does not
have a column in the SR 17 median

2. Falsework over SR 17 is not required

3. Enhanced aesthetic opportunities
Cons:

1. More expensive structure option than concrete box
girder

2. A painted steel truss requires more maintenance than concrete structure
Network Tied Arch
A single-span structure option is anticipated to be a steel network tied arch superstructure approximately 200’-0”
long. The network tied arch is anticipated to be supported on seat-type abutments founded on piles. The network tied arch is the most expensive option from a structure
perspective.

The painted network tied arch bridge would require
additional maintenance compared to a concrete structure.

The bridge will be delivered to the site in multiple pieces and will require a staging area for bridge assembly and erection.

Figure 3: CIP/PS Concrete Box Girder Example
Figure 4: Special Design Painted Steel Truss Example
Figure 5: Special Designed Weathering Steel Truss Example Image 6.2 CIP/PS Concrete Box Girder Example Image 6.3 Special Design Painted Steel Truss Example Image 6.4 Special Design Weathering Steel Truss Example * HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |30 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 186 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Estimated structure construction cost per square foot is $1,500/SF excluding mobilization and contingency.

Pros

1. A single span option clear spans SR 17 and does not
have a column in the SR 17 median

2. Falsework over SR 17 is not required

3. Enhanced aesthetic opportunities
Cons

1. Most expensive structure option

2. A painted network tied arch requires more
maintenance than a concrete structure

Approach Structures
The east approach is anticipated to be a cast-in-place
concrete slab bridge to minimize settlement risk to the adjacent existing light rail MSE walls. Precast closure walls are anticipated to prohibit public access underneath the bridge. Access openings can be provided for structure
inspection and maintenance purposes. The east approach
structure is anticipated to be a multi-span structure
supported on large diameter shaft foundations at the
bents. Pile foundations are anticipated for the abutment foundation.

A column layout for the east approach will be developed to minimize impacts to the SR 17 northbound loop on-ramp
and to provide access for future maintenance of the light rail mechanically stabilized embankment (MSE) wall.

Removable railings on the POC can also be evaluated to
facilitate future maintenance of the adjacent existing light rail MSE wall.

Estimated structure construction cost per square foot is $500/SF* excluding mobilization and contingency.

Figure 8: Closure Wall with Surface Texture Example
The west approach will be in a fill condition and is
anticipated to be supported by a Mechanically Stabilized Embankment (MSE) wall or back-to-back MSE walls where
grading to the trail is not feasible.
*All estimated costs listed are approximate and in 2026 dollars.

Figure 6: Network Tied Arch Bridge Example
Image 6.5 Network Tied Arch Bridge Example
Image 6.6 CIP Concrete Slab Bridge Example
Image 6.7 Closure Wall with Surface Texture Example
31 |
HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUEPOC POC *
31 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
Removable railings on the overcrossing can also be
evaluated to facilitate future maintenance of the adjacent existing light rail MSE wall.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 187 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
MSE wall panels can include architectural treatments to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the retaining wall. A standard Caltrans Concrete Barrier Type 60MD will be
provided at the face of wall to protect the wall from
vehicular impacts.

Figure 9: MSE Wall Example
Figure 10: MSE Wall Aesthetic Example
Image 6.8 MSE Wall Example Image 6.9 MSE Wall Aesthetic Example HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |32 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 188 of 283

HAMILTON AVE POC

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HAMILTON AVE POC HAMILTON AVENUE POC Salmar Avenue 33 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 33 |
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 189 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

7. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS
& RECOMMENDATIONS

EVALUATION
Toeffectivelydeterminethepreferredalternative,the project evaluated proposed trail alternatives against several
measures of effectiveness. Alternatives were qualitatively and quantitatively considered, relative to their peers, to determine their effectivenessin meeting the purpose and need ofthe project. These factors include:

Multimodal Use/ Access: How well does the
proposed facility minimize conflict points, account for elevation and travel distance, ensure strong bicycle and pedestrian connections to key destinations, and provide clear separation between vehicles and pedestrians?
Traffic Operations: How will the project impact traffic operations on Hamilton Avenue, SR-17 ramps, Creekside
Way, and Salmar Avenue?
Environmental Concerns: What is the significance and
impact of improvements to the existing environment
including visual impacts and vegetation?
Caltrans Approvability: How consistent is the design
with Caltrans HDM, NACTO, and City Guidelines?
Estimated Project Cost: How significant are the
anticipated project costs?
Right-of-Way: What are the preliminary property
needs, including temporary construction easements, and
how significant are the impacts of proposed
improvements on existing utilities?
Consistency with Public Input: How well do the
proposed facilities align with public feedback and
priorities?
Scoring Rubric
Each of the factor’s scores are developed relative to
the other alternatives. Factors are not weighted equally and are weighed on the relative importance to their
peers. Each factor was scored qualitatively using the
rubric below:

E POC
To effectively determine the preferred alternative, the project team evaluated proposed trail alternatives against several measures of effectiveness. Alternatives were
qualitatively and quantitatively considered, relative to their peers, to determine their effectiveness in meeting the purpose and need of the project. These factors
include:

Multimodal Use/ Ease of Access: How well does the
proposed facility minimize conflict points, account for elevation and travel distance, ensure strong bicycle and pedestrian connections to key destinations, and provide clear separation between vehicles and pedestrians?
Traffic Operations: How will the project impact traffic operations on Hamilton Avenue, SR-17 ramps, Creekside
Way, and Salmar Avenue?
Traffic Operations: How will the project impact traffic operations on Hamilton Avenue, SR-17 ramps, Creekside
Way, and Salmar Avenue?
Environmental Concerns: What is the significance and
impact of improvements to the existing environment
including visual impacts and vegetation?
Caltrans Approvability: How consistent is the design
with Caltrans HDM? As the project footprint sits mostly within Caltrans right-of-way. Caltrans will need to
approve any proposed changes to the existing conditions.

Estimated Project Cost: What How significant are the
anticipated project costs?
Right-of-Way: What are the preliminary property
needs, including temporary construction easements, and
how significant are the impacts of proposed
improvements on existing utilities?
Consistency with Public Input: How well do the proposed facilities align with public feedback and priorities?
Scoring Rubric
Each of the factor’s scores are developed relative to the other alternatives. Factors are not weighted equally and are weighed on the relative importance to their peers.

Each factor was scored qualitatively using the rubric
below:

The alternative scores very
well as compared to its peers.

The alternative scores well
as compared to its peers.

The alternative scores
moderately well as
compared to its peers.

The alternative scores
slightly well as compared
to its peers.

The alternative does not
score well as compared
to its peers.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |34 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 190 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC

POC ALIGNMENTS
No Build Alternative By means of no construction, the No Build Alternative inherently scores well compared to its peers for environmental concerns, approvability, cost, and Right-of-Way needs. However, the No Build Alternative does not meet the goals of the Hamilton Avenue Precise plan, nor does it provide increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity or increase user safety. TheNo Build Alternative failsto meetthe purpose and need of the project and therefore is notrecommended forfurtherstudy.

Category Score Rationale
Multimodal Use/ Access
Traffic Operations
Environmental Concerns
Caltrans Approvability
Estimated Project Cost
Right-of-Way
Consistency with Public
Input
Table : Evaluation table for the No Build Alternative
Table 6.1 Evaluation Table for the No Build Alternative The No Build alternative does nothing to
improve multimodal use or access
The No Build alternative does nothing to
improve traffic operations
Because there is no construction or new
structures, there will be no change in
impact to the environment
The No Build Alternative would not require
approval from Caltrans
The No Build Alternative would have no
anticipated project cost
The No Build Alternative would have no
effect on the existing Right-of-Way
The No Build Alternative does not address
the public's concerns or desire for an
improved route at this location 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON | REGNART REGNART REGNARTAVENUE AVENUE CREEKPOC POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC POC No Build Alternative
By means of no construction, the No Build Alternative inherently scores well compared to its peers for environmental concerns, approvability, cost, and Right-of-Way needs. However, the No Build Alternative does not meet the goals of the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan, nor does it provide increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity or increase user safety. The No Build Alternative fails to meet the goals of the project. Multimodal Use/ Ease of Access
35 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 35 | BICYCLE OVERCROSSING ALIGNMENT Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 191 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Alternative 1 – The Southern Route meets the intent of the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan, the Countywide Bike Plan, and is consistent with the vision statements contained in these plans. Because thisroute is mostly offstreet, the alternative scores substantially well for user safety as the likelihood of vehicle- cyclist/pedestrian collisions is greatly reduced. The alternative scores are lower than its peers for cost, primarily driven by the presence of two bridge crossings.

Category Score Rationale
Multimodal Use/ Access
Traffic Operations
Environmental Concerns
Caltrans Approvability
Estimated Project Cost
Right-of-Way
Consistency with Public
Input
Table 6.2 Evaluation Table for the Southern Route Alternative Table : Evaluation table for Alternative 1
The Southern Route alternative provides a
route for bicyclists and pedestrians that is
convenient and separated from vehicle
traffic. Total travel distance is 1,400 ft
The Southern Route alternative does not
negatively effect vehicle traffic and further
separates multimodal users from vehicle
interactions
Because there is a large structure being
added, The Southern Route alternative has
a higher environmental impact
The Southern Route would require a
moderate number of design exceptions by
Caltrans, including non standard shoulders
and lane widths
The Southern Route alternative has the
highest expected capital cost due to the
structures required, approximately $9.5M -
$11.0M in 2026 figures
The Southern Route alternative creates a
fairly significant impact to the Right-of-Way
when compared to the other alternatives
and has impacts on two utilities
The Southern Route alternative most
adequately addresses the desires of the
public for a safe an convenient alternative
away from vehicle traffic
Multimodal Use/ Ease of
Access
Alternative 1 - The Southern Route meets the intent of the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan, the Countywide Bike Plan, and is consistent with the vision statements contained in these plans. Because this route is mostly off-street, the alternative scores substantially well for user safety as the likelihood of vehicle- cyclist/pedestrian collisions is greatly reduced. The alternative scores are lower than its peers for cost, primarily driven by the cost of a long bridge crossing structure.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |36 11HAMILTON | REGNARTAVENUE CREKPOC TRAIL HAMILTON AVENUE POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 192 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Alternative 2 - The Campbell Loop is only partially along Hamilton Avenue. It does not fully meet the intent or vision contained in the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan or the Countywide Bike Plan. This alternative requires use of on-street facilities on Hamilton Avenue. The alternative subsequently scored well for access and traffic operations, but poorly for environmental concerns and cost.

Category Score Rationale
Multimodal Use/ Access
Traffic Operations
Environmental Concerns
Caltrans Approvability
Estimated Project Cost
Right-of-Way
Consistency with Public
Input
Table 6.3 Evaluation Table for the Campbell Loop Alternative Table : Evaluation table for Alternative 2
The alternative provides a route for bicyclists
and pedestrians that is convenient and mostly
separated from vehicle traffic. It has a large
grade change. Total travel distance is 1,300 ft
The Campbell Loop alternative does
separates multimodal users from vehicle
interactions but requires a difficult crossing
with vehicles accessing the SR 17 on ramp
Because there are multiple large structure
being added, The Campbell Loop alternative
has a higher environmental impact
The Campbell Loop alternative creates a
minimal impact to the Right-of-Way when
compared to the other alternatives and has
impacts on three utilities
The Campbell Loop alternative addresses
the public's desire for a safe and convenient
route that is mostly separated from vehicle
traffic
The Campbell Loop alternative has the
second highest expected capital cost due to
the structures required, approximately
$7.5M -$9M in 2026 figures 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON | REGNART REGNART REGNARTAVENUE AVENUE CREEKPOC POC TRAIL 41 |

HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC POC POCPOC Multimodal Use/ Ease of
Access
The Campbell Loop would require a
moderate amount of design exceptions by
Caltrans, including non standard shoulders
and lane widths
Alternative 2 - The Campbell Loop is only partially along Hamilton Avenue. It does not fully meet the intent or vision contained in the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan or the Countywide Bike Plan. This alternative requires use of on-street facilities on Hamilton Avenue. The alternative subsequently scored well for access and traffic operations, but poorly for environmental concerns and cost. 37 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING
1,350 ft
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 193 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Alternative 3 – The Straight Shot is only partially separated from Hamilton Avenue. It does not fully meet the intent or vision contained in the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan and the Countywide Bike Plan. While multimodal users are separated from vehicle traffic, the separation is minimal compared to the alternatives. The alternative scores moderately for most categories but contains multiple at grade crossings for cyclists and pedestrians.

Category Score Rationale
Multimodal Use/ Access
Traffic Operations
Environmental Concerns
Caltrans Approvability
Estimated Project Cost
Right-of-Way
Consistency with Public
Input
Table 6.4 Evaluation Table for the Straight Shot Alternative Table : Evaluation table for Alternative 3
The alternative provides a route for bicyclists
and pedestrians that is direct and mostly
separated from vehicle traffic but requires at
grade crossings. Travel distance is 1,000 ft
The Straight Shot alternative does separates
multimodal users from most vehicle
interactions but requires a difficult crossing
with vehicles accessing the SR 17 on ramps
Because there are less intrusive structures
being added, The Straight Shot alternative
has a lower environmental impact than
most of the other alternatives
The Straight Shot alternative addresses
some of the public's desire for a safe and
convenient route but does require at grade
crossings and traffic interactions
The Straight Shot alternative has a
moderate expected capital cost as
compared with other alternatives,
approximately $4M - $4.5M in 2026 figures
Multimodal Use/ Ease of
Access
The Straight Shot would require a moderate
amount of design exceptions by Caltrans,
including non standard shoulders and lane
widths
Alternative 3 - The Straight Shot is only partially separated from Hamilton Avenue. It does not fully meet the intent or vision contained in the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan and the Countywide Bike Plan. While multimodal users are separated from vehicle traffic, the separation is minimal compared to the alternatives. The alternative scores moderately for most categories but contains multiple at grade crossings for cyclists and pedestrians.

The Straight Shot alternative creates a
minimal impact to the Right-of-Way when
compared to the other alternatives and has
impacts on three utilities HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |38 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20
POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC 1,050 ft Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 194 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
Alternative 4 – The Minimalist is entirely on-street. Subsequently, this alternative does not meet the intent or vision contained in the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan or the Countywide Bike Plan. It scores poorly on user safety as cyclists are exposed to vehicular traffic for the entire route. The alternative scores substantially well in many categories due to being a low-build option that requires minimal funding and Caltrans approval.

Because there are no structures being
added, The Minimalist alternative has a
lower environmental impact than most of
the other alternatives
The Minimalist Alternative has no
Right-of-Way needs as it is within the
existing footprint
The Minimalist alternative does little to
address the public's desire for a safe and
convenient route and does not satisfy the
desires of the Hamilton Avenue Plan
The Minimalist alternative has the lowest
estimated capital cost due to the lack of
additional structures, approximately
$600,000 - $800,000 in 2026 figures 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON | REGNART REGNART REGNARTAVENUE AVENUE CREEKPOC POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC POC POCPOC Multimodal Use/ Ease of
Access
Alternative 4 - The Minimalist is entirely on-street. Subsequently, this alternative does not meet the intent or vision contained in the Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan or the Countywide Bike Plan. It scores poorly on user safety as cyclists are exposed to vehicular traffic for the entire route. The alternative scores substantially well in many categories due to being a low-build option that requires minimal funding and Caltrans approval.

The Minimalist alternative would require a
minimal amount of design exceptions by
Caltrans, including non standard shoulders
and lane widths 39 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING 39 | Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 195 of 283

HAMILTON AVENUE POC
POC Alignment Recommendation
The study recommends moving forward with design and environmental clearance for Alternative 1 – the Southern Route.

This alternative offers the safest conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians by separating them from vehicle traffic on Hamilton Avenue. It removes potential conflict points by not having at-grade crossings where vehicle traffic enters the onramps to SR 17, a significant concern for users.

