Campbell City Council
August 3, 2026

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

SECTION 1 (PURPOSE): This interim ordinance establishes temporary provisions to Title 21 (Zoning) and Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development) of the Campbell Municipal Code to facilitate the construction of up to two residential units and the creation of urban lot splits, as specified by California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 65852.21, and 66411.7.

These provisions ensure compliance with state law by prohibiting the imposition of nonuniform objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards. The provisions of this interim ordinance shall supersede any conflicting provisions within Title 21 (Zoning) and Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development). Zoning and design review standards in the Zoning Code that are not affected by this interim ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 2 (APPLICABILITY): This interim ordinance applies to the construction, alteration, and expansion of all structures, as well as to voluntary applications for urban lot splits, on all properties located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District and certain properties within the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District, with a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation. Property owners or their authorized representatives may continue to exercise subdivision rights for conforming subdivisions in compliance with Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development) of the Campbell Municipal Code and the California Subdivision Map Act.

SECTION 3 (GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS): This interim ordinance adopts by reference the addition of Chapter 20.13 (Subdivision Standards), the revisions to Section

20.16.030 (Action on tentative parcel maps), and the deletion of Section 20.16.035 (Exception to access requirements), as established by Interim Ordinance No. 2313 and extended by Interim Ordinance No. 2317. These changes shall remain in effect under the provisions of this interim ordinance, notwithstanding the expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 2317. Further, Section 20.36.110 (Lots—Size, shape, side lines, divisions and interior) is replaced as follows:
(a) Purpose. This section establishes objective subdivision standards related to the design of new lots and reconfiguration of existing lots.
(b) Applicability. This section applies to the creation of new lots through subdivision and to the reconfiguration of existing lots through a lot line adjustment. This section does not apply to lots created in conjunction with a housing development project subject to the Multi-Family Development Design Standards (MFDDS), as adopted pursuant to Chapter 21.07 (Housing Development Regulations).
(c) Zoning compliance. All lots created pursuant to this section shall comply with the applicable standards of Title 21 (Zoning), including minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum public street frontage, except as otherwise provided by this interim ordinance.
(d) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
i. "Corner exclusion area" means the triangular area on a corner lot, as defined by Chapter 21.72 (Definitions), formed by (1) extending the two lot lines abutting Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 164 of 776

the public right-of-way until they intersect; (2) measuring thirty (30) feet from that point of intersection along each such extended lot line; and (3) connecting the endpoints of those measurements with a straight line, as illustrated, below:
ii. "Existing lot line" means a lot line that existed immediately prior to the filing of a tentative map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment application. iii. "Newly created lot line" means a lot line that did not exist prior to the filing of a tentative map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment application, that extends between two points where the line meets another lot line or a public right-ofway line, or where the lot line changes direction or where curvature begins, ends, or changes. "Newly created lot line" does not include an existing lot line that forms the boundary of the parcel being subdivided solely because one or more newly created lot lines intersect that existing lot line. "Newly created lot line" also does not include a lot line created or modified by the dedication or vacation of public right-of-way.
(e) Number of lot lines resulting from a subdivision. The total number of newly created lot lines resulting from a subdivision shall not exceed the number of lots created. Each newly created lot line shall be a straight line.
(f) Number of lot lines resulting from a lot line adjustment. The total number of newly created lot lines resulting from a lot line adjustment shall not exceed the number of parcels subject to the adjustment, even if the number of existing lot lines between the parcels is greater prior to the adjustment. Each newly created lot line shall be a straight line.
(g) Prohibited lot configurations. A subdivision or lot line adjustment shall not create or modify lot lines in a manner that results in any of the following:

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 165 of 776

i. A lot with frontage upon two public streets that is not located at the intersection of such streets.
ii. A lot divided by a city boundary line.
iii. A lot without frontage upon a public street or without independent access from a public street, including a lot with access solely across another lot. iv. A lot without sufficient emergency vehicle access from the public street, as specified by the applicable Standard Details and Specifications of the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
v. A lot where any portion of a newly created lot line is located within the corner exclusion area of the existing parcel subject to subdivision or lot line adjustment.

SECTION 4 (DEFINITIONS): The following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in this interim ordinance and shall supersede or supplant the definitions provided in Chapter

21.72 (Definitions) of the Campbell Municipal Code.

An "attic" means that part of the interior of a building immediately below a roof, above the ceiling of a story, and within the roof framing, which is unheated and unfinished as to remain uninhabitable, and which is not accessible by a stairway or door (access may only be provided via a floor hatch with a drop-down ladder to the story below). A space not satisfying this definition shall instead be defined as a "story" or "half-story". “Completed application” means an application for a development project, including an application for a tentative parcel map or subdivision map, or a ministerial application for a Zoning Clearance, that has been deemed complete by the Community Development Director pursuant to Government Code Section 65943.
"Building separation distance" means the minimum distance between two building or structures on the same lot must be separated from each other as required by Title 21 (Zoning), including separations between accessory structures, separations between primary structures, separations between primary structures and accessory structures, and separations between accessory dwelling units and other structures. Where two buildings are diagonally situated from each other, the applicable building separation distances shall extend from the side and rear of the buildings to form a triangular "building separation area", as illustrated by Figure 1, which shall also be clear of any building or structure. The separation distance is measured as the shortest horizontal distance between the exterior walls of the two structures, except as provided in Section 21.18.040.B (Exceptions)
Figure 1 – Building Separation Area
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 166 of 776

"Demolition" means any act or process that may cause partial or total razing, removal, destruction or dismantling of a structure, whether or not permitted by the City. Also includes construction of a new structure using portions of an original structure pursuant to Chapter

18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work).
"Dormer" means a roofed architectural projection that is set within and projects from a sloping roof plane and does not continue or extend upward from the exterior wall plane below.

A dormer may contain a window, door, louver, vent, or similar opening, as illustrated by Figure 2 (Dormer).

Figure 2 – Dormer
"Unenclosed" means open to the outdoors on at least one side from the finished floor or grade to the underside of the roof or overhead structure, except for posts, columns, and open railings. A side containing a wall or other permanent solid barrier shall not be considered open.
"Lot width" means the horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. This measurement is illustrated as line B in Figure 3 (Lot Width Measurement), drawn perpendicular to the lot depth (line A) at its midpoint.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 167 of 776

Figure 3 – Lot Width Measurement
A= Line drawn from midpoint of front and
rear property line.

B= Line rotated 90° from (A) at midpoint.
"Open space, usable" means an area with minimum length and width dimensions of 10-feet, excluding the required front setback between the structure and the street property line, and any required landscaping area. The open space area may be occupied by recreation facilities (e.g., deck, patio, playground equipment, porch, swimming pool, etc.) provided it is open on at least two sides and not covered by a roof or canopy. When serving multiple-family dwelling units, a private open space area may be provided for each dwelling unit, or all the required space may be combined in one common area.
"Public right-of-way" means areas of land acquired by the City or other public entity by easement or fee title reserved exclusively for public use, including, but not limited to streets, street-parking, sidewalks, alleys, drainage works, landscaping, and stormwater management.

Public right-of-way shall not include areas of land encumbered by non-exclusive public easements nor by any private easements.
"Street, public" means a vehicular roadway identified as a "local," "collector," or "arterial" street as depicted on the General Plan Roadway Classifications Diagram (Figure T1) and defined by this Zoning Code, which is located within the public right-of-way. Does not include the "freeway" or "expressway" roadway classifications, public pedestrian/bicycle trails, or public alleyways.
"Story, half" means the uppermost story of a building located beneath a gable, hip or gambrel roof, or a combination thereof, where the wall plates on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than four feet above the finished floor of the story for the full length of each such wall, and where exterior wall planes forming the perimeter of the story terminate at the wall plates, except for dormers, as illustrated in Figure 4 (Half Story).

Figure 4 – Half Story
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 168 of 776

SECTION 5 (URBAN LOT SPLITS): Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as set forth in the following revised Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits).

Chapter 20.14 URBAN LOT SPLITS

20.14.010 Purpose.

This Chapter implements the subdivision procedures of the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, originally enacted by Senate Bill No. 9 (2021), and amended by Senate Bill No. 450 (2024) and Assembly Bill No. 1061 (2025). These laws aim to streamline the subdivision processes, facilitate the creation of smaller residential lots, and encourage a diverse range of housing types, thereby expanding opportunities for affordable and efficient housing solutions.

20.14.020 Applicability.

This Chapter applies exclusively to voluntary applications for tentative parcel maps to facilitate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code Sections 66452.6 and 66411.7.

20.14.030 Definitions.

In addition to the terms defined by Section 4 (Definitions) of this interim ordinance and Chapter 21.72 (Definitions) of the Campbell Municipal Code, the following terms shall have the following meanings as used in this Chapter. Where a conflict may exist, the definitions provided in this section shall prevail over any other definition. "Acting in concert" means persons, as defined by Section 82047 of the California Government Code as that section existed as of January 1, 2022, acting jointly to pursue development of real property whether or not pursuant to a written agreement and irrespective of individual financial interest.
"Alteration" means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms or the supporting members of a building or change in the relative position of buildings on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 169 of 776

"Existing structure" means a lawfully constructed building that received final building permit clearance prior to January 1, 2022 and which has not been expanded on or after January 1, 2022.
"Urban lot split" means a ministerial application for a tentative parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel located within a single-family residential zone into two parcels, as authorized by Government Code Sections 66452 and 66411.7. "Nonconforming zoning condition" means a lawful physical improvement or use of land on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards as defined by Section

21.58.030 (Definitions). Also means unlawful physical improvements or use of land that may be subject to Chapter 21.70 (Enforcement).

20.14.035 Site eligibility.

A tentative parcel map for an urban lot split may only be created on parcels satisfying all of the following general requirements. Applications for parcels not satisfying these requirements shall not be accepted by the community development director pursuant to Section 21.38.040.E (Community Development Director’s determination):

A. Zoning district. A parcel that is located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District, or within the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District, provided that the parcel has a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation, as specified in Section 21.04.020, Table 2-1 (Zoning Districts and General Plan Designations) and is not subject to a legacy permit.