While it does require the longest route, the elevation change is minimal and the addition of a class II bike lane and sidewalk on the north side of the existing bridge structure provides an alternative for users who feel comfortable being alongside traffic to shorten their commute. Having the majority of bicycle and pedestrian traffic completely separated from vehicles also allows for limited delay impacts for vehicles.

Although no significant noise impacts are anticipated, several trees will need to be removed to accommodate the new POC structure. This will contribute to visual impacts; however, the study concludes that the overall benefits outweigh these drawbacks, and that thoughtful design choices can help mitigate the visual effects.

This design has many nonstandard features, such as shoulder widths, lane widths, and horizontal clearances that will require design exceptions from Caltrans. While these concerns were carefully considered during the analysis, the study concluded that these design exceptions were all within reason and would be worth the exception requirements with Caltrans due to the overall improvement for users. Caltrans also expressed concerns about this alternative potentially limiting the ability to widen the southbound on-ramp loop in the future. In the event Caltrans determines this constraint is unacceptable and does not approve the Southern Route, the study identifies Alternative 2, The Campbell Loop, as the next most feasible option due to its comparatively lower right-of-way needs and fewer conflicts with future ramp modifications.

The Southern Route has the highest estimated design cost among the alternatives, largely due to the substantial structure required. It is also the only option that would require an easement dedication to construct the path along the southbound SR-17 on-ramp. Additionally, two overhead power lines conflict with the proposed structure and would need to be relocated, further contributing to overall costs. While cost is an important consideration, funding sources are available that are specifically designated for bicycle and pedestrian projects, active transportation, safety improvements, and projects identified in Measure B, which may help offset these concerns.

While all perspectives were carefully considered, public input had the greatest influence on the final decision, ultimately leading to the selection of The Southern Route. Safety and user experience are among the top concerns of Campbell residents.

Although no significant noise impacts are anticipated, several trees just west of the SR 17 southbound on-ramp will need to be removed to accommodate the new overcrossing structure. This will contribute to visual impacts; however, the study concludes that the overall benefits outweigh these drawbacks, and that thoughtful design choices can help mitigate the visual effects. Bicycle Overcrossing Alignment Recommendations HAMILTON AVENUE BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |40 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POCPOC This design has many nonstandard features, such as shoulder widths, lane widths, and horizontal clearances that will require design exception approval from Caltrans. While these concerns were carefully considered during the analysis, the study concluded that these design exceptions were all within reason and would be worth the exception request with Caltrans due to the overall improvement for users. During a coordination meeting, Caltrans also expressed concerns about this alternative potentially limiting the ability to widen the southbound on-ramp loop in the future. In the event Caltrans determines this constraint is unacceptable and does not approve the Southern Route, the study identifies Alternative 2, The Campbell Loop, as the next most desirable option. This decision was partially driven by The Campbell Loop's lower right-of-way needs compared to The Southern Route and fewer conflicts with future ramp modifications.

When compared to The Straight Shot and The Minimalist, The Campbell Loop was more closely aligned to public input. In regards to traffic operations, The Straight Shot and The Minimalist would have a higher impact than the Campbell Loop which could also be a concern for Caltrans.

HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |40
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 196 of 283
Alternative
Name
Conflict
Points
Ease of Use
(Bike)
Ease of Use
(Pedestrian)
Connectivity Physical
Separation
from
Vehicles
Traffic
Operations
Environmental
Considerations
Caltrans
Approvability
Cost Right-ofwayConsistency
with Public
Input
Weighted
Total
Score*
No Build
Alternative
The Southern
Route
The Campbell
Loop
The Straight
Shot
The Minimalist
Weight* 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 15% 5% 15% 2.5% 2.5% 15%
Table 6.6 Alignment Alternative Evaluation
*Each evaluation criteria category was assigned an individual weight as shown on the table above HAMILTON 41 | HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING AVENUE POC | 41 HAMILTON AVENUE POC Conflict
Points
Ease of Use
(Bike)
Ease of Use
(Pedestrian)
Connectivity
Physical
Separation
from Vehicles
Multimodal Use/ Ease of Access Multimodal
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 197 of 283

REGNART CREEK TRAIL

APPENDICES
A. COST ESTIMATES
B. ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS
C. PROPERTY RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
D. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS &COMMENTS
E. TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
A. ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS
B. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS & COMMENTS
C. TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
HAMILTON AVENUE/ SR 17 BICYCLE OVERCROSSING |42 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON AVE POC | REGNART REGNARTAVENUE CREK | 20

POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 198 of 283

REGNART CREEK TRAIL

APPENDICES
A. COST ESTIMATES
B. ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS
C. PROPERTY RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
D. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS &COMMENTS
E. TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
45 |

ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS

PROPERTY

PUBLIC OUTREACH

RIGHTS DOC

MEMOS &COMMENTS

TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON 11HAMILTON HAMILTON | REGNART REGNART REGNARTAVENUE AVENUE CREEKPOC POC TRAIL HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTON HAMILTONAVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUE AVENUEPOC POC POC POC POCPOC POC

APPENDIX A
ALTERNATIVE 1 - THE SOUTHERN ROUTE
ALTERNATIVE 2 - THE CAMPBELL LOOP
ALTERNATIVE 3 - THE STRAIGHT SHOT
D. ALTERNATIVE 4 - THE MINIMALIST
A1. ALTERNATIVE 1 - THE SOUTHERN ROUTE
A2. ALTERNATIVE 2 - THE CAMPBELL LOOP
A3. ALTERNATIVE 3 - THE STRAIGHT SHOT
A4. ALTERNATIVE 4 - THE MINIMALIST
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 199 of 283

R R R R R R R R
SALMAR Ave
NB ROUTE 17 E HAMILTON Ave NB
17 ONLY SB ROUTE 17 24+14 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 5' 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 5' CREEKSIDE Way 11'11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' EXISTING MEDIAN

ELEVATION
ELEVATION STATION PROFILE VIEW OF BP LINE (1) 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 -0.26% 2.39% -0.29% -2.67% PVI STA = 16+47.25 PVI EL = 194.63 A.D. = -5.07 K = 9.87 BVC 16+22.25 FG 194.03 EVC 16+72.25 16+45.87 FG 193.96 HP 194.31 50.00' VC PVI STA = 13+31.60 PVI EL = 187.07 A.D. 2.65 K = 30.16 BVC 12+91.60 FG 187.18 EVC 13+71.60 FG 188.03 12+99.39
LP 187.17 80.00' VC PVI STA = 19+97.90 PVI EL = 185.25 A.D. 2.39 K = 20.95 BVC 19+72.90 FG 185.92 EVC 20+22.90 FG 185.18 50.00' VC 10+00.00 ~ GB
FG 187.93
23+87.57 ~ GB
FG 184.13 1 INCH = 60 FEET 0 30 60 120 1 INCH = 100 FEET 0 50 100 200 6933.00 Hamilton Avenue/ Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing The Souther Route Alternative 00+ 00 APPENDIX A1 Item 9.1

R R R R R R R R
NB
17 ONLY 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 10' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 5' 11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' SALMAR Ave NB ROUTE 17
SB ROUTE 17 E HAMILTON Ave 12' 22+84 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' CREEKSIDE Way 11' EXISTING MEDIAN

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W

ELEVATION
ELEVATION STATION PROFILE VIEW OF BP LINE 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 -4.50% 4.50% 4.74% PVI STA = 12+37.13 PVI EL = 199.76 A.D. = -9.00 K = 11.11 BVC 11+87.13 FG 197.51 EVC 12+87.13 FG 197.51 12+37.12 HP 198.64 100.00' VC PVI STA = 18+83.02 PVI EL = 170.70 A.D. 9.24 K = 5.41 BVC 18+58.02 FG 171.82 EVC 19+08.02 FG 171.88 18+82.38
LP 171.27
10+00.00 ~ GB
FG 189.10 50.00' VC
21+86.50 ~ GB
FG 185.07 1 INCH = 60 FEET 0 30 60 120 1 INCH = 100 FEET 0 50 100 200 6933.00 / / 08.21.2025 The Campbell Loop Alternative Hamilton Avenue/ Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing 00++ 00 APPENDIX A2

R R R R R R R R
SALMAR Ave
NB ROUTE 17
SB ROUTE 17 E HAMILTON Ave NB
17 ONLY 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 5' 5' 11' 11' 11' 12' 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 15+35 CREEKSIDE Way 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 12' EXISTING MEDIAN

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W

ELEVATION
ELEVATION STATION PROFILE VIEW OF BP LINE 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 -4.50% 4.36% PVI STA = 11+98.49 PVI EL = 197.76 A.D. = -8.86 K = 8.46 BVC 11+60.99 FG 196.12 EVC 12+35.99 11+97.91 FG 196.07 HP 196.93 75.00' VC
10+00.00 ~ GB
FG 189.10
15+35.20 ~ GB
FG 182.61 1 INCH = 80 FEET 0 40 80 160 1 INCH = 60 FEET 0 30 60 120 6933.00 / / 08.21.2025 The Straight Shot Alternative Hamilton Avenue/ Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing 00++ 00 APPENDIX A3

R R R R R R R R
SALMAR Ave
NB ROUTE 17
SB ROUTE 17 E HAMILTON Ave E HAMILTON Ave CREEKSIDE Way VTA LRT 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' NB17 ONLY EXISTING MEDIAN

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W

CITY R/W
CALTRANS R/W 1 INCH = 60 FEET 0 30 60 120 6933.00 / / 08.21.2025 The Minimalist Alternative Hamilton Avenue/ Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing APPENDIX A4

REGNART CREEK TRAIL

APPENDICES
A. COST ESTIMATES
B. ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS
C. PROPERTY RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
D. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS &COMMENTS
E. TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
45 |

ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS

PROPERTY

PUBLIC OUTREACH

RIGHTS DOC

MEMOS &COMMENTS

APPENDIX C

VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY

COMMUNICATIONS MEMO

VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SURVEY RESULTS
D.

ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS APPENDIX B APPENDIX B
B1. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY
B2. COMMUNICATIONS MEMO
B3. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SURVEY RESULTS
B4. ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
B1. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY AND SURVEY RESULTS B2. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS & COMMENTS
B3. ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
B1. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY
B2. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS
B3. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING SURVEY RESULTS
B4. ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 204 of 283
1 City of Campbell: Hamilton Ave-SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Virtual Community Meeting Summary
Thursday, November 13, 6 p.m.

Overview
The City of Campbell’s Hamilton Ave-SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study is seeking to improve bicycle and pedestrian access on Hamilton Avenue over Highway 17. This study will develop potential concepts for a raised pathway over SR 17 for people of all ages and abilities to feel more comfortable while walking, rolling, and biking, and improve connectivity to destinations across the City.

This community meeting was designed for the public to learn more about the feasibility study and provide input about design alternatives. Community members had the opportunity to share their feedback and ask questions about the study.

Meeting Notification
The City promoted the second community workshop in a variety of ways, including its social media and website, a newsletter, and flyers handed out at a community event.

Meeting Summary
The second community meeting took place on Thursday, November 13 at 6 p.m. via Zoom. There were six people in attendance. The meeting featured a presentation providing an overview of the study, its background and goals, a recap of previous engagement efforts and how they informed alternatives, information on each overcrossing design alternative and its alignment. There were opportunities for community input throughout via polling and a Q&A session.

During the facilitated discussions, attendees were asked:
- What alternative would you be more supportive of?
- What structure option do you prefer?
A summary of the feedback received is provided below.

What alternative would you be more supportive of? #
Southern Route 5
Campbell Loop 1
The majority of attendees preferred the Southern Route. When asked why, several commented that they preferred this option because they found it to have more separation from cars, be the easier grade option, and liked that it avoids the freeway on-ramps.

APPENDIX B1
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 205 of 283
2 What structure option do you prefer? #
Box Girder 3
Steel Truss 3
Network Tied Arch 0
Community members were split on whether they preferred the Box Girder or Steel Truss option, while no one preferred the Network Tied Arch option. When asked why they preferred each option, attendees expressed that they would prefer any overcrossing over the current circumstances, which factored into why they selected the Box Girder option. However, attendees agreed that if the budget can accommodate it, they aesthetically prefer the Steel Truss option. Attendees said they did not select the Network Tied Arch option due to increased cost and maintenance.

Questions about the feasibility study were related to what maintenance means for overcrossings, and how the overcrossing will be tied in with larger planning initiatives that work to understand active transportation as a complete journey. Attendees also asked if the destination of community members is being considered when building out the proposed plan.

To complement the recording of the meeting and allow people who couldn’t tune in live to learn more about each alternative and share input, a brief survey asking the same questions as the interactive polling and discussion questions was offered online. There were 10 respondents, and results are summarized below.

What alternative would you be more supportive of? #
Southern Route 7
Campbell Loop 3
Online survey respondents also favored the Southern Route for similar reasons as to the meeting attendees, including avoiding conflict with traffic, a flatter grade, and the more direct route.

What structure option do you prefer? #
Box Girder 6
Steel Truss 2
Network Tied Arch 1
A majority of respondents (66%) preferred the Box Girder structure option, citing that it matched existing aesthetics in the area and its lower cost.

Next Steps
The feasibility study will be finalized in December 2025 and presented to the city council in January 2026. If the city council authorizes the project and funding becomes available, a timeline for the design and construction of the overcrossing will be created.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 206 of 283
1 Hamilton Avenue-SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing
Feasibility Study
Communications Memo
Project Overview
The City of Campbell’s Hamilton Avenue-SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study will evaluate how best to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility and connectivity on Hamilton Avenue over Highway (State Route) 17. Study goals include:
• Evaluate existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and travel patterns • Develop and study feasibility of overcrossing alternatives and assess their impacts • Determine preferred alternative to move forward with into Caltrans approval process and final design
Engagement Approach
The primary goal of engagement is to gather input about community needs and priorities for a bicycle overcrossing over SR 17. Using a variety of communication channels and a thoughtful outreach strategy, the project team will create meaningful engagement opportunities for people traveling to and from destinations near the study area. Our engagement approach will emphasize those who are traditionally underrepresented in planning processes, including Equity Priority Communities west of Hamilton Avenue, older adults, and people with disabilities.

Public engagement is proposed to take place in the following two phases:
• Phase 1 (January – February 2025)
o The first phase of engagement will introduce the project and assess community perceptions of bicycle and pedestrian accessibility as well as other priorities and desired project outcomes. Community feedback will inform the selection criteria and design of the draft alternatives.
• Phase 2 (May 2025)
o The second phase of engagement will present feasible draft alternatives to the community for review and input on architectural treatments and structure types.

Community feedback will inform the selection of the preferred alternative.

Target Audiences
Target audiences for this Alternatives Analysis include people who live, work or travel near the Hamilton Ave-SR 17 study area, particularly those who walk, bike, and roll. Throughout the Feasibility Study, communication efforts will target audiences including the Equity Priority Community west of Hamilton Avenue; older adults; and others (e.g., non-English speakers, people with disabilities).

APPENDIX B2
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 207 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 1 / 7

70.00% 7

30.00% 3
Q1 What alternative would you be more supportive of?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The Southern
Route
The Campbell
Loop

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
The Southern Route
The Campbell Loop
APPENDIX B3
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 208 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 2 / 7
Q2 What do you like about the Southern Route?
Answered: 8 Skipped: 2
# RESPONSES DATE
1 A bit more "scenic" is there potential to connect to the development on the old Fry's site so you could travel south to Campbell Downtown easier.
11/24/2025 7:41 AM
2 More separation from Hamilton noise and an opportunity to create a new Campbell landmark. I would like to see something with a similar presence to what that bridge is in Cupertino, where the community has a lot of pride in the bridge. The southern option gives the city a chance to build an aesthetically pleasing bridge that matches Campbell's character and welcomes folks to the City. It would also be a much more enjoyable bridge to walk and bike. A loop would be annoying and dangerous at corners where bikers would speed down hill, not pay attention, and hit oncoming walkers. 30 years from now, when Fry's has housing on it, the southern bridge will be the bridge the community is glad to have chosen. The southern route also gives walkers a view of the light rail and would just be more enjoyable. I would take a longer, more enjoyable trip over a shorter, more irritating one.
11/13/2025 5:04 PM
3 Avoids southbound on-ramp traffic 11/13/2025 4:57 PM
4 No conflicts with traffic, looks like a safer and more pleasant bike route. 11/5/2025 7:53 PM 5 The Flatter Grades, the Loop concerns me 11/5/2025 10:07 AM 6 more direct for bikes, less up/down/stairs for walking, no freeway lane crossings 11/3/2025 4:02 PM 7 I forgot to add this to my submission: It would be amazing if there was a way to connect the neighborhood at the end of Poplar avenue, even with just a walking path. It's very hard to access.
10/29/2025 2:46 PM
8 I like that it is less steep and does not cross any traffic onramp lanes with highway 17 10/29/2025 2:38 PM Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 209 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 3 / 7
Q3 What do you dislike about the Southern Route?
Answered: 8 Skipped: 2
# RESPONSES DATE
1 too far away from traffic, allowing homelessness and vagrants 12/4/2025 8:45 AM 2 The southern route appear to have one less conflict crossing near Salamar, that is appealing, but it's really not convenient. Four signalized crossings if you are going WB on Hamilton, really really slows your route. I think it would be cheaper to square up the Caltrans off ramps, then construct the bridge. This would slow cars entering the freeway and make the crossing slower and safer.
11/24/2025 7:41 AM
3 Nothing 11/13/2025 5:04 PM
4 Longer (but not so long that it pushes me toward the Campbell Loop option) 11/13/2025 4:57 PM 5 Looks like it could be made slightly shorter? 11/5/2025 7:53 PM 6 As a cyclist, honestly nothing, I like that I don't have to interact with cars at any point and the flatter grade and straighter route (as opposed to the loop) make it easy to navigate. 11/5/2025 10:07 AM
7 walking distance is longer 11/3/2025 4:02 PM
8 I wish that the southern route had provisions for direct access to the Fry's redevelopment site and the VTA light rail station. These areas could and should be really efficiently connected, with a staircase/direct ramp access to Fry's and a second station entrance in the southwest end of the station (Which also reduces distance for people coming from west of 17) 10/29/2025 2:38 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 210 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 4 / 7
Q4 What do you like about the Campbell Loop?
Answered: 8 Skipped: 2
# RESPONSES DATE
1 less likely to encourage crime 12/4/2025 8:45 AM
2 It's a similar design to the De La Cruz interchange, it's proven. Could this be connected to the existing bridge deck and save costs?
11/24/2025 7:41 AM
3 Nothing 11/13/2025 5:04 PM
4 Shorter 11/13/2025 4:57 PM
5 Nothing. 11/5/2025 7:53 PM
6 I do like that it's shorter 11/5/2025 10:07 AM
7 walking distance is shorter, but maybe not as much time shorter counting crossing light wait time
11/3/2025 4:02 PM
8 This route is slightly shorter for through pedestrians on Hamilton, but compromises safety. It is a false choice to pick the most direct route anyway because pedestrians would wait longer at the signals.
10/29/2025 2:38 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 211 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 5 / 7
Q5 What do you dislike about the Campbell Loop?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 3
# RESPONSES DATE
1 I strongly reccomend finding space for a two way cycle track all the way to Bascom on the southside of Hamilton to make this a viable option. The three crossings points near Salamar really slow this down for people on bikes and will discourage use. Likely that bike priority could not be provided at that intersection because of the Freeway. 11/24/2025 7:41 AM
2 The loop seems unsafe based on my experience with other overcrossings like the ones over 280 because they’re steep and feel dangerous, especially when you encounter a cyclist coming the opposite way.It would blend too much with the existing bridge over Hamilton, and there wouldn't be any meaningful opportunities to create a gateway infrastructure that the City would be proud of. I want the new bridge to be something I’d actually seek out and enjoy using.

I live off Hamilton and usually walk to downtown by taking Bascom to Campbell. If there were an iconic bridge like the southern one I would stay on Hamilton and use Salmar 11/13/2025 5:04 PM
3 People must still cross in front of on-ramp traffic 11/13/2025 4:57 PM 4 Looks like a death trap. An accident waiting to happen. 11/5/2025 7:53 PM 5 The loop and the steeper grades! 11/5/2025 10:07 AM
6 less safe 11/3/2025 4:02 PM
7 I dislike the tunnel which could end up being dark at night and an unintended refuge for homeless (which has already happened at campbell ave underpass of 17), I dislike the steep slopes and traffic crossing lane, I dislike the tight turns required for bikes which would slow things down.
10/29/2025 2:38 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 212 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 6 / 7

66.67% 6

22.22% 2

11.11% 1
Q6 Please review each of the pedestrian overcrossing structure types and aesthetics, and the summary of the pros and cons for each. What structure option would you prefer?
Answered: 9 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Two-Span
Concrete Box
Girder
Single-Span
Steel Truss
Single-Span
Steel Network
Tied Arch

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Two-Span Concrete Box Girder
Single-Span Steel Truss
Single-Span Steel Network Tied Arch
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 213 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Meeting Survey 7 / 7
Q7 Why did you choose the option you did?
Answered: 8 Skipped: 2
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Let's Campbell be known on the map! Nice bridge design! 12/4/2025 8:46 AM 2 Zero point to invest more in a truss or arch at this location. 11/24/2025 7:42 AM 3 because it better matches the existing railroad bridge. Id choose option 3 if the railroad didnt exist
11/13/2025 5:08 PM
4 1. It matches our general freeway look. It may not be a statement, but I don't think it looks bad. Also, sometimes statement architecture tends to age in a way that just looks out of date.

2. Costs less to build and maintain. 3. I don't think I fully understand the downside of a permanent column in the freeway median.
11/13/2025 5:05 PM
5 Seems most practical option 11/5/2025 7:57 PM
6 I think the Tied Arch, while aesthetic, is a bit much. The Steel Truss is appropriately aesthetic, I believe the Steel fits in better to the Campbell Aesthetic, and believe it is worth the additional cost to avoid building into the highway & falsework. Personally I am tired of concrete structures and think we deserve spaces to walk that are also aesthetic. I believe the additional maintenance forces us to take care of our spaces.
11/5/2025 1:48 PM
7 most cost effective and it looks fine. Would rather more infrastructure for the same money rather than spend more to make a fancier bridge
11/3/2025 4:03 PM
8 I really want this project to happen, so I selected the cheapest option. The Single-Span Steel Truss image looks the best out of these three but I know the Concrete bridge could be made to look nice, I think there is one like that in mountain view. 10/29/2025 2:39 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 214 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 1 / 24
Q1 Please rank the aspects of a bicycle/ pedestrian facility that you consider most important. (Toggle the options on the left, or click the drop down menu to rank your order of preferences)
Answered: 426 Skipped: 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Minimize
distance
traveled...

Ease of use
Safety
Connectivity/Ea
se of access
(to bikeways...

Minimizing cost
Minimizing
environmental
impacts
Minimizing
number of
potential...

Physical
separation from
vehicles
Minimize
acquisition of
private...

Direct access
to Light Rail
Station/ Los...

APPENDIX B4
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 215 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 2 / 24

5.87%
25 7.75%
33 7.51%
32 12.44%
53 11.97%
51 15.26%
65 19.72%
84 9.62%
41 5.16%
22 4.69%
20 42

10.80%
46 17.37%
74 16.43%
70 18.08%
77 15.49%
66 12.44%
53 6.57%
28 1.88%
8 0.70%
3 0.23%
1 42

51.88%
221

15.73%
67 13.38%
57 7.98%
34 6.34%
27 2.35%
10 1.41%
6 0.23%
1 0.70%
3 0.00%
0 42

5.40%
23 11.50%
49 18.54%
79 23.24%
99 18.78%
80 12.68%
54 5.63%
24 2.35%
10 1.17%
5 0.70%
3 42

3.05%
13 2.58%
11 1.88%
8 2.58%
11 8.69%
37 10.80%
46 14.08%
60 22.54%
96 20.89%
89 12.91%
55 42

0.70%
3 0.70%
3 3.05%
13 3.76%
16 6.57%
28 13.85%
59 18.54%
79 26.06%
111

18.78%
80 7.98%
34 42

7.04%
30 23.24%
99 16.20%
69 12.91%
55 9.86%
42 7.98%
34 12.44%
53 6.10%
26 3.29%
14 0.94%
4 42

9.15%
39 15.26%
65 15.96%
68 10.09%
43 10.09%
43 8.45%
36 9.15%
39 12.91%
55 7.04%
30 1.88%
8 42

1.41%
6 2.11%
9 0.70%
3 0.23%
1 0.47%
2 1.64%
7 2.58%
11 10.09%
43 30.99%
132

49.77%
212 42

4.69%
20 3.76%
16 6.34%
27 8.69%
37 11.74%
50 14.55%
62 9.86%
42 8.22%
35 11.27%
48 20.89%
89 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTA
Minimize distance
traveled (length of
facility)
Ease of use
Safety
Connectivity/Ease
of access (to
bikeways,
services,
residential areas,
schools)
Minimizing cost
Minimizing
environmental
impacts
Minimizing
number of
potential conflicts
with motorized
vehicles
Physical
separation from
vehicles
Minimize
acquisition of
private property
Direct access to
Light Rail Station/
Los Gatos Creek
Trail
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 216 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 3 / 24
Q2 Use this space to add any additional aspects of bicycle/pedestrian facilities you'd like to be considered:

Answered: 107 Skipped: 320
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Not sharing the path with the gutter like on Campbell Ave. 3/12/2025 8:09 PM 2 Smooth safe paths 3/11/2025 11:11 PM
3 Do not make protected lanes unless you have specific equipment to clean the narrow protected lanes.
3/11/2025 5:04 PM
4 Given the congestion and the freeway ramps, this is a dangerous area. A solution is needed. 3/11/2025 4:27 PM 5 I’m very happy that this is being considered seriously. Hamilton Ave. is extremely busy with auto / bus / truck traffic, and it needs to become a more bicycle-friendly & pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. Connections that facilitate access to the Hamilton light rail station are essential since the station otherwise exists on an “island” with very poor accessibility right now. 3/11/2025 2:03 PM
6 Actually separated bike lanes, not just paint and bumper ticklers 3/11/2025 11:44 AM 7 The City should ensure that any future project will be utilized by bicycle riders, as many bike lanes are not used. The cost of installing bike infrastructure is often high compared to the relative usage. Further, ongoing maintenance by the PW department should be budgeted for using realistic numbers and accounting for inflation.
3/11/2025 11:39 AM
8 Redesigning horrendous intersection when exiting 17N at Hamilton. Hazardous to vehicles peds and bikes. Improving entrance to creek trail on Hamilton 3/11/2025 9:40 AM
9 Cleaning, it must be kept clean of all debris daily. One of the problems of bike lanes is that they aren’t swept clean by cars so they quickly become dangerous. The same happens with bike overpasses. Bikes and pedestrians should not be able to mix. The bike overpass should only be useable by bikes; no pedestrians, no skateboarders, no scooters, bicycles ONLY. 3/11/2025 7:56 AM
10 I feel like if you make connectivity/ease of access, and minimize vehicle conflicts the safety and ease of use will be there naturally.
3/10/2025 8:30 PM
11 Preferred location would be a 2nd pedestrian crossing between 280 and Hamilton ave exit. Do Not interrupt any traffic at Hamilton and 17. Already a terrible exit from freeway. 3/10/2025 6:43 PM
12 Don’t remove traffic lanes for vehicles or congestion will suffer even more 3/10/2025 5:32 PM 13 Just do it. Biking is very important as a means of transportation for a great variety of reasons 3/10/2025 3:33 PM 14 "No right turn" on red for all vehicles in all directions. Minimize the "right hooking" of cyclists.

For all traffic intersections, allow pedestrians ample time to cross in any direction by having red light in all directions. Separate traffic movement from pedestrian movement by having pedestrian only signal lights. Vehicles have red signal in all directions allowing pedestrians to cross safely.
3/10/2025 12:53 PM
15 More safety for bikers. Cars don't stop and yield to bikers 3/10/2025 12:06 PM 16 I don’t think a bicycle pass is needed. It is a waste of money. 3/10/2025 8:05 AM 17 Hopefully the City makes the bike lane the legal width, unlike just about all the bike lanes they already have which are under the minimum width.
3/10/2025 6:18 AM
18 There needs to be a separation of cars and mikes/pedestrians. This area is a complete hazard. 3/9/2025 8:53 PM 19 don't take away any lanes to accomplish this. Already congested on Hamilton 3/9/2025 11:32 AM 20 Needs to feel safe day and night 3/9/2025 8:03 AM
21 No intervention to any up coming vehicle traffic. 3/9/2025 6:51 AM Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 217 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 4 / 24
22 Safer cycling infrastructure will increase bike use and decrease traffic congestion by reducing the number of cars. Normalize active mobility.
3/8/2025 9:18 PM
23 crazy traffic area, too dangerous. 3/8/2025 2:42 PM
24 Minimize disruption to flow of traffic. Emphasis should be place on maximizing efficiency of car traffic movement. Anything that interferes with the current flow should not be considered, only options to improve the flow.
3/8/2025 1:06 PM
25 Get it done! 3/8/2025 12:27 PM
26 The interchange is just dangerous for bikes and peds. Big time. A POC isn’t a bad idea to get bikes and peds out of the area. Calma court to behind the Kohls. El Patio Drive to the other side of the trail to connect it. Maybe a POC that follows the light rail for better connection. The EB Hamilton to NB loop crosswalk is particularly dangerous. Drivers are speeding up without expecting peds as they enter the on-ramp. Flashing beacons aren’t a bad idea for that crosswalk. Also that loop needs the second lane opened up so that two lanes come off Hamilton for vehicles. It seems like it was just forgotten to be stripped correctly off Hamilton? You have a 2 lane ramp that can only be realistically used as 1 lane. If you read this and my ideas get implemented I’m going to be impressed. :)
3/8/2025 9:47 AM
27 I don’t ever feel safe riding a bicycle on Hamilton Avenue. Connections should be made to creek trails not busy roads with freeway exits and entrances 3/7/2025 10:13 PM
28 Why would you build an overdressing here??? No one bikes on Hamilton Avenue. It is way too busy and unsafe. You either get on the creek trail at the end of Willow St (off Meridian by the school) or use Campbell Ave to get on in Campbell. Focus on making Campbell crossings of Leigh and Bascom more bike friendly
3/7/2025 12:46 PM
29 Signage and enforcements 3/7/2025 12:06 AM
30 It'd be nice to at least avoid the traffic between central ave and creekside. 3/6/2025 10:07 PM 31 Avoid the use of wooden bridges like the ones on parts of Los Gatos Creek trail, they are very slippery when wet. I've fallen on them on my bike and foot. Better wayfinding signs, and bikeways that connect without leaving people wondering where to go next when the trail suddenly ends. Wide enough to accommodate bikes and pedestrians. 3/6/2025 9:49 PM
32 Don't. Just dont. 3/6/2025 7:17 PM
33 Improving bike and pedestrian ways, along with better public transit is the only way the public will embrace the necessary denser housing. If people can get around safely and quickly, they will be more open to dense housing.
3/6/2025 7:06 PM
34 Safety is most important. Pedestrian crossing on Hamilton across 17 entrance is only a matter of time until someone dies. Very dangerous, drivers usually in a hurry getting onto 17, even if first car stops they can get rear ended by inattentive drivers. Infrastructure that doesn’t lead anywhere is useless. As a driver and bicycle commuter it’s safer to have a bike lane so that cars can pass without changing lanes. This decreases driver frustration, because being a car driving behind a cyclist sucks. Frustrated drivers become reckless to pass, which is dangerous to everyone on the road
3/6/2025 5:39 PM
35 Thank you for trying to improve bike safety. Alternative transportation is important. 3/6/2025 4:53 PM 36 Anything to improve the current situation is welcomed. As a cyclist, I will go miles out of the way to avoid crossing Highway 17 on Hamilton ave given the current situation that exists 3/6/2025 12:45 PM
37 Make crossing Leigh at Campbell safe with light and you don't need to do this project 3/6/2025 12:32 PM 38 Ensure it doesn’t become just another homeless encampment 3/6/2025 6:01 AM 39 I can’t imagine how you can do this. It’s a terrible traffic area. 3/5/2025 11:32 PM 40 Use resources such as project zero and Silicon Valley bicycle collation that use updated guidance standards. Watch videos of how the Netherlands gives bicycles automatically the green light when it has to cross or be near vehicles. Consider adjustment to the under crossing on the Lis Gatos Creek trail. It is dark,blind,and too steep. 3/5/2025 10:10 PM
41 We really need more interconnected bike routes in the south bay. 3/5/2025 9:44 PM Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 218 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 5 / 24
42 Keep up the good work and projects 3/5/2025 9:38 PM
43 Well lit and marked 3/5/2025 7:17 PM
44 Some of these seems redundant like safety and minimizing conflicts with vehicles + separation, etc. They’re all safety.
3/5/2025 4:56 PM
45 We really need better bike access! 3/5/2025 4:17 PM
46 Separate pathway. Too many pedestrians and bicycles cross at the highway entrance. Plus that 1/2 stretch is terrible with Home Depot
3/5/2025 3:20 PM
47 Thereare already side walks there and bikes are SUPPOSED to follow the rules of the road.