B. Historic property. A parcel that is not listed on the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory as a Landmark, as defined by Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation).

C. Legal parcel. A parcel which has been legally created in compliance with this Title and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), as applicable at the time the parcel(s) was created. The City Engineer may require a certificate of compliance to verify conformance with this requirement.

D. Prior subdivision. A parcel that was not created by a parcel map approved pursuant to Government Code Section 66411.7 or by a parcel map or subdivision map pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.41.

E. Hazardous waste site. A parcel that is not identified as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25356.

Exception: This restriction shall not apply where the parcel has been cleared for residential use or mixed-use development by the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control.

F. Flood zone. A parcel that is not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance flood (one hundred-year flood), as shown on official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Exception: This restriction shall not apply if FEMA has issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) for the parcel(s), or where a condition of tentative map approval can ensure that future dwellings constructed upon the new Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 170 of 776

parcels may be made to comply with Chapter 21.22 (Flood Damage Prevention), as determined by the Floodplain Administrator.

G. Earthquake fault zone. A parcel that is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as identified in official maps published by the State Geologist.

Exception: This restriction shall not apply where a condition of tentative map approval can ensure that future dwelling units constructed upon the new parcels resulting from the urban lot split will comply with the applicable seismic protection building code standards, including those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5, commencing with Section 18901, of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code) and Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, as determined by the Building Official.

H. Natural habitat. A parcel that is not recognized by the City as a habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).

I. For a parcel where a prior dwelling unit(s) was demolished within the last three years, the demolished unit(s) must not have been occupied by a tenant at any time during the three years preceding the date of the tentative parcel map application for an urban lot split. The date of demolition shall be either the date a demolition permit was issued or the date the City documented that an unlawful demolition was performed without a permit.

Exception: This restriction shall not apply to housing that was destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood, wind, or other calamity or act of God or the public enemy, clearly beyond the control of the property owner.

20.14.040 Objective subdivision standards.

The new lots proposed by a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split shall comply with the minimum parcel size, minimum lot width, and minimum public frontage requirements specified by Section 6 (Objective Subdivision Standards), and all other applicable objective subdivision standards set forth in Section 3 (General Subdivision Standards), of the interim ordinance amending this Chapter.

20.14.050 General requirements and restrictions.

The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed urban lot splits allowed by this Chapter:

A. Adjacent parcels. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously conducted an urban lot split to create an adjacent parcel as provided for in this Chapter.

B. Applicant eligibility. Notwithstanding Section 21.38.030.A (Eligibility for filing), an applicant for a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split shall be a natural person who intends to occupy one of the resulting parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three years, as required by Government Code Section 66411.7(g)(1). The Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 171 of 776

subject parcel may be owned by an individual, trust, or legal entity, including a limited liability company or corporation, provided that the owner authorizes the applicant to file the application and to sign the affidavit required by subsection E.

C. Dedication and easements. The community development director shall not require dedications of rights-of-way nor the construction of offsite improvements, however, may require recording of easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities.

D. Existing structures. Existing structures located on a parcel subject to an urban lot split shall not be subject to a setback requirement. However, any such existing structures shall not be located across the shared property line resulting from an urban lot split, as specified by Section 21.18.040.A.5. This restriction shall not preclude the creation of adjacent or connected structures with walls meeting at a shared property line, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards sufficient to allow separate conveyance as individual dwelling units
E. Intent to occupy. Prior to recordation of a parcel map, the applicant shall sign an affidavit provided by the community development director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one of the newly created parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split (or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a new dwelling in the case of a vacant lot).

Exception: This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is "community land trust," as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a "qualified nonprofit corporation" as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

F. Nonconforming conditions. The City shall not require, as a condition of approval of the tentative parcel map application, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.

However, no new nonconforming conditions may result from the urban lot split other than as specified by Table 2 (General Development Standards – Single-Family Residential District). This provision shall not be construed as to prevent the City from taking enforcement action to remedy unlawful nonconforming zoning conditions pursuant to Chapter 21.70 (Enforcement) following tentative parcel map approval for an urban lot split.

G. Number of dwelling units. No parcel created through an urban lot split shall be allowed to include more than two existing dwelling units as defined by Government Code section 66411.7(j)(2). Any excess dwelling units that do not meet these requirements shall be relocated, demolished, or otherwise removed prior to recordation of a parcel map. As a condition of tentative parcel map approval, the community development director shall require recordation of a deed restriction on each new lot created by an urban lot split to document this restriction prior to, or concurrent with, recordation of the parcel map.

H. Park impact fee. A fee in-lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to Chapter 20.24 (Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Subdivisions) is not required. However, construction of new dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split may be subject to a park impact fee in accordance with Chapter 13.08 (Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Developments).

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 172 of 776

I. Tree removal permits. Notwithstanding Section 21.32.050 (Protected trees), protected tree(s) may be removed in conjunction with an approved tentative parcel map application without a Tree Removal Permit when the tree(s) directly conflicts with emergency vehicle access to the lot or when removal is necessary to retain an existing dwelling unit, and the subdivision cannot feasibly be redesigned to preserve the tree(s).

Any approved tree removal shall occur after the City Engineer’s approval of the parcel map, but prior to its recordation. Any protected tree removed shall be subject to payment of an in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 21.32.110 (Site Limitations and In-Lieu Fee for Replacement Trees).

J. Subsequent subdivision. A parcel created through an urban lot split shall not be further subdivided pursuant to Government Code Sections 66411.7 or 66499.41. The subdivider shall sign a covenant provided by the community development director documenting this restriction. The covenant shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with recordation of the parcel map.

K. Restrictions on demolition. The proposed urban lot split shall not require the demolition or alteration of any of the following:

1. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income;

2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power;

3. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years; or

4. A historic resource located on a property within a designated historic district, as defined in Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation).

L. Storm drain area fee. Prior to recordation of a parcel map, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, as set by the City's Schedule of Fees and Charges.

M. Utilities. Utilities serving new parcels that cross property lines shall be placed in appropriate public or private easements. The requirements of the utility providers shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a parcel map.

N. Zoning and design standards. Construction of dwelling units upon the lots created by an urban lot split shall be subject to the objective zoning and design standards provided by Section 8 (Objective Zoning Standards),Section 9 (Required Parking), and Section 10 (Objective Design Standards) of the interim ordinance adopting this provision that apply uniformly to properties in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. If any such standard(s) would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels of the urban lot split or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet, the provisions for an exception in Section 11 (Exceptions) of the interim ordinance adopting this provision shall be followed.

20.14.060 Application process.

Applications for urban lot splits shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 173 of 776

A. Application type. An urban lot split shall be reviewed by the community development director as a ministerial application for a tentative parcel map, as required by Section 20.16.020 (Tentative parcel map).

B. Application filing. Applications for a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split, along with all required materials and fees, shall be filed with the community development department, in accordance with Chapter 21.38 (Application Filing, Processing, and Fees).

C. Review process. The community development director shall ministerially review tentative parcel map applications for urban lot splits in accordance with Chapter

20.16 (Parcel Map Procedures). If the community development director determines that the tentative parcel map is eligible for approval as an urban lot split and complies with the objective standards and general requirements of this Chapter, the tentative parcel map shall be approved. The community development director shall approve or deny a completed tentative parcel map application for an urban lot split within 60 days from the date the application is deemed complete. If no action is taken within the 60-day period, the application shall be deemed approved by operation of law.

D. Conditions of approval. Approval of a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split may include standard conditions of approval that are objective, non-discretionary, and broadly applicable to tentative parcel maps, as necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter or any other applicable provision of the Campbell Municipal Code.

E. Approval expiration. Approval of a tentative parcel map shall be valid for a period of two years in accordance with Section 20.16.033 (Expiration of tentative parcel maps). Within this period, a parcel map must be recorded with the Office of the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder, as specified by Section 21.56.030 (Permit time limits and extensions).

F. Final map. Following approval of a tentative parcel map, the applicant shall file for a parcel map with the public works department, including all required application materials and payment of required fees. The city engineer shall ministerially approve the parcel map if it is consistent with the community development director’s tentative parcel map approval, including any conditions of approval. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66463(b), the city engineer is authorized to accept, on behalf of the city, any easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities, as shown on the parcel map, provided such easements are consistent with the tentative parcel map approval. City council approval of the parcel map shall not be required unless the subdivider voluntarily offers dedications of public rights-of-way.

G. Denial. The community development director may deny an application for a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split that meets the requirements of this section only if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that dwelling units to be constructed upon the proposed new parcel(s) would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon the public health and safety for which there is no feasible Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 174 of 776

method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. An adverse impact to the physical environment shall not be a basis for denial.

H. Appeals. A decision of the community development director on a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split is a ministerial action and not appealable.

SECTION 6 (OBJECTIVE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS): The minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum public street frontage of parcels proposed in new conforming subdivisions, urban lot splits, or lot line adjustments in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District shall be as specified by Table 1 (Parcel Standards – Single-Family Zoning District), which shall supersede conflicting provisions in Section 21.08.040 (Residential subdivision standards).

Table 1
(Parcel Standards – Single-Family Residential Zoning District) Minimum Lot Area (1) Minimum Lot Width (2)
Zoning Map
Symbol Conforming
Subdivisions
Urban Lot Splits Conforming
Subdivisions
(3)
Urban Lot
Splits
Minimum Public
Street Frontage
R-1-6 6,000
square feet
60 feet
R-1-8 8,000
square feet
70 feet
R-1-9 9,000
square feet
70 feet
R-1-10 10,000
square feet
80 feet
R-1-16 16,000
square feet
1,200 square feet
AND
Each lot ≥ 40% of
the area of the
original parcel
80 feet
25 feet
• 25 feet (NonFlag Lots)
• 12 feet (Flag
Lots) (4)
Notes:
(1) The minimum lot area for a flag lot shall not include the access corridor portion of the lot. Further, for conforming subdivisions (i.e., those not created by an urban lot split), flag lots shall have a minimum lot area equal to ten percent (10%) greater than the minimum identified, excluding the access corridor portion of the lot.
(2) The minimum lot width for a flag (rear) lot shall not include the access corridor portion of the lot. (3) Except for lots created on the bulb of a cul-de-sac which shall be subject to a minimum lot width of 60 feet. (4) The access corridor of a flag lot shall be in fee as part of the parcel and not as an easement and shall be of a maximum width of fifteen (15) feet.
(5) Existing lots located within the boundaries of the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan shall not be subdivided or reconfigured by a Lot Line Adjustment to create a flag lot configuration.