Better lane markings and signage would help. Possible crosswalk signal flashers at the ramp crossings. Lane deliniators to avoid cars cutting across at the last second. 3/5/2025 12:36 PM
48 Safety is very important especially at such a chaotic area 3/5/2025 10:53 AM 49 I'd like it to be safe enough to send my kid across it. I don't feel safe crossing it as a grown adult on foot or by bike right now.
3/5/2025 8:08 AM
50 Easy to understand signage or pillars for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians will make it more navigable. Disability and limited mobility friendly design (everything from Blind to wheel chair user).
3/5/2025 1:13 AM
51 . 3/4/2025 11:59 PM
52 Whatever can attract people out of their cars is a good idea. 3/4/2025 11:44 PM 53 Hamilton is not safe to bike on period… making one over crossing at 17 is only going to put more people on this road to be subjected to in attentive speeding motorists…. It would be a death trap. Unless there is something like an elevated bike Bridge from Bascom to San Tomas it’s it’s not worth it…
3/4/2025 11:02 PM
54 Ayudaría a muchos niños y jóvenes estudiantes a acortar distancia desde y hacia la escuela. 3/4/2025 8:10 PM 55 More trees 3/4/2025 4:56 PM
56 Ham Ave is a horrible cycling corridor as is Campbell Ave. These roads need dedicated bike lanes with physical barriers.
3/4/2025 4:48 PM
57 Campbell police substation and clean and maintaned public bathrooms 3/4/2025 3:20 PM 58 Enough with these unused bicycle routes. This is the USA, not Europe. Fix the roads. Time traffic lights. Reduce traffic fatalities.
3/4/2025 2:35 PM
59 I’m concerning about safety route that intersection has a hight level of traffic, is scary and dangerous walking by or rite a bike.
3/4/2025 1:19 PM
60 The onramps to 17 are highly and aggressively used. The Hamann Park pedestrian bridge and Campbell Ave are far safer. I ride 150m/wk and will never use Hamilton. 3/4/2025 10:38 AM
61 Downtown Campbell needs a better bike network to connect it with the VTA lighrail 3/4/2025 9:50 AM 62 The City of Campbell should worry about more important matters. 3/4/2025 8:53 AM 63 Keeping the community and neighbors informed and active participants/partners. Minimize outside influences.
3/4/2025 4:52 AM
64 Just don’t have bicycles trying to ride down Hamilton with the cars. That area is insane, and reducing the rate of traffic flow to bring bicycles into the mix would be painful. 3/4/2025 12:14 AM
65 Minimize slope 3/3/2025 10:23 PM
66 having a Dedicatedbike lane/ Pedestrian crossway on this specific road Would help ease traffic, flow and protect pedestrians and cyclist from danger. 3/3/2025 8:37 PM
67 Safe and easy access from the Los Gatos Creek Trail to Hamilton is key. A bike lane on Bascom near the creek trail entrance would also help access a lot. 3/3/2025 8:16 PM
68 Make the marking easy to navigate 3/3/2025 7:47 PM
69 Can’t think of anything. 3/3/2025 7:25 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 219 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 6 / 24
70 A similar overpass that is north of the CA17 and CA85 interchange would be a great design for this
3/3/2025 3:28 PM
71 I think this is a great plan. I see this feasible. 2/25/2025 10:42 PM 72 noise level 2/22/2025 9:53 PM
73 Making a right from Salmar invites conflicts with westbound pedestrians because drivers only look left. Offramp across the street alleviates this with pedestrian island. 2/20/2025 8:54 PM
74 Hamilton is extremely busy street, many times cars are merging last minute to get onto the 17 North on ramp
2/17/2025 12:16 PM
75 where there are physical barriers, the bike lanes are not swept of debris, resulting in cyclist riding in traffic to prevent flats. Please regularly street-sweep the separated bike lanes 2/17/2025 11:31 AM
76 I’m a Campbell resident. I regularly ride a bike through Campbell. I personally think the bike access and facilities are awful.
2/16/2025 11:53 AM
77 I would prefer a longer route that is better connected to existing infrastructure and better separated from vehicle traffic over a shorter one.
2/14/2025 1:34 PM
78 Still works and is safe/pleasant to use at night and in rain 2/13/2025 11:34 AM 79 The most important would be to separate car and bike/pedestrian traffic and connection to existing pathways. There’s no point in a protected path if I am going to be hit by a motorist trying to get to the path.
2/13/2025 9:38 AM
80 A divided access lane separate from cars is the most ideal. 2/13/2025 8:24 AM 81 If the path goes parallel or intersects motor vehicles, make it easy for motorists to see and difficult to cross over (i.e. lights, physical barriers, pillars) 2/12/2025 11:33 PM
82 I live in downtown Campbel, ride my bike often, and would love to have more options to cross or avoid some of the wider/busier/ faster roads.
2/12/2025 9:01 PM
83 separating bikes from pedestrians is great. separating bikes and pedestrians from cars is amazing
2/12/2025 2:37 PM
84 I cross this path on foot/bicycle often as well as drive it nearly daily. It's terrifying, both as a driver and not. Much too much room for error merging onto 17 esp going Eastbound on Hamilton. This is great that the city is looking for better solutions. 2/12/2025 11:35 AM
85 The entire Hamilton Ave./Salmar Ave./Highway17 intersection is a complete nightmare. It's one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. The lanes are hard to read and people cut over to get into the right highway on ramp lane, too late and too dangerously. Highway 17 acts like a river cutting through the city, and it only has a few crossing points, which act as bottlenecks for traffic. Campbell Ave is the same way.
2/12/2025 11:26 AM
86 Ramp access to the LG Creek Trail from Hamilton seems like a prudent first step; even though there is a nearby access point on Bascom there is still an issue for northbound cyclists/pedestrians coming from the Pruneyard that may be oblivious to trail access on Campisi.
2/12/2025 8:21 AM
87 Biking in San Jose / Campbell is so scary with the way people drive. If we had more physically separate routes for bikers (like extending the sidewalk a bit and making the bike lane elevated) I would turn most of my errands into bike trips from car trips 2/12/2025 8:03 AM
88 complex freeway onramp with many speeding cars trying to squeeze in is no place for pedestrians or bikes, this is never safe, face the truth. 2/12/2025 7:14 AM
89 Slow down vehicles at any crossings 2/12/2025 7:02 AM 90 To me the most important thing is that it doesn’t interrupt the flow of biking, i.e if I have to stop or get off my bike I’m much less likely to use it.
2/12/2025 3:24 AM
91 Whatever you build-- please hop on a bike and ride over it during rush hour when it's done 2/12/2025 1:09 AM 92 Road, path quality. Cars can drive on poor surfaces, but bikes can’t. 2/12/2025 12:05 AM 93 Proper separation from vehicles 2/11/2025 11:58 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 220 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 7 / 24
94 As a pedestrian it’s not uncommon to get honked at by cars. Just make those 4 access points really slow for cars.
2/11/2025 11:13 PM
95 Separate bike lane between the second and first lane from the left (dividing roadway similar to bike lane in Camden that goes under the 17)
2/11/2025 10:59 PM
96 I bike less because there are too many close calls with cars on the roads. 2/11/2025 10:09 PM 97 No matter the type of crossing, it should be visible to traffic, have lighting for pedestrians and bikes, be wide enough to walk at LEAST 2 people side by side comfortably (6ft+ if sidewalk, 10ft+if standalone bridge). Please do not make it as steep as the crossing from Downing/Westfield, it is tough to get across at times.
2/11/2025 9:55 PM
98 Protected bike lanes are proven to work in protecting the biker, pedestrian and driver. 2/11/2025 9:54 PM 99 The bike lane in question is dangerous and disruptive 2/11/2025 9:42 PM 100 left turn boxes, or accomodations for left turns via bike 2/11/2025 8:43 PM 101 A lot of these are redundant (eg safety, minimizing interaction with vehicles, and physical separation are all basically the same) Make it easy and practical to use, easy to maintain, and safe from dangerous cars and you’re good to go
2/11/2025 8:39 PM
102 For the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster, please do NOT install anything that prevents street sweepers from sweeping the bike lanes… San Jose has been installing those stupid bollards all over the place. When the bike lanes are unusable due to the debris, we are left without choice but to ride in traffic. And it sucks. I do upwards of 20k miles per year on the bike and can attest to the fact that the “protected” bike lanes are trash when they can’t be swept. 2/11/2025 8:35 PM
103 Health 2/11/2025 8:28 PM
104 I prefer to use a bike for local travels (within Campbell) if it's safe and doesn't take too long. 2/11/2025 8:21 PM 105 With the rise of the e-bike it is an inevitable need. Please do it now, it won’t get cheaper & we’ll be able to enjoy it sooner.
2/11/2025 8:21 PM
106 This would be a great, but very expensive, project for Campbell. My 2 cents is that, first, the adjacent sections of Hamilton must be made far safer for bikes, and pedestrians. Really would require eliminating street parking and getting a bike lane well separated from traffic, if at all possible.
2/8/2025 4:56 PM
107 Aesthetics! 2/8/2025 9:29 AM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 221 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 8 / 24

51.09% 210

33.33% 137

9.49% 39

6.08% 25
Q3 How would you describe yourself as a bicyclist?
Answered: 411 Skipped: 16
TOTAL 411
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Advanced or
experienced
rider
Intermediate
rider
Beginner or
less confident
rider
I do not ride
a bike

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Advanced or experienced rider
Intermediate rider
Beginner or less confident rider
I do not ride a bike
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 222 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 9 / 24

46.38% 186

64.84% 260

59.10% 237

1.75% 7

22.19% 89

66.08% 265

18.95% 76

13.47% 54
Q4 Where do you typically travel when going over Highway 17 along Hamilton Ave.? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 401 Skipped: 26
Total Respondents: 401
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Home 3/13/2025 11:44 AM
2 Lynnhaven ave 3/12/2025 9:45 PM
3 Leisure riding in general area from my house in SJ 3/12/2025 8:24 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hamilton Plaza
(where Whole
Foods is...

The Pruneyard
Shopping Center
Downtown
Campbell
Rosemary
Elementary
School
Shopping /
services west
of Highway 17
Los Gatos
Creek Trail
VTA Hamilton
Light Rail
Station
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Hamilton Plaza (where Whole Foods is located) and surrounding shopping centers The Pruneyard Shopping Center
Downtown Campbell
Rosemary Elementary School
Shopping / services west of Highway 17
Los Gatos Creek Trail
VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station
Other (please specify)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 223 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 10 / 24
4 Our home 3/11/2025 8:08 PM
5 Work commute across campbell 3/11/2025 11:48 AM
6 All the above as I ride for fun, commuting and other purpose activities. Any bike over pass needs to support average speeds of at least 15 miles/hr. 3/11/2025 8:00 AM
7 I avoid using Hamilton over SR17. 3/10/2025 9:19 PM
8 Willow Glen 3/10/2025 7:15 PM
9 Maryjane hamann park 3/10/2025 6:48 PM
10 Campbell Library 3/10/2025 12:54 PM
11 Campbell Community Center 3/10/2025 12:39 PM
12 Avoid this route. Prefer to bike along Los Gatos trail. 3/10/2025 8:06 AM 13 but I go there directly. No one bikes on Hamilton Ave after Meridian Ave. 3/7/2025 12:47 PM 14 Going over to Bascom ave to head towards my home. 3/7/2025 11:14 AM 15 To work 3/6/2025 5:39 PM
16 Never have 3/6/2025 2:21 PM
17 I leave my home in WG to cycle up the peninsula 3/6/2025 12:46 PM 18 I don’t travel on Hamilton over hwy 17-it’s too dangerous 3/5/2025 5:31 PM 19 school 3/5/2025 3:18 PM
20 I don't..it's too busy 3/5/2025 12:36 PM
21 I don't cross 17 at Hamilton because of safety issues. 3/5/2025 12:26 PM 22 The Franciscan Apartments 3/5/2025 8:08 AM
23 Mary Jane Hammond park 3/4/2025 11:03 PM
24 Home/Work 3/4/2025 10:27 PM
25 Try to avoid these surface streets. They are very unsafe. 3/4/2025 4:49 PM 26 I absolutely avoid Hamilton Ave between Meridian and Winchester 3/4/2025 3:56 PM 27 I have no need to ride a bicycle over a major freeway. There’s no utilitarian need to do that. 3/4/2025 2:37 PM 28 Los Gatos, Santana Row… 3/4/2025 10:40 AM
29 Hamilton/Meridian 3/4/2025 4:53 AM
30 I don’t bike there, tooo dangerous 3/3/2025 9:15 PM
31 My work on Bascom Ave 3/3/2025 8:17 PM
32 West side of san jose 3/3/2025 7:47 PM
33 I don't need this route on my bike. But I'm a vigilant driver and know the dangers for bikes and pedestrians
2/20/2025 8:57 PM
34 Daycare east of 17 2/20/2025 4:37 PM
35 Near the old Fry's. Scary! 2/19/2025 6:39 AM
36 I just past through, as Hamilton is one of a few East/West roads 2/18/2025 1:17 PM 37 I do not cross here because it's too dangerous. I detour to Cambell Ave. 2/17/2025 11:38 AM 38 Commuting to work from SJ to Cpto 2/17/2025 9:17 AM
39 My workplace is also located on Salmar Ave 2/15/2025 9:16 AM 40 a connection to Santana row / valley fair 2/13/2025 9:42 AM Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 224 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 11 / 24
41 If I'm in a hurry, I just take Hamilton, though it is very sketchy 2/13/2025 8:26 AM 42 To Leigh Ave. and parallel roads 2/12/2025 9:02 PM
43 Exercise, not a specific destination 2/12/2025 2:46 PM 44 dont', too dangerous, I take the car 2/12/2025 7:15 AM 45 Little Caesar’s 2/12/2025 3:25 AM
46 Home via Bascom 2/11/2025 11:24 PM
47 Campbell School of Innovation 2/11/2025 9:56 PM
48 I try to avoid going that way 2/11/2025 9:38 PM
49 Home depot 2/11/2025 8:40 PM
50 Towards downtown San Jose 2/11/2025 8:40 PM
51 Riding up the peninsula and back on hwy 1 and home. 2/11/2025 8:37 PM 52 I usually take a different route because I don't feel safe with the on and off ramps 2/11/2025 8:22 PM 53 Cycling routes in east San Jose like Mt. Hamilton 2/11/2025 8:22 PM 54 I use this intersection as seldom as possible. 2/8/2025 4:57 PM Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 225 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 12 / 24