SECTION 7 (NUMBER OF UNITS): The number of primary dwelling units permitted on a property within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District shall be as follows in accordance with Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7:

A. Minimum allowed. Up to two (2) primary dwelling units are permitted, irrespective of any conflict with the maximum density specified by the General Plan land use designation for the property, except for properties designated as a landmark or located Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 175 of 776

within a historic district pursuant to Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation), which shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) primary dwelling unit.

B. Maximum allowed. More than two (2) primary dwelling units may be permitted if the total number does not exceed the maximum density specified by the General Plan land use designation for the property.

C. Exception. No parcel created through an urban lot split in accordance with Section 5 (Urban Lot Splits) of this interim ordinance shall be allowed to include more than two dwelling units as defined by California Government Code section 66411.7(j)(2).

D. Dwelling unit type. Primary dwelling units may take the form of detached single-family dwellings, attached townhomes, and/or duplexes. A duplex may consist of two dwelling units in a side-by-side or front-to-back configuration within the same structure or one dwelling unit located atop of another dwelling unit within the same structure.

SECTION 8 (OBJECTIVE ZONING STANDARDS): All land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential Zoning District), shall be designed, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2 (General Development Standards – Single Family Residential District), in addition to the development standards contained in Article 3 (e.g., landscaping, fences, parking and loading) and Article 4 (e.g., accessory structures), which shall supersede conflicting provisions in Section 21.08.050 (Residential development standard).

Table 2
General Development Standards – Single-Family Residential District Neighborhood Plan (1) | Zoning District Map Symbol
Not Within Within an Area Plan
an Area Plan CVNP STANP CVNP STANP (2)
Development
Standard
R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-8 R-1-9 R-1-10 &
R-1-16
Main Structure
Maximum Height
(3)(4)
35 feet 28 feet
Main Structure
Maximum Stories 2 ½ stories 2 stories 2 ½ stories
Maximum Lot
Coverage (5) 40% 45% 35%
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
(5)

0.45 Minimum Useable
Open Space (6) 750 square feet (per lot)
Minimum Building
Separation
Distance (7) (8)
5 feet
Minimum Main Structure Property Line Setbacks (8) (9)
Front 20 feet 25 feet
Rear 4 feet
Interior Side (10) 4 feet
Street Side (where
applicable) 4 feet (11)
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 176 of 776

Neighborhood Plan (1) | Zoning District Map Symbol
Not Within Within an Area Plan
an Area Plan CVNP STANP CVNP STANP (2)
Development
Standard
R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-8 R-1-9 R-1-10 &
R-1-16
Parking Facilities
(12) 25 feet
Notes:
(1) The abbreviation "STANP" designates the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and "CVNP" designates the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan. The boundaries of both neighborhood plans are identified by Figure LU-2 (Special Planning Areas) of the General Plan. The standards and requirements provided in this table shall prevail over any conflict with a neighborhood plan, including any allowance for an exception to the maximum FAR or required setbacks. (2) Consistent with STANP Land Use Policy 'D', parcels that do not meet the minimum lot size requirement for the district in which it is located (e.g. a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-1-10 Zoning District) may exercise the side and rear setbacks and lot coverage requirements of the most restrictive zoning district in which the lot would be conforming (e.g. the setback and lot coverage requirement for a 6,000 square foot lot in an R-1-10 Zoning District would be based on the standards for the R-1-6 zoning district.)
(3) See Section 21.18.050 (Exceptions to height provisions), for exceptions to the maximum height requirement.
(4) The height of main structures shall be measured from finished grade, irrespective of any neighborhood plan provision to the contrary.
(5) For properties subject to the STANP or CVNP, the maximum FAR and Lot Coverage shall be calculated excluding the access corridor of a flag lot from the net lot area. (6) See definition for "Open space, usable,” for specific standards for the required open space area. (7) This standard applies to the required separation between primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and accessory structures, and any combination thereof. (8) See Section 21.18.040.B (Exceptions) for exceptions to setback and building separation distance requirements.
(9) No setback shall be required for an existing main structure, or a main structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing main structure. (10) No interior side setback shall be required between individual townhomes, provided that building code safety standards are satisfied as to allow conveyance as a separate fee parcel. (11) To ensure adequate site visibility for pedestrian and vehicular safety, in no circumstance shall a structure be constructed or placed within the triangular areas of a property as depicted in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice and screens). (12) Applies to the vehicular entry to garages, carports, and uncovered parking stalls, measured perpendicularly from the public right-of-way to the nearest point of the garage door, the threshold to a carport or garage entry (without doors), or the outer edge of a parking stall, respectively. All other applicable setbacks continue to apply to these parking facilities. This setback does not apply to parking facilities with vehicular entries that are parallel to the public right-of-way.

SECTION 9 (REQUIRED PARKING). The parking requirement contained in Table 3-1 (Parking Requirements by Land Use) Section 21.28.040, Table 3-1 (Parking Requirements by Land Use) is hereby amended to read as follows with strikethroughs (strikethroughs) indicating deleted text and underlining (underlining) indicating added text:

Properties in the R-1 (Single-family) dwelling
Zoning District
2 1 spaces for each unit, 1 of which shall
be covered.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 177 of 776

SECTION 10 (OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS). This section establishes objective design standards for single-family residential development to ensure design quality, neighborhood compatibility, and predictability in the review process.

A. Applicability. Except for a housing development project processed pursuant to Government Code section 65852.28, the objective design standards in Table 3 apply as follows:

1. Neighborhood Plan Areas. All standards in Table 3 apply to properties in the R1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District that are subject to either the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan or the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan, as depicted on General Plan Figure LU-2 (Special Planning Areas), except for properties listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory pursuant to Chapter

21.33 (Historic Preservation).

2. Citywide Standard. Standard No. 3.d (Upper-Story Windows) applies to all properties in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District citywide, including properties outside the Neighborhood Plan Areas and properties listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory.

B. Scope. This section establishes how the objective design standards in Table 3 apply to the construction, alteration, or expansion of primary dwelling units subject to this section. The provisions identify the extent to which each standard applies based on the type and scope of work proposed. Where an individual standard in Table 3 establishes a different scope of applicability, the individual standard shall control.

1. New Dwellings. All new primary dwelling units shall comply with the objective design standards for "New Dwellings" in Table 3. Construction of a new structure using portions of an original structure, as defined in Chapter 18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work), shall also comply with the same standards.

However, existing portions of the original structure may be retained without compliance with those standards where no change is made to their exterior form, wall or roof framing, or location of openings.

2. Additions. All additions to an existing primary dwelling shall comply with the objective design standards for "Additions" in Table 3, including any construction that increases the size of the dwelling in height, length, width, or gross floor area. The objective design standards in Table 3 apply only to newly constructed portions of the dwelling and not to existing portions retained without modification. Where an individual standard regulates a specific architectural element or building feature, including an attached garage, the standard shall apply only where the addition constructs, enlarges, or otherwise modifies that element or feature.

3. Exterior alterations. Modification of an existing architectural element, such as a change to an exterior wall or roofing material, building color, or door or window opening, shall comply with the applicable standard for "New Dwellings" in Table

3. Construction of a new architectural element that expands the exterior form of the dwelling beyond an existing wall or roof plane, such as a dormer, porch, or projecting entryway, shall comply with the applicable standard for "Additions".

In either case, compliance shall be limited to the architectural element and portion of the dwelling within the scope of work.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 178 of 776

4. Ordinary Maintenance and Repair. Ordinary maintenance and repair is not subject to the objective design standards in Table 3. For purposes of this section, ordinary maintenance and repair means the repair, restoration, or inkind replacement of existing materials with equivalent materials for the purpose of protecting or preserving a primary dwelling or its systems. Work that changes the design, material type, dimensions, configuration, color, roof form, or roofing material of an exterior architectural element, including a window, door, cladding, trim, cornice, balcony, or awning, constitutes an exterior alteration subject to paragraph 3.

5. Nonconforming Status. A lawfully established primary dwelling shall not be considered a nonconforming structure for purposes of Chapter 21.58 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) solely because an existing architectural element does not comply with an objective design standard in Table 3. Alteration of the architectural element remains subject to paragraph 3.

C. Objective Design Standards. The objective design standards in Table 3 shall apply in accordance with subsections A and B. An architectural element or building feature that is not expressly regulated by Table 3 is not subject to the requirements of this section.

Table 3
Objective Design Standards – Single-Family Residential District Scope of Work
No. Standard
New Dwellings Additions

1. Materials and Colors

1.a. Number of Wall
Colors
No more than two wall colors may be
used on each building elevation.

Each building elevation containing an addition
shall use the same wall colors as the existing
portions of that elevation, or the entire
elevation shall comply with the wall-color
requirements for a new dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) The term "wall colors" includes painted, integrally colored, and factory-finished stucco and siding, but excludes the intrinsic naturally occurring coloration of materials such as unpainted metal, unpainted wood, tile, stone, brick, and glass.
(2) Colors applied solely to architectural trim, including window and door surrounds, fascia, cornices, corner boards, and similar narrow decorative elements, do not count toward the maximum number of wall colors. (3) For purposes of this standard, a building elevation includes all exterior wall surfaces facing the same direction, regardless of offsets, projections, or changes in wall plane.

1.b. Number of Wall
Materials
Up to two permitted wall materials,
plus one accent material, may be
used on the dwelling.

The addition shall use only wall and accent
materials already used on the existing dwelling,
or the entire dwelling shall comply with the
material requirements for a new dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) Permitted wall materials include: stucco, horizontal or vertical fiber cement siding (any profile), horizontal or vertical wood siding (any profile), and horizontal or vertical engineered (composite) wood siding (any profile).

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 179 of 776

Scope of Work
No. Standard
New Dwellings Additions
(2) When the combined area of glass and framing within a continuous glazed assembly exceeds 50 percent of the surface area of the wall, without interruption by a wall material, the glazed assembly shall constitute an impermissible wall material.
(3) Stacked stone or brick veneer may be used as the accent material, provided that it does not exceed 25 percent of the total exterior wall surface area of any building elevation, as defined in Standard No. 1.a, Note (3).

1.c.

Number of
Roofing
Materials
Up to two permitted roofing materials
may be used on the dwelling.

The predominant roofing material of the
existing dwelling shall be used on the addition,
or the entire dwelling shall comply with the
roofing-material requirements for a new
dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) Roofed architectural features such as dormers and porches are not subject to the overall roofing material limit.

However, the permitted roofing material types listed in Note (2) continue to apply to these features. (2) Permitted roofing materials include: asphalt composite shingles, photovoltaic shingles, standing seam metal, clay tile, concrete tile, and slate shingles. Roof-mounted photovoltaic panels may be installed over any permitted roofing material and shall not be counted as a separate roofing material. (3) The term "predominant roofing material" means the roofing material that covers more than 50 percent of the total roof surface area or, where no material exceeds 50 percent, covers the greatest roof surface area.

2. Building Form

2.a. Roof Form and
Pitch
Roof forms shall be limited to
hipped, cross-hipped, hipped-andvalley, front gable, and side gable forms, or a combination thereof, with
a pitch between 4:12 and 8:12.

The roof form and pitch shall match the
predominant roof form and pitch of the
existing dwelling or the entire dwelling shall
comply with the requirements for a new
dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) The term "predominant roof form and pitch" means the roof form-and-pitch combination that covers more than 50 percent of the total roof surface area of the existing dwelling or, where no combination exceeds 50 percent, covers the greatest roof surface area.
(2) The roof structure of dormers, porches, and entryway elements shall comply with the requirements of this section, except that shed forms are also permitted.

2.b. Plate Height
The plate height of each story shall
not exceed 12 feet.

The plate height of each story shall match the
plate height of the corresponding story of the
existing dwelling. Where the addition creates a
story for which no corresponding story exists,
the plate height shall not exceed 12 feet.

Note(s):
(1) The term "plate height" means the vertical distance from the finished floor of a story to the underside of the top plate of the exterior wall framing for that story.
(2) Where an addition involves removal or replacement of existing floor or ceiling framing such that the plate height of a story is altered, the modified portion shall comply with the plate height limit for new dwellings. (3) The plate height of an existing story may be increased to match an addition at the same story level, provided that the resulting plate height does not exceed 12 feet.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 180 of 776

Scope of Work
No. Standard
New Dwellings Additions

2.c. Finished Floor
Height
The finished floor height of the first
story shall not exceed 18 inches.

The finished floor height of a first-story
addition shall match the finished floor height
of the existing first story, except that the
finished floor height of the existing first story
may be modified to match the addition,
provided that the resulting finished floor height
does not exceed 18 inches.

Note(s):
(1) Finished floor height is measured vertically from the finished grade adjacent to the structure to the finished floor surface of the first story.
(2) Where the existing first-story floor assembly is removed and reconstructed as part of an addition, the finished floor height of the reconstructed first story and the addition shall not exceed 18 inches.

2.d. Columns and
Pillars
Columns and pillars shall not exceed 14 feet in height or the first-story plate height of the dwelling, whichever is lower.

Note(s):
(1) This standard applies to vertical elements that function as structural or decorative supports for a roof, porch, or entry feature.
(2) Column and pillar height is measured from the finished floor of the structure or grade at the base of the column or pillar, whichever is lower, to the top of the beam, cap, or roof element it supports.

3. Architectural Features

3.a. Front Door
Openings
A front door opening shall not exceed six feet in width or nine feet in height.

Note(s):
(1) The term "front door opening" means the framed opening occupied by the operable door or doors. It does not include sidelights, transom windows, trim, pilasters, arches, pediments, or other elements of a front door surround regulated by Standard No. 3.b.
(2) Where a dwelling has more than one exterior entry door facing a street, the term "front door" means the entrance located on the building elevation bearing the address identification approved pursuant to California Fire Code Section 505.1.
(3) Door opening width is measured between the inside faces of the door frame, and height is measured from the finished floor at the threshold to the underside of the structural header above the door opening.

3.b. Front Door
Surrounds
A front door surround shall not exceed 14 feet in height.

Note(s):
(1) The term "front door surround" means the architectural assembly that frames a front door opening, including sidelights, transom windows, trim, pilasters, arches, and pediments. The term does not include a roofed or covered feature that projects farther from the wall than an allowable eave projection specified by Section

21.18.040.B.1 (Architectural Features), which shall be governed as a porch.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 181 of 776

Scope of Work
No. Standard
New Dwellings Additions
(2) The height of a front door surround is measured vertically from the finished floor at the door threshold to the highest point of the surround.

3.c. Porches
A porch shall have a minimum depth of five feet. The height of a porch shall not exceed 150 percent of the first-story plate height of the dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) The term "porch" means a roofed, unenclosed exterior area that projects farther from the building wall than an allowable eave projection specified by Section 21.18.040.B.1 (Architectural Features) and does not meet the definition of an "attached patio cover" in Standard No. 3.h (Attached Patio Covers). A porch may be raised or located at or near finished grade and may extend along one or more building elevations. (2) Porch depth is measured perpendicular to the exterior wall, from the exterior wall to the innermost face of the porch railing or the outermost column, whichever is farther from the wall, or to the outer edge of the porch floor where no railing or column is provided.
(3) The height of a porch is measured vertically from finished grade to the highest point of the porch roof. (4) For purposes of this standard, the first-story plate height shall be the plate height of the exterior wall of the dwelling from which the porch projects. Where a porch projects from exterior walls having different first-story plate heights, the maximum height shall be determined separately for each portion of the porch based on the wall from which that portion projects.

3.d. Upper-Story
Windows
Windows on stories above the first story that are located less than eight feet from a rear or interior side property line shall have a minimum sill height of six feet above finished floor.

Note(s):
(1) Sill height is measured vertically from the finished floor of the story on which the window is located to the lowest point of the window glazing, regardless of interior stairways, landings, or split-level configurations. (2) This standard applies to operable and non-operable windows, including transoms or clerestories, where the lowest point of the window glazing is below the required sill height. (3) Distance to a property line is measured horizontally from the exterior of the window glazing to the nearest point on the applicable property line.

3.e.

Balconies,
Decks, and
Rooftop
Terraces
Balconies are permitted only on the front building elevation and shall include solid, obscure side walls. Rooftop terraces and rooftop decks are prohibited. For properties subject to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan, a balcony or upper-level deck shall not extend along a building wall adjacent to a side property line or be located within 20 feet of a rear property line when either property line adjoins a parcel in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. These restrictions do not apply to a balcony or deck that is fully inset behind a building wall, with no opening along the side or rear elevation.

Note(s):
(1) An opaque or obscure glass balcony wall shall be considered a permissible solid wall. (2) The phrase "fully inset behind a building wall" means the balcony or deck is enclosed on three sides by exterior walls of the dwelling, with no portion of its opening facing a side or rear elevation.

3.f. Garage
Conversions
When an attached garage is converted to living area, the existing garage door shall be permanently removed and the entire opening enclosed with a new wall. The new Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 182 of 776

Scope of Work
No. Standard
New Dwellings Additions
wall shall incorporate cladding, colors, windows, and architectural detailing that match those of the primary dwelling in material, color, and dimension.

Note(s):
(1) This standard also applies to conversions performed as part of construction of a “new structure using portions of the original structure”, as defined in Chapter 18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work). (2) The term "match" refers to the visible cladding, trim, and fenestration proportions of the primary dwelling, not to concealed framing or construction methods.

3.g. Garage Width
Applicability. This standard applies to new dwellings and additions that include the construction or expansion of an attached garage.

Standard. The linear width of an attached garage shall not exceed 50 percent of the linear width of the primary dwelling unit for properties subject to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, or 40 percent for properties subject to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan. A garage may exceed these limits only when an alternative design feature, described below, is incorporated.

Alternative. In lieu of the specified maximum garage width, one of the following alternative design elements may be incorporated:
a. The garage, across its full linear width as described in Note (1), shall be recessed a minimum of five feet behind the remainder of the primary dwelling unit, forming offset building walls; or
b. A trellis constructed of wood or metal shall be installed over the full width of the garage door and attached to the front elevation of the primary dwelling unit.

Exception. The requirements of this standard shall not apply where the garage door is oriented away from the street (i.e., a “side entry” garage).

Note(s):
(1) The term "linear width of the garage" means the full width of the garage structure, including the garage door(s) and any wall area extending between the outermost points of the garage walls. (2) The term "linear width of the primary dwelling unit" means the full extent of the building’s front elevation, including the attached garage, regardless of variations in building wall planes, as illustrated below:

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 183 of 776

Scope of Work
No. Standard
New Dwellings Additions

3.h. Attached Patio
Covers
An attached patio cover shall be subject only to the requirements of this standard. a. The height of an attached patio cover shall not exceed 14 feet. b. Where a solid roof is provided, the roof pitch shall not exceed 8:12. A solid roof with a pitch of 4:12 or greater shall use one of the allowable roofing materials identified in Standard No. 1.c (Number of Roofing Materials).

Note(s):
(1) The term "attached patio cover" means a solid or slatted roof structure constructed over a patio or deck and attached to an exterior wall of a primary dwelling, where the roof structure is not formed by a continuation or extension of the dwelling’s rafters, trusses, joists, beams, or other roof or floor framing members. A roof structure formed by such a continuation or extension shall be considered part of the primary dwelling and shall comply with the applicable standards in Table 3 based on the scope of work. An attached patio cover may be prefabricated or site-built and may be supported by posts, columns, or other structural supports bearing on separate footings. The area beneath the attached patio cover shall remain unenclosed. (2) The height of an attached patio cover is measured vertically from the finished surface of the patio or deck beneath the patio cover to the highest point of the roof structure.