34.10% 133

64.62% 252

67.44% 263

4.10% 16
Q5 Why do you typically travel when going over Highway 17 along Hamilton Ave.? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 390 Skipped: 37
Total Respondents: 390
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Grocery shopping. But generally I detour to Campbell ave or Los Gatos Creek Trail to avoid death or dismemberment.
3/11/2025 4:34 PM
2 See question 4 3/10/2025 9:20 PM
3 I travel along Campbell Ave because of congestion on Hamilton. Make the over crossing between Hamilton and Campbell Ave?
3/10/2025 8:36 PM
4 i would never 3/8/2025 2:44 PM
5 Too dangerous don’t take it 3/7/2025 10:19 PM
6 I don't- it would be insane. 3/7/2025 12:47 PM
7 I use Campbell Ave. 3/4/2025 3:57 PM
8 Groceries and restaurants 3/4/2025 3:23 PM
9 I don’t travel there on a bike. 3/4/2025 2:38 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commute
Recreation/Spor
t
Tasks and
Errands
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Commute
Recreation/Sport
Tasks and Errands
Other (please specify)
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 226 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 13 / 24
10 Exercise 3/4/2025 8:55 AM
11 Shopping 3/4/2025 4:55 AM
12 I avoid it like the plague. Too dangerous. 3/3/2025 11:06 PM 13 Do not go tgerey 3/3/2025 9:16 PM
14 leisure 3/3/2025 7:07 PM
15 I try to avoid it. 2/11/2025 8:38 PM
16 I've never attempted taking Hamilton over 17 - it's not safe. Would love the option. 2/11/2025 8:31 PM Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 227 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 14 / 24

84.29% 338

7.48% 30

8.23% 33
Q6 If better accommodations were available, would you consider walking or biking to destinations in this area that you currently drive to/from? Answered: 401 Skipped: 26
TOTAL 401
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
I don't know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
I don't know
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 228 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 15 / 24
Q7 Please provide any additional considerations or input about this project (optional):

Answered: 78 Skipped: 349
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Hamilton is a terrible choice for a bike lane improvement unless you're going to do the entire length from Meridian to Prospect. Make Campbell Ave better or use residential side streets like Bucknal and improve them.
3/12/2025 8:13 PM
2 We already utilize the pedestrian overpass near Hamann Park and like that it feels safe and separate from motorists
3/11/2025 10:14 PM
3 I would love to update the overpass that ties to Mary Jane park and make that accessible to bikers as well as pedestrians.
3/11/2025 9:25 PM
4 I cross 17 on Hamilton by bike a few times a year, but work hard to avoid it because it is so dangerous. it would be great to have it safer.
3/11/2025 8:10 PM
5 better safer bike ride experience would motivate less driving! 3/11/2025 7:21 PM 6 Again, Protected bike lanes seem like a great safety plan, but then they get filled with dirt, leaves, branches, trash and the cities don't have the equipment to keep them clean. You build it, you clean it, then people will use it regularly. Don't clean it, people won't use it and you'll have wasted a whole bunch of tax dollars.
3/11/2025 5:07 PM
7 While projects like this very likely carry a completion target of 8 - 10 years out (2035), I urge you to compress the target to 4 - 5 years (2030) since this is such an important improvement. 3/11/2025 2:06 PM
8 Current crossing setup is comically dangerous and has been since I was a child 3/11/2025 11:50 AM 9 The City needs to consider the current infrastructure that is aging and prioritize repairs versus new infrastructure. Of course safety is important andshould be considered, but through the lens of cost versus reward. I reiterate that cost of these projects is not just a one time investment, but cost of maintenance also needs to be considered before committing to such a project.
3/11/2025 11:44 AM
10 Addressing the intersection exiting 17N should be considered in this project 3/11/2025 9:41 AM 11 To make bicycling safer, we need to stop separating bikes from cars. We need to reduce the space for cars; reduce the existing Hamilton overpass to one lane each direction for cars and use the rest for bicycles and other non-motorized methods of transportation. Crossing over 17 should be extremely difficult and time consuming for motorized vehicles. This includes throttle capable eBikes, akooters and skateboards.
3/11/2025 8:10 AM
12 With new high density housing on Bascom, it’s important to make this easily accessible for them. They haven’t moved in yet, not completely, but I think they should have easy access to LGCT to access Pruneyard and Downtown Campbell
3/10/2025 8:36 PM
13 Better flow of traffic onto 17 and increased safety for bikers/walkers/runners (I fall into the later two) is paramount. The intersections are not safe as currently designed given the volume of motor vehicle traffic.
3/10/2025 7:18 PM
14 There are already crossings at Los Gatos creek trail and Campbell Avenue. Hwy 17 and Hamilton is a major intersection and the capacity should not be reduced for bicycles 3/10/2025 5:34 PM
15 This intersection is especially dangerous with entrance/exits from 17 at 4 points, and drivers not paying attention speeding through lights, or last second lane changes to enter 17 at the cloverleafs. Left turns onto 17 would minimize interactions. Alternatively, tunnels under the cloverleafs for pedestrian and cyclists would benefit all. Drivers making an illegal U-Turn at Hamilton/Salmar adds to the frustration as car traffic can be erratic with swerving into lanes may cause accidents. Paint the entire bike lanes green and add "separation sticks" for visual deterrent.
3/10/2025 1:02 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 229 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 16 / 24
16 Separate bikers and cars 3/10/2025 12:07 PM
17 Please don’t waste money on this project. 3/10/2025 8:06 AM 18 Bike and pedestrian lanes please! 3/10/2025 7:48 AM
19 Before the City spends money on a bike lane, maybe the engineering department for the City should actually do their job and get Hamilton Ave replaced and striped. They have been working on it for over 6 years and nothing to show for it. 3/10/2025 6:22 AM
20 crazy traffic, drivers dont get into proper lane until last min 3/8/2025 2:44 PM 21 This is needed, NOW 3/8/2025 1:19 PM
22 Work with the pruneyard to improve their traffic congestion problem 3/8/2025 12:28 PM 23 Making safer routes for cyclists and pedestrians in less car populated is more ideal than putting them in areas of high traffic and freeway exits and entrances. 3/7/2025 10:19 PM
24 Don't waste taxpayer dollars doing this when much more cost effective sensible options are available.
3/7/2025 12:47 PM
25 If cars were physically separated with barriers then I would be comfortable biking more and happy to explore more
3/7/2025 7:07 AM
26 Prioritize other modes of transportation to normalize walking, biking, and transit as alternatives to driving. Especially for distances around 5 miles. Why can't we have proper bike parking too? If we did more people would feel comfortable riding places and storing their bikes while they run an errand. Instead of worrying about their bike getting stolen. Bike Valet like at Levi's Stadium or many bike parking lots in the Netherlands makes a significant difference in the amount of riding for every day life people are willing to do. Also, slowing down the car that have zero tolerance to pedestrians and bikers. So many run the light on winchester and hacienda intersection. An intersection that connects riders and walkers to the trail. 3/6/2025 9:56 PM
27 Don't do it. 3/6/2025 7:18 PM
28 It’s exciting to see Campbell take bikes and pedestrians seriously!! 3/6/2025 7:13 PM 29 Typically use Campbell ave it would be hard to make Hamilton preferable to Campbell ave 3/6/2025 6:51 PM 30 I am much less likely to use roads in which I have to merge/share the road with cars unless I have a separate lane the whole way. If a bike lane ends and it ends and I have to merge onto the street, it’s dangerous for bikers and annoying for drivers. Any bike lane that has to cross a freeway entrance or exit is very dangerous and not worth it for me. I’ve had way too many close calls. Safer to take backroads where there are less interactions with cars. 3/6/2025 5:44 PM
31 If biking in the area was safer and physically separated from cars/motor vehicles, then I would consider biking in the area instead of driving
3/6/2025 3:51 PM
32 Campbell Ave. Already exists. Residents don't want it used as through street for cars, thus speed humps and no direct crossing of Leigh or Bascom . This is a great alternative route for cyclists and pedestrian
3/6/2025 12:34 PM
33 I am also a motorist. This area is too congested to be adding silly green painted sections and plastic sticks. It will only cause problems.
3/6/2025 7:21 AM
34 The issue with riding bike to shopping/dining is lack of bike security 3/6/2025 6:02 AM 35 I commented on the under crossing on the Los Gatos Creek trail. It it too steep,blind curve,dark and narrow. More signs of how to get to the trail in the area. Create a trail along Salamar a bike ped crossing over 17 toward light rail station. 3/5/2025 10:17 PM
36 Electric bicycles are more popular by the year 3/5/2025 9:40 PM 37 Should start with wider clearly marked bike lanes, Prospect road in Saratoga and Stevens Creek in Cupertino are excellent baseline examples
3/5/2025 8:00 PM
38 Currently there are too many speeding cars. A speed bump or two might help. 3/5/2025 7:20 PM 39 I usually avoid this overcrossing of 17,favoring Campbell Av or the pedestrian bridge because this crossing currently has too many potential conflicts with cars. 3/5/2025 6:01 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 230 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 17 / 24
40 Connection to Los Gatos Creek trail and VTA are critical, I think. 3/5/2025 4:57 PM 41 Again safety is important especially cars vs bikes and walkers. Also how to be safe from people who are unhealthy or up to go good in those areas. On Campbell Ave under 17 the walk areas have a lot of uncomfortable situations for walkers/bikers 3/5/2025 10:56 AM
42 I specifically avoid biking here, because it's insanely dangerous. Someone is going to get killed if this isn't improved.
3/5/2025 8:09 AM
43 Please look at the whole picture when it comes to making Hamilton “bike” safe… road diet is not going to stop traffic backups, it will make it worse than Camden/hillsdale 3/4/2025 11:05 PM
44 I currently detour through downtown Campbell to avoid crossing 17 on Hamilton. It adds a good 10 minutes to my commute. I would use a safer 17 crossing every day on my commute to work.
3/4/2025 10:29 PM
45 While I do not bicycle, I do walk a lot. Any chance to keep me from cars running me over would be great. The crossing over the entrances to 17 can be tricky 3/4/2025 9:38 PM
46 I’m disabled, but safety and accessibility for cyclists is important to me. 3/4/2025 6:38 PM 47 It needs to be separated from Hamilton Rd. Any intersection where pedestrians cross the roadway is unsafe, even if it were in a crosswalk or protected by a traffic signal. Consider building a pathway using the light rail property/Hwy corridor and a pedestrian bridge over 17 and returning to Hamilton between the onramp and the former Fry’s building. 3/4/2025 10:49 AM
48 Huge waste of money. 3/4/2025 8:55 AM
49 Los gatos creek trail is great, but has poor connectivity to the amenities it passes near:
pruneyard, home Depot, downtown Campbell
3/4/2025 5:49 AM
50 Also make the Trails safer, perhaps wider. 3/4/2025 4:55 AM 51 Thank you for investing in the bike-ability of our city! 3/4/2025 12:16 AM 52 I have Vast knowledge in the improvement of infrastructure to better suit, cyclist, pedestrians, and vehicles. for all inquiries or advice, please email me at; [email protected].

Please let me know if you are hiring as well.
3/3/2025 8:43 PM
53 Add good lighting for evening and nighttime riding 3/3/2025 7:48 PM 54 Do it!!!! 3/3/2025 7:26 PM
55 I typically avoid this route because I don't feel it's safe. Although I live closer to Hamilton Ave., I would rather go through town and use the LG trail to get to the other side of the freeway. 3/3/2025 6:15 PM
56 Please consider not only the hwy 17 overpass, but also the areas before/after that. A great overpass means nothing if pedestrians/cyclists can’t really get to it easily. 3/3/2025 4:56 PM
57 Bicyclist and pedestrian need a much safer place to getting around. 2/25/2025 10:51 PM 58 I am a regular cyclist; I find this intersection so sketchy I tend to go out of my way to avoid going through it
2/17/2025 3:29 PM
59 Honestly, anymore I mostly just avoid anything west of 17 on Hamilton because of how challenging that interchange is.
2/13/2025 10:34 AM
60 I have a cargo bike that I would use more regularly if it were safer. In the winter I can barely use it as it’s too dark and drivers are crazy when it rains. I’ve already been hit by a driver once so usually take my car to avoid that happening again. Better bike infrastructure would motivate to take it more often.
2/13/2025 9:42 AM
61 The Pruneyard is great, and to be able to get there from other locations would be ideal 2/13/2025 8:26 AM 62 Clean up the Salmar/Hamilton Ave intersection. Maybe close it off and make it a dead end.

Demolish the old Fry's Computer building and build the bridge there over the highway. 2/12/2025 11:28 AM
63 Please make biking more safe! 2/12/2025 8:49 AM
64 The safest project seems like raised pedestrian/cyclist bridges built along the existing sideways, eastbound from Salmar to the VTA station and westbound from before the NB17 onramp all the way to the plaza where Panera Bread is located. 2/12/2025 8:26 AM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 231 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 18 / 24
65 safety is key, distracted rush hour drivers trying to beat the intersection are unsafe for biking or walking
2/12/2025 7:16 AM
66 I typically bike along the creek trail into the area and bike to downtown. Or I take light rail to the area via Hamilton and then bike/walk from there to the pruneyard, downtown Campbell, or other general errands/shopping.
2/12/2025 5:28 AM
67 6 does not apply for me since I don’t drive, my bike is my only mode of transportation. 2/12/2025 3:26 AM 68 Protected bike lanes would provide safety for biker, pedestrian and drivers. 2/11/2025 9:58 PM 69 On top of this project, please make the sidewalk on the current overcrossing wider to allow for people to pass one another (very difficult on bikes right now) 2/11/2025 9:57 PM
70 I do not personally understand how the bike lane came to exist as it is, it’s a high traffic area and someone crossing the on ramp impedes traffic. It would be mutually beneficial to spend the money to address this, for bikes and motorized vehicles alike 2/11/2025 9:44 PM
71 Very excited you are exploring this! 2/11/2025 9:38 PM 72 Intentionally avoid biking across the Hamilton 17 interchange 2/11/2025 8:47 PM 73 I often have to drive because people I’m with don’t consider biking safe or practical 2/11/2025 8:40 PM 74 Whatever you do. No bollards or posts please. Make the bike lanes accessible to street sweepers.
2/11/2025 8:38 PM
75 Even the cars can't handle this intersection 2/11/2025 8:31 PM 76 I will go to those locations more frequently if I can go there by bike. 2/11/2025 8:24 PM 77 Deal with the homeless in parallel 2/11/2025 8:18 PM 78 This project really is a last step after A. Hamilton Ave. in general is planned and B. an effective citywide bike circulation plan is planned and at least partly completed. (Yes, way easier said than done!)
2/8/2025 4:59 PM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 232 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 19 / 24

8.01% 31

21.71% 84

20.41% 79

11.11% 43

7.75% 30

22.22% 86

8.79% 34
Q8 Please indicate which area of the map in which you live:

Answered: 387 Skipped: 40
TOTAL 387
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 2
3 4
5 None of these
I prefer not
to answer

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1 2
3 4
5 None of these
I prefer not to answer
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 233 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 20 / 24

0.00% 0

1.03% 4

3.34% 13

21.34% 83

26.99% 105

17.48% 68

18.25% 71

9.25% 36

2.31% 9
Q9 What is your age?
Answered: 389 Skipped: 38
TOTAL 389
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under 12
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
Prefer not to
say

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 12
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
Prefer not to say
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 234 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 21 / 24

27.98% 108

65.03% 251

0.26% 1

1.30% 5

5.18% 20

0.26% 1
Q10 What is your gender:

Answered: 386 Skipped: 41
TOTAL 386
# I IDENTIFY AS: DATE
1 The Easter bunny 3/10/2025 5:35 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Woman
Man
Transgender
Non-binary
Prefer not to
say
I identify as:

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Woman
Man
Transgender
Non-binary
Prefer not to say
I identify as:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 235 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 22 / 24

13.26% 50

86.74% 327
Q11 Are you of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Answered: 377 Skipped: 50
TOTAL 377
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 236 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 23 / 24

1.87% 7

14.71% 55

1.34% 5

0.80% 3

68.45% 256

13.37% 50

3.21% 12
Q12 With which racial group do you identify? (select all that apply) Answered: 374 Skipped: 53
Total Respondents: 374
# I IDENTIFY AS: DATE
1 Rachel Dolezal 3/10/2025 5:35 PM
2 Jew 3/8/2025 6:00 PM
3 a private citizen 3/8/2025 2:45 PM
4 Hispano 3/6/2025 8:46 PM
5 Native American 3/6/2025 7:22 AM
6 Latino 3/5/2025 9:44 PM
7 Chicano 3/4/2025 5:52 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian- American
Black or
AfricanAmerican
Native
Hawaiian or
other Pacifi...