SECTION 11 (EXCEPTIONS). If any standard in this interim ordinance or the Campbell Municipal Code would physically preclude the construction of up to two primary dwelling units or prevent either unit from achieving a minimum floor area of eight hundred (800) square feet, the Community Development Director shall grant an exception to the applicable standard(s) to the minimum extent necessary to allow a unit of at least 800 square feet, as specified by this section.

A. Determination. The Community Development Director shall grant exceptions to development standards in the following priority order and only to the minimum extent necessary to resolve a physical constraint. Exceptions that do not remove a physical constraint shall not be granted.

1. Elimination of the rear setback (for parcels with a rear property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or roadway);

2. Elimination of the interior-side setback (for parcels with a side property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or street);

3. Reduction of the garage entry setback/minimum driveway depth to no less than 20 feet;

4. Required parking may be uncovered (rather than covered);

5. Elimination of the minimum parking requirement;

6. Increase to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR);

7. Increase to the maximum lot coverage;

8. Reduction to the minimum required private open space;

9. Increase to the number of allowable stories to three stories at a maximum height of 35 feet;
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 184 of 776

10. Allowance to remove a "protected tree(s)" pursuant to Chapter 21.32 (Tree Protection Regulations) without an otherwise required Tree Removal Permit; then

11. Reduction or elimination of any other standard not identified.

SECTION 12 (PROPERTY LINE ENCROACHMENTS): Section 21.18.040.A (Requirements) is hereby amended to add a new subsection ‘5,’ to read as follows:

5. No portion of any building, including eaves or roof overhangs, shall extend beyond a property line, or into an access easement or the public right-of-way.

SECTION 13 (CHAPTER 21.25): Chapter 21.25 (Two-Unit Housing Development) of the Campbell Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

SECTION 14 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES). The following requirements shall prevail over any other provisions to the contrary in Section 21.36.020 (Accessory Structures):

A. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall meet all setback requirements for primary structures of the applicable zoning district in which they are located, irrespective of any conflicting requirement specified by an area or neighborhood plan.

B. Location. Accessory structures may be located anywhere on a lot, except for usable open space areas and required minimum setbacks for primary structures.

C. Design criteria. Accessory structures shall not be subject to any design requirements.

SECTION 15 (DRIVEWAYS). Notwithstanding Section 21.28.090.A (Driveway Separation), no setback from a side property line shall be required for a driveway serving a single-family residential property where surface runoff is prevented from flowing onto the adjoining property by sloping the driveway to drain away from the side property line, installing a drainage system, or using pervious pavers designed to infiltrate runoff.

SECTION 16 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION). Any requirement for a Historic Resource Alteration Permit to alter, expand by addition, or demolish a designated Structure of Merit pursuant to Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation), when proposed in association with an urban lot split or housing development pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, respectively, shall not apply.

SECTION 17 (LEGACY PERMITS). Notwithstanding the limitations of Section 21.56.060.E (Legacy permits), primary dwelling units constructed pursuant to a legacy permit on parcels with a General Plan land use designation that directly corresponds to the Single-Family (R-1) Residential Zoning District, as specified in Section 21.04.020, Table 2-1 (Zoning districts and General Plan designations), may be altered or expanded by addition, provided that such work complies with the development standards set forth in Section 8 (Objective zoning standards) and the objective design standards set forth in Section 10 (Objective Design Standards). For purposes of applying Section 10, such parcels shall be treated as parcels in the R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) Zoning District.

SECTION 18 (ZONING CLEARANCE APPROVAL): Notwithstanding Section 21.42.020 (Site and architectural review permit required) and Section 21.56.060 (Amendments to an approved project), construction of new primary dwelling unit or alteration or expansion of an Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 185 of 776

existing primary dwelling in compliance with this interim ordinance shall be ministerially reviewed by consideration of a Zoning Clearance in compliance Chapter 21.40 (Zoning Clearances). If the Community Development Director determines that an application for a Zoning Clearance complies with the objective standards and general requirements of this interim ordinance and the Campbell Municipal Code and that the parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 65913.4, the Zoning Clearance shall be approved.

The Community Development Director shall render a decision on the Zoning Clearance application within 60 days from the date the application is deemed complete. If no action is taken within the 60-day period, the application shall be deemed approved.

SECTION 19 (ZONING CLEARANCE DENIAL): The Community Development Director may deny an application for Zoning Clearance that meets the requirements of this interim ordinance only if the Building Official issues a written finding—based on a preponderance of the evidence—that the proposed dwelling unit(s) would have a specific, adverse impact (as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5) on the public health and safety, and that no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid this impact. An adverse impact to the physical environment shall not be a basis for denial.

SECTION 20 (SEVERABILITY): If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this interim 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 interim ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this interim 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 21 (STATE LAW). Any provision of this interim ordinance which is inconsistent with Sections 66452.6, 65852.21, or 66411.7 of the California Government Code shall be interpreted in a manner which is the most limiting on the ability to allow construction of two units to effectuate an urban lot split, but which is consistent with State law. The provisions of this interim ordinance shall supersede and take precedence over any inconsistent provision of the Campbell Municipal Code to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this interim ordinance for the duration of its effectiveness.

SECTION 22 (APPLICATIONS IN PROGRESS): Notwithstanding Section 21.01.050.E (Effect of Zoning Code Changes on Projects in Progress), this interim ordinance shall not apply to (1) a land use permit application that was filed with the Community Development Department and for which all required fees were paid before the effective date of this ordinance, regardless of whether the application has been deemed complete, or (2) any land use permit application submitted after that date if a related request for a determination of “new structure using portions of the original structure,” pursuant to Chapter 18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work), was filed with the Building Division before the effective date of this ordinance. Applicants may voluntarily withdraw such applications at any time and seek a partial refund of fees in compliance with Section 21.38.030.D (Refunds).

SECTION 23 (TERMINATION OF PRIOR INTERIM ORDINANCE): Interim Ordinance No. 2321, as extended by Interim Ordinance No. 2323 and No. 2339, shall no longer be in force or effect.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 186 of 776

SECTION 24 (PUBLICATION): The City Clerk shall cause this interim ordinance or a summary thereof to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days after its adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 25 (EFFECTIVENESS): This interim ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption for a period of 45 days, unless extended by the City Council.

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
Monday, August 03, 2026 187 of 776
City Council Report
DATE: July 7, 2026
TITLE: Public Hearing to consider adoption of an interim ordinance superseding prior interim ordinance implementing Senate Bill (SB) 450 (2024), as modified by Assembly Bill (AB) 1061 (2025), to revise historic resource eligibility provisions applicable to two-unit developments and urban lot splits, simplify subdivision regulations, and eliminate design standards for certain Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts (Ordinance/ 4/5 roll call vote).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt an interim ordinance superseding Interim Ordinance No. 2321 and revising regulations applicable to single-family residential development and urban lot splits.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed interim ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(k) and 66411.7(n).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report recommends adoption of an interim ordinance superseding Interim Ordinance No. 2321 to revise the City’s regulations applicable to single-family residential development and urban lot splits in response to recent changes in State housing law, while also simplifying certain objective standards that have proven difficult to administer in practice. The proposed ordinance would:
• Revise historic resource eligibility provisions to reflect AB 1061, ensuring the City’s regulations remain consistent with the narrowed State-law exemptions applicable to residential developments and urban lot splits.
• Simplify objective subdivision standards with more flexible rules for newly created lot lines, reducing unnecessary conflicts on irregular parcels while retaining clear subdivision controls.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 188 of 776

• Remove the architectural design standards applicable to single-family homes in the San Tomas Area and Campbell Village neighborhoods, acknowledging that per State law, higher-density residential projects in single-family areas have fewer design constraints than traditional single-family development. • Streamline accessory structure standards by removing separate design and placement requirements and clarifying that detached garages, sheds, and similar structures are subject to the same setback rules as primary residential buildings, resolving inconsistencies created by implementation of State-laws. • Establish a process for homeowners with single-family homes built under older Planned Development permits to make additions or exterior changes when the work complies with current objective residential standards. • Make targeted technical revisions to the urban lot split regulations to improve consistency with State law, streamline parcel map administration, clarify treeremoval procedures, and formalize the City’s treatment of park impact fees based on guidance from the State.
• Add and revise definitions related to dormers, lot width, and half-stories to improve clarity and support consistent application of the revised standards.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9): Adopted in 2021, SB 9 aimed to increase the development capacity of single-family zoned properties by creating a ministerial approval process for up to two primary dwelling units on each parcel and separately authorizing ministerial approval of qualifying “urban lot splits,” allowing a parcel to be subdivided into two lots.

The law substantially limited local review authority by requiring qualifying applications to be approved ministerially, without a public hearing, subject only to specified eligibility criteria and limited objective standards. Local agencies retained authority to apply objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards, but were limited to maximum side and rear setbacks of four feet and parking requirements of no more than one space per unit.

SB 9 also included historic resource eligibility protections that allowed local agencies to exclude historic properties from the ministerial approval requirements. As implemented locally, these exemptions applied to properties listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), including individually designated landmarks, non-landmark structures within the Alice Avenue Historic district, and Structures of Merit.

Following adoption of SB 9, many cities, including Campbell, implemented the law by creating separate local procedures and standards specifically applicable to SB 9 projects and urban lot splits. These standards were intended to address neighborhood compatibility, subdivision design, and site development concerns while remaining consistent with the minimum development rights established by state law.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 189 of 776

Senate Bill No. 450 (SB 450): Adopted in 2024, SB 450 significantly revised and expanded SB 9. Most notably, SB 450 prohibited local agencies from applying zoning, subdivision, or design standards to SB 9 projects unless those same standards also apply generally within the underlying single-family zoning district. As a result, cities could no longer maintain separate development standards or review procedures specifically for what had, up to that point, been treated as distinct “SB 9 projects.” In practice, SB 450 required cities to substantially restructure their local implementation ordinances.

As a result, the City adopted Interim Ordinance No. 2321 on January 13, 2025, which was most recently extended on December 2, 2025, and is set to expire on January 2, 2027.

The ordinance eliminated the separate SB 9 review procedures established under the prior interim ordinances. It also incorporated uniform objective development and design standards applicable to all single-family residential properties in the San Tomas and Campbell Village neighborhoods, superseding the prior subjective design requirements of the San Tomas Area and Campbell Village Neighborhood Plans. In addition, the interim ordinance separated urban lot split review from the architectural review of future homes, which are now reviewed ministerially through the building permit process rather than through a separate Planning review process. However, the protections applicable to locally designated historic properties remained unchanged.

Assembly Bill No. 1061 (AB 1061): Last year, the State adopted AB 1061, which revised the historic resource eligibility provisions applicable to single-family developments and urban lot splits under SB 9 and SB 450. The law narrows the exemptions primarily to individually designated landmarks and contributing structures within designated historic districts. For urban lot splits, AB 1061 also allows ministerial approval within historic districts where the proposed split would not require demolition or exterior alteration of the historic structure. As a result, properties in Campbell designated solely as Structures of Merit are generally no longer exempt from the ministerial approval requirements established under State law.

INTERIM ORDINANCES
Use of Interim Ordinances: The California Government Code (GC § 65858) allows local jurisdictions to adopt interim ordinances as urgency measures to provide sufficient time to address pressing land use matters. An interim ordinance requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council for adoption and is effective for no more than 45 days but may be extended for 10 months and 15 days following a noticed public hearing and subsequently extended for one additional year.

Due to the rapidly evolving legislative landscape related to housing over the last decade, and particularly since 2021 with the adoption SB 9, the City has increasingly relied on interim ordinances to establish the objective development standards and administrative procedures necessary to implement State law. Absent these measures, certain provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code could conflict with State law, creating uncertainty in the development review process, increasing the potential for legal disputes, and delaying implementation of State-mandated housing requirements.

Although this approach is unusual, it reflects the unprecedented pace and volume of recent State housing legislation. Campbell is not alone in taking this approach.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 190 of 776

Increasingly, California jurisdictions are relying on interim ordinances to establish objective standards and revise permitting procedures in order to maintain consistency with new State housing laws. In some jurisdictions, this approach has evolved beyond isolated interim ordinances into a more continuous interim implementation program. For example, Sacramento County maintains an annually updated “Interim State Legislation Guide" that temporarily overlays new State housing and land use laws onto the County’s zoning code until formal codification occurs. Given the continuing pace of annual housing legislation, Campbell may soon need to consider a similar approach.

Proposed Interim Ordinance: The proposed interim ordinance would supersede Interim Ordinance No. 2321 to address changes established under AB 1061 and revise the City’s existing implementation approach for single-family residential development and urban lot splits. The ordinance would (a) revise historic resource eligibility provisions, (b) simplify objective subdivision standards, (c) eliminate certain objective architectural design standards applicable to single-family residential development, and (d) incorporate related technical and clarifying amendments to the urban lot split regulations, accessory structure standards, Planned Development provisions, and zoning definitions.

DISCUSSION
In addition to revising the City’s requirements in response to AB 1061, the proposed ordinance would also simplify the City’s existing objective standards applicable to singlefamily residential development and subdivision. Staff has observed that certain objective standards have proven unnecessarily rigid and difficult to apply, particularly in the context of irregular parcel configurations.

In some cases, the City’s current standards applicable to single-family residential development (house additions) are now more restrictive than the standards effectively applicable to higher-density housing projects, particularly when taking into account Density Bonus Law waivers, concessions, and related statutory exceptions.

As a result, many single-family residential projects are currently subject to more restrictive development constraints than substantially larger multifamily housing developments. The proposed revisions are intended to reduce these constraints while still maintaining objective and predictable development standards.

The most significant changes proposed in the revised interim ordinance are summarized below. The full text of the proposed interim ordinance is included as Attachment 1, and a redline version identifying changes from existing Interim Ordinance No. 2321 is included as Attachment 2.

Historic Resource Eligibility: The proposed ordinance would revise the City’s historic resource eligibility provisions to reflect the narrower exemptions established under AB 1061. As a result, properties designated solely as “Structures of Merit” are no longer exempt from the ministerial approval requirements established under State law and generally must be treated the same as other single-family residential properties, including with respect to demolition and exterior alteration, without discretionary review.

Of the 143 historic resources listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), 89 are designated as Structures of Merit, including 27 located within the R-1 zoning district that are directly affected by AB 1061. However, two of these properties remain subject to Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 191 of 776

existing Mills Act contracts, which continue to apply notwithstanding AB 1061. A more detailed assessment of the impacts to historic properties is included in the memorandum to the Historic Preservation Board attached as Attachment 3.

Subdivision Standards: The City’s current interim subdivision standards establish objective and highly prescriptive geometric lot design requirements intended to ensure orderly subdivision patterns and consistent lot configurations. The standards identify specific allowable lot types, including interior lots, corner lots, cul-de-sac lots, and flag lots, while generally prohibiting lot configurations that do not conform to these defined types. The standards also include specific geometric requirements related to lot line orientation and corner angles, including requirements that lot lines generally intersect at right angles. In practice, these standards have proven difficult to apply to properties with existing irregular lot configurations, where newly created lots may be unable to fully satisfy the standards despite reflecting existing parcel conditions.

The proposed ordinance would replace these standards with a simplified approach that regulates the number and configuration of newly created lot lines, without regard to existing lot lines. The proposed standards require newly created lot lines to be straight, limit the number of newly created lot lines relative to the number of lots created, and prohibit certain irregular configurations, including lots without public street frontage or independent public access. The revised approach is intended to maintain objective subdivision standards while reducing unnecessary conflicts caused by existing irregular parcel geometry and overly prescriptive lot type requirements.

Residential Design Standards: As discussed in the Background section, the City previously replaced the subjective design requirements of the San Tomas Area and Campbell Village Neighborhood Plans with objective architectural and development standards through the City’s current SB 450 interim ordinance. As required under State law, objective standards must operate in a prescriptive and inflexible manner, relying on fixed “black-and-white” design requirements rather than contextual judgment.

Whereas the prior neighborhood review process provided a venue to evaluate and mediate tensions between homeowner design preferences, neighborhood concerns, and City expectations on a case-by-case basis, the application of objective standards instead requires the City to dictate specific architectural outcomes through fixed regulations.

Moreover, such standards are practically difficult and time-consuming to administer.

The proposed ordinance would eliminate these objective architectural standards while retaining the underlying zoning and development standards related to height, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, open space, and landscaping. As a result, single-family residential development within the San Tomas Area and Campbell Village neighborhoods would be regulated in the same manner as the rest of the City’s single-family residential neighborhoods, which historically have not been subject to comparable architectural design requirements or a discretionary review process.

These revisions also recognize that, under recent State housing laws, certain higher-density residential development projects within single-family neighborhoods are now subject to fewer design constraints than traditional singlefamily residential development. Removing the additional architectural standards for the Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 192 of 776

San Tomas Area and Campbell Village neighborhoods is intended to help address this imbalance between homeowners and residential developers.

Accessory Structure Standards: Consistent with the proposed easing of residential design standards, the ordinance would similarly eliminate existing design and placement standards governing accessory structures, including detached garages and sheds. The ordinance would also clarify that accessory structures are subject to the same setback requirements applicable to primary residential structures, irrespective of conflicting standards contained within a neighborhood plan.

This change is intended to address an inconsistency within the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan created following implementation of SB 9 and SB 450, where setback requirements applicable to primary residential structures were reduced under State law, while older accessory structure standards remained unchanged. In practice, this resulted in accessory structures becoming subject to more restrictive setback requirements than primary residential buildings.

Planned Development Zoned Properties: The proposed ordinance would establish a limited mechanism allowing existing single-family homes constructed pursuant to older Planned Development permits (“legacy permits”) to be altered or expanded, provided the proposed work complies with the current objective zoning and development standards applicable to single-family residential properties.

Under the City’s current Zoning Code, legacy permits may no longer be modified. As a result, even minor additions or exterior alterations to existing single-family homes constructed under those permits require new discretionary entitlements. In practice, this has left some homeowners without a practical pathway to modify or update their homes in a manner comparable to other single-family residential properties. The proposed ordinance is intended to restore a reasonable alteration pathway for these properties while maintaining consistency with the City’s current objective residential development standards.

Technical Revisions to Urban Lot Splits: Several technical and clarifying revisions to the urban lot split regulations are intended to improve consistency with State law and streamline administration. The ordinance would also formalize the City’s existing determination, consistent with HCD guidance, that park impact fees may not be imposed on urban lot splits themselves, although such fees are still applied to future dwelling units constructed on the resulting parcels. Additional revisions would authorize the City Engineer to approve parcel maps containing utility, sidewalk, fire access, and similar public easements consistent with the approved tentative parcel map without separate City Council acceptance, and would clarify procedures related to protected tree removal and associated in-lieu replacement fees.

Definitions: The proposed ordinance would also add and revise several zoning definitions related to dormers, lot width measurement, and half-stories. These revisions are intended to clarify how the revised development standards are applied and to provide more objective criteria for reviewing residential building form and lot configuration.

ALTERNATIVE
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 193 of 776

Instead of adopting the proposed interim ordinance as presented, the City Council may direct staff to return with a revised ordinance modifying the proposed revisions to the subdivision, residential design, accessory structure, or other zoning provisions. However, revisions to the historic resource eligibility provisions are necessary to maintain consistency with the changes established under AB 1061 applicable to ministerial twounit developments and urban lot splits.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff distributed an emailed notice of this Council meeting and the proposed modifications under the urgency ordinance to an interested party list that includes over 5,000 recipients, including neighborhood associations and interested parties. Correspondence received is included as Attachment 4.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed revisions to the subdivision standards may facilitate additional urban lot split applications that might not otherwise satisfy the City’s current objective subdivision standards. To the extent additional urban lot splits and associated residential development occur, the City may potentially receive additional application, permit, development impact, and park in-lieu fee revenue associated with tentative maps, public improvements, and new residential construction.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 194 of 776

Report Approval Details
Document
Title:

Report - Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Superseding a Prior Interim Ordinance Implementing Senate Bill (SB) 450 (2024), as Modified by Assembly Bill (AB) 1061 (2025).docx
Attachments: Draft Ordinance.docx
Redline Ordinance (for reference only).pdf
HPB Memo.pdf
Public Comment.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

July 01, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 195 of 776
Examples of existing stone or brick veneer in my neighborhood Prepared by David Sandwisch, . on 7/26/26
Red areas are stone or brick veneer above the lower half of the first story Stone veneer on 1st floor porch (behind some bushes) and on 2nd story all above the lower half of the first story.
. Brick veneer framing garage full height of first story (brick is behind right side bush too). This example is painted but you can find many similar examples of unpainted (red) brick.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 196 of 776
Multiple porch columns with stone veneer full height. Vertical accent full height around window on left. This home also has a large matching stone fireplace to the right of the picture facing Westmont.
has just two columns with stone veneer full height. It’s matching home, 1250 West Hacienda, to the left of this picture has the same columns. These homes were some of the last homes approved under the old process pre ordinance 2321.