White
Prefer not to
say
I identify as:

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Asian- American
Black or African- American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Prefer not to say
I identify as:

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 237 of 283
Hamilton Avenue / State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey 24 / 24
8 Native Latinx 3/4/2025 3:26 PM
9 Two races 3/4/2025 1:24 PM
10 Mexican 3/3/2025 7:49 PM
11 biracial (B/W) 2/11/2025 8:24 PM
12 Latino 2/8/2025 9:30 AM
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 238 of 283
Hamilton Ave /State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Survey – Open Response Question Summary
Question 2: Use this space to add any additional aspects of bicycle/pedestrian facilities you’d like to be considered (107 responses)
Safety
Many respondents emphasized the importance of physical separation between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians for safety. There were concerns about dangerous interactions on Hamilton Avenue, where cyclists and pedestrians are often put at risk by speeding drivers and poor infrastructure. Suggestions included physically protected bike lanes, overpasses, and dedicated crossings to reduce accidents and conflicts.

Infrastructure
Respondents highlighted the need for better-designed infrastructure that ensures safety, comfort, and usability. This includes requests for smoother, well-maintained bike lanes, proper signage, and minimal debris. The importance of ongoing maintenance was frequently mentioned, with a particular focus on ensuring that bike lanes remain clean and usable, especially in areas prone to accumulating trash and dirt.

Connectivity
Many survey participants called for improved connectivity between existing bike paths, trails, and key locations such as transit stations and neighborhoods. Clear and intuitive wayfinding, along with better access to popular trails like the Los Gatos Creek Trail, was emphasized.

Additionally, ensuring that new bike lanes link up with existing infrastructure was seen as essential for encouraging greater use.

Traffic Flow
A significant number of comments stressed that efforts to improve bike and pedestrian safety should not disrupt vehicle traffic flow on Hamilton Avenue, as it is particularly congested.

Respondents would like there to be a balance that allows for improved cycling infrastructure without exacerbating existing traffic issues.

Question 7: Please Provide any additional considerations or input about this project (78 responses)
Safety
Safety of cyclists and pedestrians was a major concern, given the danger of the traffic causing accidents and near-misses. Many respondents supported the idea for physical separation from vehicles, such as barriers, or improving existing infrastructure for increasing safety.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 239 of 283

REGNART CREEK TRAIL

APPENDICES
A. COST ESTIMATES
B. ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS
C. PROPERTY RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
D. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS &COMMENTS
E. TRAFFIC DOCUMENTATION
45 |

ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS

PROPERTY

PUBLIC OUTREACH

RIGHTS DOC

MEMOS &COMMENTS

TRAFFIC MEMO
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 240 of 283
Draft Memorandum
Date: December 23 2025
To: Tony Silva, HMH
From: Valerie Tan, Ashley Weiss, Steve Davis, Fehr & Peers Subject: Hamilton Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Feasibility Study – Traffic Operations Analysis
This memorandum documents the traffic operations analysis (“Project”) for the Hamilton Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing Feasibility Study (“Study”) in Campbell, California. The Project identifies pedestrian and bicycle crossing configurations at the two study intersections and evaluates their impact on vehicle intersection operations. The Project may not directly align with alternatives in the Study, but information in this memo was incorporated into alternatives presented in the Study.

The Project studied three Build Alternatives to determine the preferred intersection configurations to be used in the Study:

1. All Build Alternatives
a. Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp: Updates SR 17 southbound off-ramp configuration. Provides pedestrian crossings across north, south, and west legs. b. Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way: Provides two-way bicycle crossing across south and east legs. Provides pedestrian crossing across south leg and straightens crossing across east leg. Restricts right-turn on red and provide overlap phase at northbound right and eastbound right movements.

2. Build Alternative 1
a. Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp: Includes all build alternative changes described above. Additionally provides two-way bicycle crossing across south leg and one-way northbound bike crossing across west leg. Restricts right-turn on red at northbound right and eastbound right movements
b. Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way: Includes all build alternative changes described above. Removes pork chop island on southeast and southwest corners.

3. Build Alternative 2
a. Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp: Includes all build alternative changes described above. Additionally provides two-way bicycle crossing across south leg and one-way northbound bike crossing across west leg. Restricts right-turn on red at northbound right and eastbound right movements
b. Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way: Includes all build alternative changes described above. Removes pork chop island on southeast corners

4. Build Alternative 3
APPENDIX C1
Hamilton Avenue Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis This memorandum documents the traffic operations analysis (“Project”) for the Hamilton Avenue Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study (“Study”) in Campbell, California. The Project identifies pedestrian and bicycle crossing configurations at the two study intersections and evaluates their impact on vehicle intersection operations. The Project may not directly align with alternatives in the Study, but information in this memo was incorporated into alternatives presented in the Study.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 241 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 2 a. Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp: Includes all build alternative changes described above. Additionally provides one-way bicycle crossing across north, south, and east legs.
b. Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way: Includes all build alternative changes described above. Removes pork chop island on southwest corners
Study Overview
The Hamilton Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing is envisioned as part of the City of Campbell’s General Plan 2040 and the 2018 Countywide Bicycle Plan, designated as a Category 2 Across Barrier Connection (ABC) – Unfriendly Freeway Interchanges, No. BP4. The Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan proposes the development of a facility that will provide a safe and convenient alternative route for both cyclists and pedestrians. This will allow easier access to key nearby destinations, including the Pruneyard/Creekside District, the VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station, the Los Gatos Creek Trail, local schools, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The overcrossing will improve connectivity and safety for non-motorized travelers in the area. This memo summarizes the existing conditions, intersection operations methodology, and alternatives analysis and findings.

The Study proposes four Study Alternatives:

1. The Southern Route Alternative: Provides westbound bike lane north of Hamilton Avenue with crossings at SR 17 northbound diagonal on-ramp and SR 17 southbound off-ramp. Provides SR 17 overcrossing south of Hamilton Avenue with multimodal at-grade crossings at Salmar Avenue and Creekside Way.

2. The Campbell Loop Alternative: Provides westbound bike lane north of Hamilton Avenue with crossings at SR 17 northbound diagonal on-ramp and SR 17 southbound off-ramp. Provides SR 17 overcrossing south of Hamilton Avenue with multimodal at-grade crossings at Salmar Avenue, SR 17 southbound diagonal on-ramp, and Creekside Way.

3. The Straight Shot Alternative: Provides westbound bike lane north of Hamilton Avenue with crossings at SR 17 northbound diagonal on-ramp and SR 17 southbound off-ramp. Provides SR 17 overcrossing south of Hamilton Avenue with multimodal at-grade crossings at Salmar Avenue, SR 17 southbound diagonal on-ramp, SR 17 northbound loop on-ramp, and Creekside Way.

4. The Minimalist Alternative: Provides SR 17 overcrossing south of Hamilton Avenue with multimodal at-grade crossings at Salmar Avenue, SR 17 southbound diagonal on-ramp, SR 17 northbound loop on-ramp, and Creekside Way.

Existing Conditions
Existing Roadway Network
Hamilton Avenue is an east-west arterial through the study area and provides a critical connection between local and regional facilities. Within the project limits, Hamilton Avenue is a six-lane facility with three lanes in each direction. Hamilton Avenue connects Winchester Boulevard to the west with Bascom Avenue to the east. The corridor supports both regional commuter traffic and local access to adjacent commercial and residential land uses. Hamilton Avenue provides transit operations with eastbound VTA bus stops located west of Creekside Way adjacent to the VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station and westbound VTA bus stops located east of Creekside Way. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

The Hamilton Avenue Bicycle Overcrossing is envisioned as part of the City of Campbell’s General Plan 2040 and the 2018 Countywide Bicycle Plan, designated as a Category 2 Across Barrier Connection (ABC) – Unfriendly Freeway Interchanges, No. BP4. The Hamilton Avenue Public Improvement Plan proposes the development of a facility that will provide a safe and convenient alternative route for both cyclists and pedestrians. This will allow easier access to key nearby destinations, including the Pruneyard/ Creekside District, the VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station, the Los Gatos Creek Trail, local schools, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The overcrossing will improve connectivity and safety for non-motorized travelers in the area. This memo summarizes the existing conditions, intersection operations methodology, and alternatives analysis and findings.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 242 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 3 Salmar Avenue is a north-south local roadway that provides access to commercial parcels located adjacent to the SR 17/Hamilton interchange. The facility consists of a single travel lane in each direction and intersects Hamilton Avenue at the SR 17 southbound ramp terminal. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

Creekside Way is a north-south minor collector that provides access from SR 17 northbound offramp and to retail, office, and residential land uses adjacent to Hamilton Avenue. The facility consists of two travel lanes in each direction. The roadway intersects Hamilton Avenue at a signalized intersection. Creekside Way provides transit operations with VTA bus stops located south of the intersection adjacent to the VTA Hamilton Light Rail Station. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
Class II bike lanes are provided along both directions of Hamilton Avenue west of SR 17 southbound off-ramp and along eastbound Hamilton Avenue east of Creekside Way. A Class I bike path is provided on the Los Gatos Creek Trail with access via Hamilton Avenue east of Creekside Way.

Bicycle facilities at Hamilton Ave/SR 17 southbound off-ramp and Hamilton Ave/Creekside Way intersections are limited. There are no dedicated or protected bicycle crossings, and bicyclists share travel lanes with motor vehicles between the intersections.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are generally provided along Hamilton Avenue, with continuous sidewalks at Hamilton Ave/SR 17 southbound off-ramp and Hamilton Ave/Creekside Way intersections. Hamilton Ave/SR 17 southbound off-ramp provides marked crosswalks across the north, south, and west legs. Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way provides marked crosswalks across the north, south, and east legs.

Uncontrolled crosswalks are provided across each of the four free-flow SR 17 on-ramps. In general, the roadway geometry may allow higher vehicle travel speeds at these pedestrian crossings and require pedestrians to seek gaps in vehicular traffic.

Data Collection and Methodology
Data Collection
The City of Campbell provided weekday intersection traffic counts for AM and PM peak hours. The data was collected on June 5, 2024 to capture existing conditions for this analysis. Attachment A provides the traffic counts. Lane configurations for the study intersections were retrieved from Google Maps aerial imagery. Signal timing information was received from the City of Campbell.

Analysis Methodology
The Project evaluates pedestrian and bicycle crossing configurations at the two study intersections.

The Project may not directly align with alternatives in the Study, but information in this memo was incorporated into alternatives presented in the Study.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 243 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 4 The following two study intersections were evaluated for AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) under Existing Conditions and Build Alternative Conditions:

1. Hamilton Ave/SR 17 southbound off-ramp

2. Hamilton Ave/Creekside Way
The study intersections were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The 2000 HCM signalized methodologies were applied using the Synchro 11 software which consider vehicle volumes, lane configurations, bicycle and pedestrian volumes, heavy vehicle percentages and other pertinent parameters of intersection operations.

However, it does not factor in the operations of adjacent intersections that may affect queuing or operations at the study intersection. A more detailed analysis using microsimulation is recommended for further study and refinement of alternatives. The LOS method measures average control delay per vehicle including the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.

The intersection analysis uses LOS to evaluate operations. LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, with little or no delay, to LOS F, with excessive delay. LOS E represents “atcapacity” operations. When traffic volumes exceed the intersection capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F.

The average control delay is calculated using Synchro analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service
Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds) A < 10.0
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F > 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Historically, the City of Campbell deemed LOS D for signalized intersection acceptable. The LOS analysis conducted is for informational purposes to support identifying alternatives to move forward in future studies.

Existing Intersection Operations
The existing intersection traffic counts, lane configurations, and traffic signal phasing and timing were used as inputs to the LOS calculations. Table 2 presents the existing LOS analysis results using the analysis methods described above. Attachment B provides the LOS results and calculation output sheets. Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 244 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 5 Table 2: Existing Conditions Intersection Operations
Study Intersection Control Peak Hour
Existing Conditions
Delay1 LOS2
1 Hamilton Ave/SR 17 southbound offramp Signal
AM 33.8 C
PM 51.6 D
2 Hamilton Ave/Creekside Way Signal
AM 18.1 B
PM 24.8 C
Notes:

1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle calculated using the 2000 HCM methods. 2000 HCM is the latest HCM version to analyze custom phasing such as for separating bicycle phases.

2. LOS = Level of service. LOS calculations were conducted using the Synchro 11 software which apply the 2000 HCM methods
Build Alternatives
The existing intersection traffic counts were used as inputs to the Build Alternative LOS calculations.

Lane configurations and traffic signal phasing and timing were updated for each alternative based on proposed improvements to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the overcrossing.

Based on a review of the Study Alternatives, we considered the following intersection enhancements for Build Alternatives:
• One-way bike crossings allow bicycle crossing with the flow of vehicle travel to cross an intersection and facilitate bicycle access on and off the overcrossing on the south side of Hamilton Avenue.
• Two-way bike crossings allow both directions of bicycle crossing on one side of the intersection to facilitate bicycle access on and off the overcrossing on the south side of Hamilton Avenue and assist westbound bicycles traveling against the flow of vehicle travel. • No right-turn on red complements two-way bike crossings by reducing potential for conflicts between drivers turning right and bi-directional bicycle traffic obeying a green signal indication. Drivers making a right-turn on red are more likely to focus on finding gaps in vehicle traffic approaching from the left and overlook bicyclists or pedestrians approaching from the right.
• Overlap phases allow right-turn to flow through the intersection during complementary protected left-turn signal phases. Overlap phases can help to offset the increased vehicle delay that results from implementation of no right-turn on red. U-turns for conflicting vehicle movements must be restricted where right-turn overlap phases are implemented. • Separated bicycle phases allow bicycles to flow through the intersection without conflicting vehicle movements. Conflicting right-turn movements must be restricted where separated bicycle phases are implemented. Parallel through movements are permitted during bicycle phases.
• Straight pedestrian crossings where feasible can reduce the total crossing distance for pedestrians. On the east leg of Hamilton Avenue at Creekside Way, it may be feasible to Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 245 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 6 realign the northern end of the crosswalk to west of the 851 Hamilton Avenue driveway to reduce crossing distance. Similarly, geometric modifications to the west leg of Hamilton Avenue at SR 17 southbound off-ramp may allow for the crosswalk across that leg to be straightened. Note that pedestrians with vision impairments may struggle to understand crosswalks that change direction within the roadway.
• Pork chop island removal reduces pedestrian exposure to traffic which may be turning at higher speeds without stopping at a traffic signal. This is generally preferred to encourage slower right-turn speeds such as at Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way intersection.

Through discussions with HMH and the City of Campbell staff, the project team considered intersection enhancements described above and recommend three Build Alternatives to evaluate in this analysis. Table 3 summarizes the evaluated Build Alternative lane configuration and traffic signal assumptions.