Lots of stone and more you can’t see in this picture.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 197 of 776
. Stone veneer completely framing garage. Along with
there are several homes in a row with similar use of stone.

The above examples show the variety of ways existing stone and brick veneer are used in my neighborhood. I can find 35 homes on my walk with this range of veneer and a lot more if I expand my path.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 198 of 776
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 199 of 776
Prepared by Realty World SJR-Constantino Team with AI assistance, reviewed by the agent. As licensed real estate brokers, we do not provide legal, tax, financial, or insurance advice. Property owners and recipients are encouraged to consult a licensed attorney, CPA, or other qualified professional for advice specific to their circumstances. Parcel information sourced from the Santa Clara County Assessor (Book 412, Page 37, Effective Roll Year 2025-2026); please independently verify.

May 17, 2026
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Letter of Support – Irregular Lot Subdivision Ordinance Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my support for the proposed ordinance that would modify the City’s subdivision standards for irregular lots. Please include this letter in the agenda packet and the public record for the Council’s consideration.

I am a licensed real estate broker and the listing agent for the property located at 715 Cambrian Drive, Campbell, CA (APN 412-37-014), zoned R-1-8 within the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan. The parcel is approximately 19,000 square feet with roughly 80 feet of frontage and has been classified by the City as an irregular lot.

Updating Campbell’s subdivision standards to address irregular lots is a sensible, forward-looking step. It aligns the City’s code with state housing policy, provides clearer guidance for property owners and applicants, and supports thoughtful infill housing in established neighborhoods. I appreciate the time staff and the Council have devoted to this work.

In connection with this, I would respectfully ask the Council and staff to confirm that, once the ordinance is adopted, a parcel with the characteristics of 715 Cambrian Drive – irregular shape, approximately 19,000 square feet, and roughly 80 feet of public frontage – would be considered eligible for an SB 450 urban lot split, subject to survey and engineering confirmation of the 40/60 area ratio, minimum lot width, and other applicable standards. Clarity on this point in the staff report or Council’s discussion would be helpful to property owners and applicants throughout Campbell.

I am not seeking any approval, entitlement, or variance through this letter. I simply wish to add my voice in support of the measure. Thank you for your continued leadership on housing policy in Campbell.

Respectfully submitted,
Kristen Constantino
Licensed Real Estate Broker, DRE #00914309
Realty World SJR-Constantino Team
1911 Willow Street, San Jose, CA 95125
Phone: 408-489-7653 | Email: [email protected]
Listing Representative, 715 Cambrian Drive, Campbell, CA Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 200 of 776
Prepared by Realty World SJR-Constantino Team with AI assistance, reviewed by the agent. As licensed real estate brokers, we do not provide legal, tax, financial, or insurance advice. Property owners and recipients are encouraged to consult a licensed attorney, CPA, or other qualified professional for advice specific to their circumstances. Parcel information sourced from the Santa Clara County Assessor (Book 412, Page 37, Effective Roll Year 2025-2026); please independently verify.

Exhibit A – Assessor Parcel Map, 715 Cambrian Drive
Santa Clara County Assessor – Book 412, Page 37 – Effective Roll Year 2025-2026.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 201 of 776
Prepared by Realty World SJR-Constantino Team with AI assistance, reviewed by the agent. As licensed real estate brokers, we do not provide legal, tax, financial, or insurance advice. Property owners and recipients are encouraged to consult a licensed attorney, CPA, or other qualified professional for advice specific to their circumstances. Parcel information sourced from the Santa Clara County Assessor (Book 412, Page 37, Effective Roll Year 2025-2026); please independently verify.

Exhibit B – Detail View: 715 Cambrian Drive (APN 412-37-014) Enlarged view of the subject parcel and its surroundings along Cambrian Drive, with APN 412-37-014 indicated. The view shows the irregular lot shape, Cambrian Drive frontage, and adjacent parcels.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 202 of 776
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 203 of 776
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 204 of 776
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 205 of 776
2 Providing a Clear Threshold for Council Consideration: To remedy this unintended consequence without opening the door to substandard developments, I urge the City Council to consider establishing an objective size threshold. Exempting parcels of 15,000 square feet or greater from the irregular lot restriction ensures that only properties with more than enough physical scale to accommodate a standard, spacious subdivision are granted this right. This provides a balanced, objective framework for staff while protecting property rights.

Furthermore, removing the blanket prohibition for parcels at this threshold does not eliminate existing safeguards—every other objective subdivision standard still applies, including minimum lot size, minimum width, minimum frontage, equal lot sizing, and public safety requirements. The irregular lot prohibition is simply redundant for larger parcels that clearly satisfy all other requirements.

The Urban Lot Split Framework and Fiscal Benefits Already Support This Approach: Campbell’s Chapter 20.14 Urban Lot Split ordinance establishes an objective framework for lot splits that cannot be denied unless there is a specific, written adverse impact on public health or safety verified by the City Engineer. A minor irregular lot line on a parcel exceeding 15,000 square feet does not inherently constitute such an impact. Furthermore, allowing the orderly subdivision of underutilized infill parcels optimizes existing neighborhood infrastructure and strengthens Campbell’s local property tax base without requiring the city to absorb new public street maintenance costs.

Neighborhood Comparables Support Subdivision: The surrounding neighborhood along Lamont Court and Ginden Drive contains numerous properties valued between $1.8M and $2.7M. A properly configured 2–3 lot standard subdivision on this property would yield premium, low-density single-family homes that are entirely consistent with and complementary to the existing neighborhood character. This represents an appropriate, orderly utilization of underused infill land that protects local property rights.

I respectfully urge the City Council to restore subdivision rights for irregular lots all together, and to recognize that larger parcels of 15,000 square feet or greater should be exempted from restrictions that do not logically apply to them.

I request that these comments be included in the official public record for the June 2nd City Council meeting. Thank you to the Council members and Planning staff for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Akim Ginden Allen
Campbell, CA 95008
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 206 of 776
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 207 of 776
Ordinance No. _____

BEING AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ADOPTING URGENCY MEASURES IMPLEMENTING SENATE BILL NO. 450, AS FURTHER MODIFIED BY ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1061 (2025), SUPERSEDING

AND REPLACING PRIOR INTERIM REGULATIONS AND INCORPORATING REVISED

UNIFORM OBJECTIVE ZONING, SUBDIVISION, AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. (FILE NO. PLN-2026-41) WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor of the State of California signed into law Senate Bill No. 9, "An act to amend Section 66452.6 of, and to add Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to, the California Government Code, relating to land use," which requires ministerial approval of a housing development of no more than two units in a single-family zone (proposed housing development), the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels (urban lot split), or both.

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024, the Governor of the State of California signed into law Senate Bill No. 450, "An act to amend Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the California Government Code, relating to land use," which prohibits the imposition of nonuniform objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards on proposed housing developments and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones, establishes a 60-day timeline for local agency review and action, and updates requirements for demolition and environmental findings.

WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 450 further specifies that objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards must relate to parcel design and improvements and allows local agencies to impose more permissive standards than the underlying zoning.

WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 450 deems urban lot split and two-unit housing development applications approved if not acted upon within the 60-day period and requires agencies to provide detailed feedback for any denied applications to ensure applicants can address deficiencies.

WHEREAS, on October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1061, "An act to amend Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the California Government Code, relating to land use," which further modifies the statutory framework governing ministerial review and objective standards for certain housing developments and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones, including clarifications regarding historic resource exceptions and related procedural and applicability requirements.

WHEREAS, certain zoning and subdivision standards of the City of Campbell Zoning and Subdivision Codes, respectively, and their permitting procedures are inconsistent with Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the California Government Code, as amended by Senate Bill No. 450.

WHEREAS, the provisions of Senate Bill No. 450 and Assembly Bill No. 1061 went into effect on January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026, respectively, and without locally codified objective design standards and implementation procedures consistent with these statutes, the law presents a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, safety, and Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 208 of 776

welfare, in that certain existing zoning and subdivision standards are in conflict with Senate Bill No. 450, as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1061, and could create uncertainty for applicants, potential legal conflicts, and delays in implementing state-mandated housing solutions.

WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65852.21(a)(5)(A) and 66411.7(a)(3)(F)(i), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1061, refer to a “contributing structure” located within a historic district included on the California Register of Historical Resources or within a historic district listed or designated pursuant to a city or county ordinance; and although Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation) does not separately define the term “contributing structure,” the City Council finds that the principal structures located within the Alice Avenue Historic District that are not designated as landmarks fall within this category because the District was designated based on a shared historic context, reflected in its architectural character, integrity, and development pattern dating from 1917 to 1940, and such structures therefore contribute to the historic character and integrity for which the District was designated.

WHEREAS, on January 13, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2321 as an interim urgency ordinance, which has since been extended and remains in effect through January 1, 2027.

WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt updated urgency measures to reflect subsequent changes in state law and implementation requirements, and this ordinance is intended to supersede and replace Ordinance No. 2321, as extended, in its entirety.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n) of the California Government Code, a local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the law.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65858 of the California 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, this interim ordinance establishes urgency measures to eliminate the imposition of non-uniform objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards, establish a 60- day timeline for local agency action, and modify requirements for demolition and environmental findings.

WHEREAS, it is not the intent of this interim ordinance to deny approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing.