Table 3: Summary of Build Alternatives for Traffic Operations Analysis Possible Study
Alternative
Build
Alternative
Hamilton Avenue/SR 17
southbound off-ramp
Hamilton Avenue/Creekside
Way
All Build
Alternatives
• Updated SR 17
southbound off-ramp
configuration:
1 southbound right,
1 southbound through,
3 southbound left1
• Pedestrian crossings
across north, south, and
west legs
• Two-way bike crossing
across south and east legs
• Separated bike phase for
south and east bike
crossings
• No right-turn on red at
northbound right and
eastbound right
• Overlap phase at
northbound right and
eastbound right
• Pedestrian crossings
across south and east legs
• Straighten pedestrian
crossing across east leg
The Minimalist Build
Alternative 1
• Two-way bike crossing
across south leg
• No right-turn on red at
northbound right and
eastbound right
• One-way northbound bike
crossing across west leg
• Remove pork chop islands
on southeast and
southwest corners
The Southern Route,
The Campbell Loop,
The Straight Shot
Build
Alternative 2
• Remove northbound right
pork chop island on
southeast corner
Build
Alternative 3
• One-way bike crossing
across north, south, and
east legs
• Remove eastbound right
pork chop island on
southwest corner
Note:

1. SR 17 southbound off-ramp lane configuration is based on the Hamilton/Highway 17 Southbound OffRamp Widening Project conceptual improvements provided by the City of Campbell.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 246 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 7 Build Alternatives Intersection Operations
The existing intersection traffic counts along with lane configurations and traffic signal described in Table 3 were used as inputs to the LOS calculations. Table 4 presents the Build Alternatives LOS analysis results using the analysis methods described above. Attachment B provides the LOS results and calculation output sheets. Under Build Alternative Conditions, most study intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Under Build Alternative 3, Hamilton Ave/SR 17 southbound off-ramp operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour.

Table 4: Build Alternatives Intersection Operations
Study Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing Build
Alternative 1
Build
Alternative 2
Build
Alternative 3
Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2
1 Hamilton Ave/SR
17 southbound
off-ramp
Signal
AM 33.8 C 30.3 C 31.6 C 37.9 D
PM 51.6 D 48.1 D 46.9 D 57.0 E
2 Hamilton
Ave/Creekside
Way
Signal
AM 18.1 B 21.1 C 18.7 B 20.8 C
PM 24.8 C 36.0 D 25.3 C 27.2 C
Notes:

2. LOS = Level of service. LOS calculations were conducted using the Synchro 11 software which apply the 2000 HCM methods
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Under Existing Conditions, the Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp intersection operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way intersection operates at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour.

Build Alternative 1
Under Build Alternative 1, the Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp intersection delay decreases from Existing Conditions. The intersection continues to operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. Although Build Alternative 1 includes two-way bike crossings and no right-turn on red phasing that reduces intersection capacity, the SR 17 southbound off-ramp widening improvements offset the increases in delay that would otherwise occur with only the multimodal improvements.

The Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way intersection delay increases from Existing Conditions. The intersection operations at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The multimodal improvements increase the average vehicle delay in the PM peak hour by less than 12 seconds compared to Existing. The intersection continues to perform at an acceptable LOS, however, this is the largest increase in delay of the Build Alternatives.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 247 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 8 Build Alternative 2
Under Build Alternative 2, the Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp intersection delay decreases from Existing Conditions. Similar to Build Alternative 1, the operational improvements caused by provision of an addition lane on the SR 17 southbound off-ramp offset the two-way bike crossings and no right-turn on red intersection improvements. The intersection continues to operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour.

The Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way intersection delay slightly increases from Existing, but the intersection operations remain at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour.

Removing only the northbound right-turn lane pork chop island on the southeast corner while retaining the eastbound right-turn channelization improves pedestrian safety compared to Existing, but there is still high-speed right-turn exposure for the eastbound right-turn that is not present under Build Alternative 1.

Build Alternative 3
Under Build Alternative 3, the Hamilton Avenue/SR 17 southbound off-ramp intersection delay increases from Existing Conditions. The intersection operates at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The one-way bike crossing across the east leg adds vehicle delay compared to Existing that does not have a crossing on the east leg. However, it provides access for bicyclists traveling westbound to cross Hamilton Avenue and travel with the flow of vehicle travel.

The Hamilton Avenue/Creekside Way intersection delay slightly increase from Existing Conditions, but the intersection operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and maintains at LOS C in the PM peak hour. Similar to Build Alternative 2, removing only the eastbound right-turn channelization on the southwest corner while retaining the channelized northbound right-turn lane improves pedestrian safety compared to Existing, but maintains a high-speed right-turn exposure for the northbound right-turn that is not present under Build Alternative 1.

Findings
Based on the intersection operations analysis along with bicyclist and pedestrian safety, Table 5 summarizes the vehicle delay impacts and findings for each alternative.

Table 5: Summary of Traffic Impacts
Traffic Build
Alternative Study Alternative
Average
Intersection
Delay Impacts
Change from Existing
Build Alternative 1 The Minimalist LOS C-D
• Int #1: LOS maintains
• Int #2: LOS worsens in AM/PM;
Reduced high-speed right-turn
exposure at eastbound right-turn
and northbound right-turn
Build Alternative 2
The Southern Route,
The Campbell Loop,
The Straight Shot LOS B-D
• Int #1: LOS maintains
• Int #2: LOS maintains; Reduced
high-speed right-turn exposure at
northbound right-turn
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 248 of 283
Hamilton Avenue POC Feasibility Study - Traffic Operations Analysis | 9 Build Alternative 3 LOS C-E
• Int #1: LOS worsens in PM
• Int #2: LOS worsens in AM;
Reduced high-speed right-turn
exposure at eastbound right-turn
Note that the traffic operations analysis in this feasibility study is limited to the two signalized intersections in the study area. However, the Study should additionally consider bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements across the free-flow SR 17 on- and off-ramps in future studies.

This is especially true for alternatives which introduce bi-directional bicycle traffic across free-flow ramps where bicycle traffic is not present in the existing condition. Any changes within Caltrans right-of-way, including the ramps and ramp terminal intersections would need approval from Caltrans through a more comprehensive study.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 249 of 283
Maintenance
The importance of keeping bike lanes clean and well-maintained was a recurring theme.

Comments highlight the issue of debris (dirt, leaves, trash) accumulating in bike lanes, which makes them unusable. Respondents urged the city to not only build the bike lanes but also ensure that regular cleaning and upkeep are part of the plan to maintain their safety and functionality to ensure use.

Connectivity
Respondents emphasized the need for a connected network of bike lanes, pedestrian paths, and public transit options. More respondents would bike or walk with easier access to key areas such as downtown Campbell, the Pruneyard, and Los Gatos Creek Trail. There were also calls for improved access for residents in new high-density areas, such as those near Bascom, and creating more direct routes for cyclists to access important destinations.

Infrastructure
Many respondents were supportive of reducing the reliance on cars by prioritizing walking, cycling, and public transit. Respondents would like to have safer, well-maintained bike lanes and pedestrian paths, as well as better bike facilities. Controlling traffic flow and high speeds was also mentioned to allow for a safer cycling and walking environment.

Timing
Some respondents expressed concern about the scope and timeline of the bike lane project.

While many recognize the need for improvements, there were calls to reduce the time frame for completion from 10 years to 4-5 years.

Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 250 of 283
Attachment A – Traffic
Counts
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 251 of 283
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 252 of 283
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 253 of 283
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 254 of 283
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 255 of 283
Attachment B – LOS
Calculations
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 256 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Existing 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Future Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 4.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 3221 1671 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 3221 1671 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1884 27 133 1177 542 13 0 285 680 214 821 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 23 0 0 0 49 0 0 284
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1910 0 133 1696 0 13 0 236 592 302 537 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pm+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 86
Actuated Green, G (s) 82.8 18.2 108.5 4.0 22.2 37.9 37.9 108.5 Effective Green, g (s) 82.8 18.2 108.5 4.0 22.2 37.9 37.9 108.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.11 0.65 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.65 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 4.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3752 194 2203 42 372 735 381 1034
v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.08 c0.50 0.01 c0.07 c0.18 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.69 0.77 0.31 0.64 0.81 0.79 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 27.9 71.1 20.0 79.6 68.1 60.6 60.3 15.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.19 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 6.9 2.4 4.2 2.6 6.1 10.1 1.9
Delay (s) 28.4 91.5 19.1 83.8 70.7 66.6 70.5 16.9
Level of Service C F B F EEEB
Approach Delay (s) 28.4 24.3 71.3 43.5
Approach LOS C C E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 257 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Existing 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Future Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1563 1770 6395 4990 1552
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1563 1770 6395 4990 1552
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 114
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 213
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 113.4 113.4 8.0 125.9 29.8 29.8
Effective Green, g (s) 113.4 113.4 8.0 125.9 29.8 29.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.76 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3473 1067 85 4850 895 278
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 0.02 c0.40 0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.14
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.51 0.53 0.46 0.77
Uniform Delay, d1 11.3 9.5 77.1 8.1 60.9 64.8
Progression Factor 0.71 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.4 0.5 12.6
Delay (s) 8.3 7.4 78.8 8.5 61.4 77.4
Level of Service AAEAEE
Approach Delay (s) 8.2 9.6 68.5
Approach LOS A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 258 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Existing 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Future Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 4.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 3221 1650 1560 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 3221 1650 1560 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2020 35 150 1025 393 32 0 365 1312 234 1010 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 24 0 0 0 45 0 0 465
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2053 0 150 1394 0 32 0 320 1024 523 545 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 2
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pm+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 86
Actuated Green, G (s) 60.1 18.1 85.7 8.3 26.4 50.4 50.4 85.7 Effective Green, g (s) 60.1 18.1 85.7 8.3 26.4 50.4 50.4 85.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.11 0.54 0.05 0.16 0.31 0.31 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 4.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2824 200 1806 91 459 1014 519 835
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 0.08 c0.41 0.02 c0.08 c0.32 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.35
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.35 0.70 1.01 1.01 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 42.9 68.8 29.4 73.3 63.0 54.8 54.8 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.18 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 12.3 3.1 2.3 3.7 30.7 41.4 3.9 Delay (s) 44.6 93.3 26.9 75.6 66.7 85.5 96.2 30.5
Level of Service D F C E E F F C
Approach Delay (s) 44.6 33.2 67.4 66.0
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 259 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Existing 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Future Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 810 1770 6395 4990 1555
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 810 1770 6395 4990 1555
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 562 400
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 120
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 563 280
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 100.5 100.5 9.0 114.0 35.7 35.7
Effective Green, g (s) 100.5 100.5 9.0 114.0 35.7 35.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.71 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3194 508 99 4556 1113 346
v/s Ratio Prot 0.41 c0.04 0.29 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.54 c0.18
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.86 0.66 0.40 0.51 0.81
Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 24.1 74.0 9.3 54.4 58.9
Progression Factor 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 10.5 11.3 0.3 0.5 14.0
Delay (s) 17.4 32.2 85.3 9.5 54.9 72.9
Level of Service B C F A D E
Approach Delay (s) 20.0 12.1 62.4
Approach LOS C B E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 260 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamillton Avenue POC - Alt 1 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Future Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 4.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1884 27 133 1177 542 13 0 285 680 214 821 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1911 0 133 1697 0 13 0 285 680 214 709 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pm+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 78.3 21.8 107.6 4.0 25.8 35.8 35.8 151.7 Effective Green, g (s) 78.3 21.8 107.6 4.0 25.8 35.8 35.8 143.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.13 0.65 0.02 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.86 Clearance Time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 4.7 7.5 5.6 5.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3548 232 2185 42 433 1076 401 1367
v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.08 c0.50 0.01 c0.09 c0.14 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.45
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.57 0.78 0.31 0.66 0.63 0.53 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 67.7 20.7 79.6 66.0 59.1 57.7 2.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.30 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.8 2.3 4.2 2.8 0.9 0.7 0.1
Delay (s) 31.6 89.5 15.3 83.8 68.7 60.0 58.4 2.9
Level of Service C F B F EEEA
Approach Delay (s) 31.6 20.6 69.4 32.5
Approach LOS C C E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 261 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamillton Avenue POC - Alt 1 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Future Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 9 2 4 1 6 4 10 1 4
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 95.4 79.7 9.2 108.3 47.4 93.9
Effective Green, g (s) 95.4 79.7 9.2 108.3 42.9 88.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.48 0.06 0.65 0.26 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2922 399 98 4172 1289 882
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 c0.24 0.02 c0.40 c0.08 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.49 0.44 0.61 0.32 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 20.4 29.4 75.9 16.7 49.7 22.3
Progression Factor 0.73 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 15.0 36.3 77.0 17.4 49.9 22.4
Level of Service B D E B D C
Approach Delay (s) 17.7 18.4 37.7
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 262 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamillton Avenue POC - Alt 1 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Future Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 4.7 4.7 5.6 5.6 8.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1560 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1560 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2020 35 150 1025 393 32 0 365 1312 234 1010 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 512
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2055 0 150 1393 0 32 0 365 1313 234 498 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 2
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pt+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 54.7 16.1 78.3 14.7 35.5 48.4 48.4 78.3 Effective Green, g (s) 54.7 16.1 78.3 14.7 35.5 48.4 48.4 78.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.10 0.49 0.09 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 4.7 5.6 5.6 8.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2570 178 1650 162 618 1509 563 763
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 0.08 c0.41 0.02 c0.13 c0.26 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.20 0.59 0.87 0.42 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 47.7 70.7 35.5 67.2 55.7 52.8 44.5 30.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.18 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 25.9 5.1 0.6 1.5 5.6 0.2 4.3
Delay (s) 50.4 109.0 35.6 67.8 57.3 58.4 44.7 35.0
Level of Service D F D E E E D C
Approach Delay (s) 50.4 42.7 58.1 47.9
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 119.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 263 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamillton Avenue POC - Alt 1 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Future Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1570
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1570
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 562 400
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 563 400
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 9 2 4 1 6 4 10 1 4
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.6 71.6 10.9 101.2 48.5 87.5
Effective Green, g (s) 86.6 71.6 10.9 101.2 44.0 82.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.45 0.07 0.63 0.28 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2752 372 120 4044 1372 853
v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.53 0.04 0.29 c0.11 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.76 1.18 0.54 0.45 0.41 0.47
Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 44.2 72.1 15.2 47.4 24.8
Progression Factor 0.83 1.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 95.7 2.7 0.4 0.3 0.1
Delay (s) 24.4 167.0 74.8 15.5 47.7 24.9
Level of Service C F E B D C
Approach Delay (s) 49.2 17.6 38.2
Approach LOS D B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 264 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 2 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Future Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 7.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 5.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1884 27 133 1177 542 13 0 285 680 214 821 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 127
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1911 0 133 1696 0 13 0 285 680 214 694 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pm+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 75.9 21.2 104.6 4.0 25.2 35.8 35.8 148.7 Effective Green, g (s) 75.9 21.2 104.6 4.0 25.2 35.8 35.8 140.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.13 0.63 0.02 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.85 Clearance Time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 7.7 7.5 5.6 5.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3440 226 2124 42 423 1076 401 1338
v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.08 c0.50 0.01 c0.09 c0.14 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.44
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.59 0.80 0.31 0.67 0.63 0.53 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 68.3 22.9 79.6 66.5 59.1 57.7 3.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.31 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 2.1 2.7 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.7 0.1
Delay (s) 33.4 91.8 17.0 83.8 69.8 60.0 58.4 3.7
Level of Service C F B F EEEA
Approach Delay (s) 33.4 22.4 70.4 32.8
Approach LOS C C E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 265 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 2 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Future Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1556
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1556
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 9 2 4 1 6 4 10 1 4
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 97.9 98.5 9.2 110.8 44.9 112.7
Effective Green, g (s) 97.9 98.5 9.2 110.8 40.4 107.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.06 0.67 0.24 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2998 494 98 4268 1214 1051
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 c0.24 0.02 c0.40 c0.08 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.40 0.44 0.60 0.34 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 18.0 75.9 15.3 51.7 12.8
Progression Factor 0.73 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 13.9 15.7 77.0 15.9 52.0 12.9
Level of Service BBEBDB
Approach Delay (s) 14.1 16.9 34.6
Approach LOS B B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 266 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 2 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Future Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 7.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 8.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1560 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1560 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2020 35 150 1025 393 32 0 365 1312 234 1010 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 490
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2055 0 150 1394 0 32 0 365 1313 234 520 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 2
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pm+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 86
Actuated Green, G (s) 56.9 17.5 81.9 8.1 25.6 48.4 48.4 81.9 Effective Green, g (s) 56.9 17.5 81.9 8.1 25.6 48.4 48.4 81.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.11 0.51 0.05 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 8.3 7.5 8.3 7.7 7.5 5.6 5.6 8.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2673 193 1726 89 445 1509 563 798
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 0.08 c0.41 0.02 c0.09 c0.26 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.33
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.78 0.81 0.36 0.82 0.87 0.42 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 69.4 32.5 73.4 65.0 52.8 44.5 28.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.16 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 15.1 3.8 2.5 11.0 5.6 0.2 4.1 Delay (s) 47.9 95.5 32.0 75.9 76.0 58.4 44.7 32.7
Level of Service D F C E E E D C
Approach Delay (s) 47.9 38.1 76.0 47.0
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 119.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 267 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 2 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Future Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1561
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1561
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 562 400
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 563 400
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 9 2 4 1 6 4 10 1 4
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 88.3 91.3 10.7 102.7 47.0 107.0
Effective Green, g (s) 88.3 91.3 10.7 102.7 42.5 102.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.57 0.07 0.64 0.27 0.64
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2806 475 118 4104 1325 1039
v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.53 c0.04 0.29 c0.11 0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.92 0.55 0.45 0.42 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 31.1 72.3 14.4 48.6 13.9
Progression Factor 0.82 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 16.6 3.1 0.4 0.3 0.1
Delay (s) 22.9 53.1 75.5 14.8 48.9 14.0
Level of Service C D E B D B
Approach Delay (s) 28.2 16.8 34.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 268 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 3 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Future Volume (vph) 0 1827 26 129 1142 526 13 0 276 660 208 796 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 7.7 7.5 8.6 8.6 8.6
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7524 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1884 27 133 1177 542 13 0 285 680 214 821 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 246 0 0 180
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1910 0 133 1695 0 13 0 39 680 214 641 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pm+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 9 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 8 4 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 71.7 18.7 97.9 14.7 22.7 31.8 31.8 135.0 Effective Green, g (s) 71.7 18.7 97.9 10.0 22.7 31.8 31.8 129.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.11 0.59 0.06 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 7.5 8.6 8.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3249 199 1988 106 381 955 356 1236
v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.08 c0.50 c0.01 0.01 c0.14 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.41
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.67 0.85 0.12 0.10 0.71 0.60 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 35.9 70.7 28.1 73.8 62.7 62.8 61.3 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 6.4 4.9 0.5 0.0 2.1 2.0 0.2
Delay (s) 36.7 77.1 33.0 74.4 62.8 64.9 63.3 6.8
Level of Service D E C E EEEA
Approach Delay (s) 36.7 36.1 63.3 36.9
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 166.0 Sum of lost time (s) 33.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 269 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 3 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave AM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Future Volume (vph) 1295 191 42 2479 396 317
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1559
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1559
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1335 197 43 2556 408 327
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 9 2 4 1 6 4 10 1 4
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 100.4 91.9 9.3 113.4 45.3 106.2
Effective Green, g (s) 100.4 91.9 9.3 113.4 40.8 101.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.54 0.06 0.67 0.24 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3020 452 97 4291 1204 975
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 c0.24 0.02 c0.40 c0.08 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.60 0.34 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 23.0 77.3 15.2 53.0 17.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 19.0 24.0 78.5 15.9 53.2 17.1
Level of Service B C E B D B
Approach Delay (s) 19.6 16.9 37.1
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 169.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 270 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 3 1: Salmar Ave/SR 17 SB Ramps & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Future Volume (vph) 0 1939 34 144 984 377 31 0 350 1260 225 970 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 7.7 7.7 8.6 8.6 5.3
Lane Util. Factor 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1560 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 7519 1770 3372 1770 2787 4990 1863 1560 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2020 35 150 1025 393 32 0 365 1312 234 1010 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 20 0 0 0 292 0 0 484
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2054 0 150 1398 0 32 0 73 1313 234 526 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 2
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot pt+ov Split NA custom
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 9 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 86
Actuated Green, G (s) 53.6 22.2 83.3 19.7 32.2 38.4 38.4 83.3 Effective Green, g (s) 53.6 22.2 83.3 19.7 32.2 38.4 38.4 83.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.14 0.52 0.12 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 7.5 5.3 8.6 8.6 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2518 245 1755 217 560 1197 447 812
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 0.08 c0.41 c0.02 0.03 c0.26 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.61 0.80 0.15 0.13 1.10 0.52 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 48.7 64.8 31.4 62.7 52.4 60.8 52.8 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.07 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 2.9 3.5 0.3 0.1 56.7 0.5 4.0
Delay (s) 51.7 72.6 26.5 63.0 52.5 117.5 53.4 31.7
Level of Service D E C E D F D C
Approach Delay (s) 51.7 30.9 53.4 77.7
Approach LOS D C D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 33.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 271 of 283
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Hamilton Avenue POC - Alt 3 2: Creekside Way & Hamilton Ave PM Peak Hour
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Future Volume (vph) 1997 420 62 1765 540 384
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1565
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 833 1770 6395 4990 1565
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 562 400
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2080 438 65 1839 563 400
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000200
Turn Type NA custom Prot NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 9 2 4 1 6 4 10 1 4
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 88.2 81.4 10.8 102.7 47.0 97.2
Effective Green, g (s) 88.2 81.4 10.8 102.7 42.5 92.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.51 0.07 0.64 0.27 0.58
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2803 423 119 4104 1325 945
v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.53 c0.04 0.29 c0.11 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.74 1.04 0.55 0.45 0.42 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 27.3 39.3 72.2 14.4 48.6 19.0
Progression Factor 0.80 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 40.7 2.7 0.4 0.3 0.1
Delay (s) 22.4 74.3 75.0 14.8 48.9 19.1
Level of Service C E E B D B
Approach Delay (s) 31.4 16.8 36.5
Approach LOS C B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 272 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Authorization to Submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant Application for 1) the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project Initiation Document and 2) the Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program grant application for:

1. The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Initiation Document (PID) and

2. The Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11871 authorizing the Public Works Director to submit the Valley Transportation Plan 2045 (VTP 2045) Project List.

The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project and the Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Project were among those submitted and were previously included under the 2016 Measure B ballot measure eligible projects.

This list included the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing Project. 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program Call for Projects
On November 12, 2025, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) issued a call for projects for the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program. This program gives priority to projects that connect to schools, transit, and employment centers; fills gaps in the existing bike and pedestrian network; safely cross barriers to mobility; and make walking or biking safer and more convenient. The program supports planning activities that will lead to project development of capital projects included in the 2016 Measure B ballot measure.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 273 of 283
The 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies competitive grant program has $2,240,000 available for this cycle. The program’s allocation amount is $1,090,000 for Fiscal Year (FY)24/25 and $1,150,000 for FY26/27. Each application must request a minimum of $100,000 per proposal. The maximum grant award per sponsoring agency can be no more than 50% of the total available funds unless the grant cycle is undersubscribed. Projects not included in the list of projects are ineligible to compete for grant funds.

Project applications will be scored based on criteria adopted by the VTA Board of Directors. The criteria are:
 Community engagement
 Gap closure
 Connections to schools, transit, employee centers, or key community destinations  Safety and convenience
 Considerations for community investment
 Non-2016 Measure B contribution (i.e., local match).

DISCUSSION
Staff is proposing to submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies grant applications for 1) the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Initiation Document (PID) and 2) the Campbell Technology Parkway Feasibility Study.

Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing PID The Hamilton Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Feasibility Study (Project 24-YY) was recently completed and presented to City Council. The next phase of the project would be to engage Caltrans and prepare a Project Initiation Document (PID) and, subsequently, a Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED). Completion of these documents is required prior to the Design Phase (i.e., preparing detailed project plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate (PS&E) prior to construction).

Project Initiation Document (PID)
The PID is a record of the purpose and need for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project. The PID documents the approach that will be taken to meet or reduce structural or operational transportation deficiencies of state highways, including the project scope, estimated costs, potential impacts, schedule, and feasibility for funding and approval within Caltrans. When the PID has been developed, the project is sufficiently defined for local and state agencies to compete for funds for that project. The cost estimate for preparing the PID is $500,000, which includes costs for City staff time, consultant services, and Caltrans review. Preparing the PID could take between 12 and 16 months.

Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED)
Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 274 of 283
Following completion of the PID, the next step after the PID is to prepare the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) which is an environmental document that refines and selects project alternatives, identifies impacts, proposes solutions, secures approvals for non-standard elements, and establishes the final preferred design before moving to detailed design and construction.

Preparing the PA&ED would occur after the PID is completed and additional funding is secured. Since the cost of the PA&ED exceeds the funds available with the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant Program, staff will not be including the PA&ED scope of work in the grant application.

Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study Historically, Campbell Village Neighborhood residents have voiced concerns about limited access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. This concern is documented in the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan which specifically states, “Investigate feasibility of improved bike and pedestrian access to the Los Gatos Creek trail. This may include new bike and pedestrian facilities along Camden Ave/San Tomas Expressway, or it may include construction of a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of State Route 17.” For Campbell Village Neighborhood residents, State Route 17 is an access barrier to parts of the City west of State Route 17. Since there is no public transit in this neighborhood, a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing spanning State Route 17 would provide improved access to the Downtown Campbell Light Rail Station.

A feasibility study would evaluate potential overcrossing alignments, provide public engagement and stakeholder interviews, and ultimately position the project for future funding opportunities. The cost estimate for preparing the feasibility study is $400,000.

This cost estimate would cover costs for City staff time and consultant services. 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Grant Program Schedule The tentative program schedule is as follows.

Grant Applications Due Date February 9, 2026
VTA Scoring Committee Reviews Proposals February/March 2026 VTA Committees Approve Project List May 2026
VTA Board Approval of Project List June 2026
The Measure B funds would become available by the Fall of 2026 at the earliest.

FISCAL IMPACT
The 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program requires a minimum local match of ten percent. Based on the program’s scoring system, projects will score a maximum number of points for project funding if the local match is greater than or equal to 30 percent. Since the grant application process will be highly competitive, staff recommends approving the maximum local match of 30 percent.

Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 275 of 283
Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle Overcrossing PID The Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing PID is estimated to cost $500,000. To be as competitive as possible, the City would need to commit 30% of this amount, or $150,000.

Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study The Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study is estimated to costs $400,000. To be as competitive as possible, the City would need to commit 30% of this amount, or $120,000.

Vehicle impact fees and gas tax funds are potential fund sources for the local match of each project. Should the City be awarded a grant for either or both projects, staff will return at a future council meeting to recommend the funding source for the local match of either project and attach a budget adjustment form.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program grant application for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing PID project. This alternative is not recommended since the project is unfunded and would not be able to move forward without preparing the PID. If the project is awarded Measure B funds, the City would pay only the local match for the project. In return, the PID project would be fully funded and positions the project for future grant funding opportunities for the PA&ED phase.

2. Do not submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program grant application for the Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study. This alternative is not recommended since the project is currently unfunded and it is still unknown whether the project is feasible. With a feasibility study, a determination can be made on next steps.

3. Submit a grant application providing a local match with the minimum 10 percent.

This alternative is not recommended since the grant process is highly competitive and projects which do not score highly in local match are unlikely to be awarded grants.

PREPARED BY: Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer
Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 276 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: report-authorization to submit Measure B bike-ped planning studies grant applications 2-3-26 new business.docx
Attachments: resolution-authorization to submit Measure B bike-ped planning studies grant applications 2-3-26.docx
Final Approval
Date:

January 27, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 277 of 283
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT
2016 MEASURE B BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLANNING STUDIES COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION FOR 1) THE HAMILTON
AVENUE/HIGHWAY 17 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT (PID) AND 2) THE CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARKWAY

BICYCLE OVERCROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) issued a call for projects for the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, this program gives priority to projects that connect to schools, transit, and employment centers; fills gaps in the existing bike and pedestrian network; safely cross barriers to mobility; and make walking or biking safer and more convenient; and WHEREAS, the program supports planning activities that will lead to capital project development of projects included in the 2016 Measure B ballot measure; and WHEREAS, the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies competitive grant program has $2,240,000.00 available for this cycle; and WHEREAS, the program’s allocation amount is $1,090,000.00 for Fiscal Year (FY)24/25 and $1,150,000.00 for the FY26/27; and
WHEREAS, the maximum grant award per sponsoring agency can be no more than 50% of the total available funds unless the grant cycle is undersubscribed; and WHEREAS, staff is proposing to submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies grant applications for 1) the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Initiation Document (PID) and 2) the Campbell Technology Parkway Feasibility Study; and
WHEREAS, the PID would document for the Hamilton Avenue/State Route 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project the project’s purpose, need, scope, estimated costs, potential impacts, schedule, and feasibility for funding and approval within Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, the cost estimate for preparing the PID is $500,000; and WHEREAS, the Campbell Technology Park Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study would evaluate potential overcrossing alignments, provide public engagement and stakeholder interviews, and ultimately position the project for future funding opportunities; and WHEREAS, the cost estimate for preparing the feasibility study is $400,000; and Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 278 of 283

WHEREAS, the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program requires a minimum local match of ten percent; and WHEREAS, based on the program’s scoring system, staff recommends that the City Council approve the maximum 30% local match for each grant application since the grant application process will be highly competitive; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Campbell that the Public Works Director is hereby authorized to submit 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program grant applications for 1) the Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Planning Study and 2) the Campbell Technology Parkway Bicycle Overcrossing Feasibility Study; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Campbell will provide a 30 percent local match for the project should 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Studies Competitive Grant Program funds be awarded to the City of Campbell for either or both projects; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the use of $270,000 in potential fund sources such as Vehicle Impact Fees or Gas Tax Revenues to serve as the local match; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should the City be awarded a grant for either or both projects, staff will return at a future council meeting to recommend the fund source for the local match of either project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____day of ___________2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 9.2
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 279 of 283
City Council Report
DATE: February 3, 2026
TITLE: Council Committee Reports
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

DISCUSSION

MAYOR FURTADO
City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Economic Development Subcommittee
Finance Subcommittee
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Cities Association of Santa Clara County - City Selection Committee Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority**
West Valley Mayors and Managers
West Valley Sanitation District
Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation (Alt.) Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board Representative (Alt.) Santa Clara County Emergency Operational Council (EOAC)** (Alt.) Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA) (Alt.) Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (Alt.)

VICE MAYOR SCOZZOLA
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Education Subcommittee
Legislative Subcommittee
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Executive Board** Cities Association of Santa Clara Legislative Action Committee Silicon Valley Clean Energy Finance and Administration Committee** Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors
Item 11.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 280 of 283
Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors: Executive Committee** Silicon Valley Clean Energy Legislative Committee**
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee West Valley Mayors and Managers (Alt.)

COUNCILMEMBER BYBEE
Education Subcommittee
Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison
Legislative Subcommittee
Cities Association of Santa Clara County: Board Representative Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA)
Cities Association of Santa Clara County City Selection Committee (Alt.) Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee (Alt.) Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors (Alt.)

COUNCILMEMBER HINES
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee DCBA Liaison
Economic Development Subcommittee
League of California Cities Peninsula Division Housing, Community & Economic Development Committee
San Jose Bristol Hotel Transitional Housing Community Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Water District County Water Commission West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority JPA
West Valley Stormwater Authority
Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (Alt.) Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors (Alt.) West Valley Sanitation District (Alt.)

COUNCILMEMBER LOPEZ
Campbell Ministerial Interfaith Group
Finance Subcommittee
League of California Peninsula Division Executive Committee** Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors**
Association of Bay Area Governments (Alt.)
DCBA Liaison (Alt.)
Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison (Alt.)
Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors (Alt.) Santa Clara Valley Water District County Water Commission (Alt)` West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority JPA (Alt.) Item 11.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 281 of 283
West Valley Stormwater Authority (Alt.)
**appointed by other agencies
PREPARED BY: Kristen Epolite, Deputy City Clerk
Item 11.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 282 of 283
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Council Committee Reports 2.3.26.docx Attachments:

Final Approval Date: January 17, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Kristen Epolite, Deputy City Clerk
Item 11.1
Tuesday, February 03, 2026 283 of 283

Campbell City CouncilFebruary 3, 2026

Campbell City Council
February 3, 2026