WHEREAS, in light of 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 the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is in conflict with this ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

WHEREAS, adoption of this interim ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.21(k), as it pertains to the implementation of Senate Bill No. 450.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 209 of 776

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

SECTION 1 (PURPOSE): This interim ordinance establishes temporary provisions to Title 21 (Zoning) and Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development) of the Campbell Municipal Code to facilitate the construction of up to two residential units and the creation of urban lot splits, as specified by California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 65852.21, and 66411.7.

These provisions ensure compliance with state law by prohibiting the imposition of nonuniform objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards. The provisions of this interim ordinance shall supersede any conflicting provisions within Title 21 (Zoning) and Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development). Zoning and design review standards in the Zoning Code that are not affected by this interim ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 2 (APPLICABILITY): This interim ordinance applies to the construction, alteration, and expansion of all structures, as well as to voluntary applications for urban lot splits, on all properties located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District and certain properties within the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District, with a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation. Property owners or their authorized representatives may continue to exercise subdivision rights for conforming subdivisions in compliance with Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development) of the Campbell Municipal Code and the California Subdivision Map Act.

SECTION 3 (GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS): This interim ordinance adopts by reference the addition of Chapter 20.13 (Subdivision Standards), the revisions to Section

20.16.030 (Action on tentative parcel maps), and the deletion of Section 20.16.035 (Exception to access requirements), as established by Interim Ordinance No. 2313 and extended by Interim Ordinance No. 2317. These changes shall remain in effect under the provisions of this interim ordinance, notwithstanding the expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 2317. Further, Section 20.36.110 (Lots—Size, shape, side lines, divisions and interior) is replaced as follows:
(a) Purpose. This section establishes objective subdivision standards related to the design of new lots and reconfiguration of existing lots.
(b) Applicability. This section applies to the creation of new lots through subdivision and to the reconfiguration of existing lots through a lot line adjustment. This section does not apply to lots created in conjunction with a housing development project subject to the Multi-Family Development Design Standards (MFDDS), as adopted pursuant to Chapter 21.07 (Housing Development Regulations).
(c) Zoning compliance. All lots created pursuant to this section shall comply with the applicable standards of Title 21 (Zoning), including minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum public street frontage, except as otherwise provided by this interim ordinance.
(d) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 210 of 776

i. "Corner exclusion area" means the triangular area on a corner lot, as defined by Chapter 21.72 (Definitions), formed by (1) extending the two lot lines abutting the public right-of-way until they intersect; (2) measuring thirty (30) feet from that point of intersection along each such extended lot line; and (3) connecting the endpoints of those measurements with a straight line, as illustrated, below:
ii. "Existing lot line" means a lot line that existed immediately prior to the filing of a tentative map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment application. iii. "Newly created lot line" means a lot line that did not exist prior to the filing of a tentative map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment application, that extends between two points where the line meets another lot line or a public right-ofway line, or where the lot line changes direction or where curvature begins, ends, or changes. "Newly created lot line" does not include an existing lot line that forms the boundary of the parcel being subdivided solely because one or more newly created lot lines intersect that existing lot line. "Newly created lot line" also does not include a lot line created or modified by the dedication or vacation of public right-of-way.
(e) Number of lot lines resulting from a subdivision. The total number of newly created lot lines resulting from a subdivision shall not exceed the number of lots created. Each newly created lot line shall be a straight line.
(f) Number of lot lines resulting from a lot line adjustment. The total number of newly created lot lines resulting from a lot line adjustment shall not exceed the number of parcels subject to the adjustment, even if the number of existing lot lines between the parcels is greater prior to the adjustment. Each newly created lot line shall be a straight line.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 211 of 776

(g) Prohibited lot configurations. A subdivision or lot line adjustment shall not create or modify lot lines in a manner that results in any of the following:
i. A lot with frontage upon two public streets that is not located at the intersection of such streets.
ii. A lot divided by a city boundary line.
iii. A lot without frontage upon a public street or without independent access from a public street, including a lot with access solely across another lot. iv. A lot without sufficient emergency vehicle access from the public street, as specified by the applicable Standard Details and Specifications of the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
v. A lot where any portion of a newly created lot line is located within the corner exclusion area of the existing parcel subject to subdivision or lot line adjustment.

SECTION 4 (DEFINITIONS): The following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in this interim ordinance and shall supersede or supplant the definitions provided in Chapter

21.72 (Definitions) of the Campbell Municipal Code.

An "attic" means that part of the interior of a building immediately below a roof, above the ceiling of a story, and within the roof framing, which is unheated and unfinished as to remain uninhabitable, and which is not accessible by a stairway or door (access may only be provided via a floor hatch with a drop-down ladder to the story below). A space not satisfying this definition shall instead be defined as a "story" or "half-story". “Completed application” means an application for a development project, including an application for a tentative parcel map or subdivision map, or a ministerial application for a Zoning Clearance, that has been deemed complete by the Community Development Director pursuant to Government Code Section 65943.
"Building separation distance" means the minimum distance between two building or structures on the same lot must be separated from each other as required by Title 21 (Zoning), including separations between accessory structures, separations between primary structures, separations between primary structures and accessory structures, and separations between accessory dwelling units and other structures. Where two buildings are diagonally situated from each other, the applicable building separation distances shall extend from the side and rear of the buildings to form a triangular "building separation area", as illustrated by Figure 1, which shall also be clear of any building or structure. The separation distance is measured as the shortest horizontal distance between the exterior walls of the two structures, except as provided in Section 21.18.040.B (Exceptions)
Figure 1 – Building Separation Area
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 212 of 776

"Demolition" means any act or process that may cause partial or total razing, removal, destruction or dismantling of a structure, whether or not permitted by the City. Also includes construction of a new structure using portions of an original structure pursuant to Chapter

18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work).
"Dormer" means a roofed architectural projection that is set within and projects from a sloping roof plane and does not continue or extend upward from the exterior wall plane below.

A dormer may contain a window, door, louver, vent, or similar opening, as illustrated by Figure 2 (Dormer).

Figure 2 – Dormer
"Unenclosed" means open to the outdoors on at least one side from the finished floor or grade to the underside of the roof or overhead structure, except for posts, columns, and open railings. A side containing a wall or other permanent solid barrier shall not be considered open.
"Lot width" means the horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. This measurement is illustrated as line B in Figure 3 (Lot Width Measurement), drawn perpendicular to the lot depth (line A) at its midpoint.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 213 of 776

Figure 3 – Lot Width Measurement
A= Line drawn from midpoint of front and
rear property line.

B= Line rotated 90° from (A) at midpoint.
"Open space, usable" means an area with minimum length and width dimensions of 10-feet, excluding the required front setback between the structure and the street property line, and any required landscaping area. The open space area may be occupied by recreation facilities (e.g., deck, patio, playground equipment, porch, swimming pool, etc.) provided it is open on at least two sides and not covered by a roof or canopy. When serving multiple-family dwelling units, a private open space area may be provided for each dwelling unit, or all the required space may be combined in one common area.
"Public right-of-way" means areas of land acquired by the City or other public entity by easement or fee title reserved exclusively for public use, including, but not limited to streets, street-parking, sidewalks, alleys, drainage works, landscaping, and stormwater management.

Public right-of-way shall not include areas of land encumbered by non-exclusive public easements nor by any private easements.
"Street, public" means a vehicular roadway identified as a "local," "collector," or "arterial" street as depicted on the General Plan Roadway Classifications Diagram (Figure T1) and defined by this Zoning Code, which is located within the public right-of-way. Does not include the "freeway" or "expressway" roadway classifications, public pedestrian/bicycle trails, or public alleyways.
"Story, half" means the uppermost story of a building located beneath a gable, hip or gambrel roof, or a combination thereof, where the wall plates on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than four feet above the finished floor of the story for the full length of each such wall, and where exterior wall planes forming the perimeter of the story terminate at the wall plates, except for dormers, as illustrated in Figure 4 (Half Story).

Figure 4 – Half Story
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 214 of 776

SECTION 5 (URBAN LOT SPLITS): Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as set forth in the following revised Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits).

Chapter 20.14 URBAN LOT SPLITS

20.14.010 Purpose.

This Chapter implements the subdivision procedures of the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, originally enacted by Senate Bill No. 9 (2021), and amended by Senate Bill No. 450 (2024) and Assembly Bill No. 1061 (2025). These laws aim to streamline the subdivision processes, facilitate the creation of smaller residential lots, and encourage a diverse range of housing types, thereby expanding opportunities for affordable and efficient housing solutions.

20.14.020 Applicability.

This Chapter applies exclusively to voluntary applications for tentative parcel maps to facilitate urban lot splits in accordance with Government Code Sections 66452.6 and 66411.7.

20.14.030 Definitions.

In addition to the terms defined by Section 4 (Definitions) of this interim ordinance and Chapter 21.72 (Definitions) of the Campbell Municipal Code, the following terms shall have the following meanings as used in this Chapter. Where a conflict may exist, the definitions provided in this section shall prevail over any other definition. "Acting in concert" means persons, as defined by Section 82047 of the California Government Code as that section existed as of January 1, 2022, acting jointly to pursue development of real property whether or not pursuant to a written agreement and irrespective of individual financial interest.
"Alteration" means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms or the supporting members of a building or change in the relative position of buildings on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 215 of 776

"Existing structure" means a lawfully constructed building that received final building permit clearance prior to January 1, 2022 and which has not been expanded on or after January 1, 2022.
"Urban lot split" means a ministerial application for a tentative parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel located within a single-family residential zone into two parcels, as authorized by Government Code Sections 66452 and 66411.7. "Nonconforming zoning condition" means a lawful physical improvement or use of land on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards as defined by Section

21.58.030 (Definitions). Also means unlawful physical improvements or use of land that may be subject to Chapter 21.70 (Enforcement).

20.14.035 Site eligibility.

A tentative parcel map for an urban lot split may only be created on parcels satisfying all of the following general requirements. Applications for parcels not satisfying these requirements shall not be accepted by the community development director pursuant to Section 21.38.040.E (Community Development Director’s determination):

A. Zoning district. A parcel that is located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District, or within the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District, provided that the parcel has a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation, as specified in Section 21.04.020, Table 2-1 (Zoning Districts and General Plan Designations) and is not subject to a legacy permit.

B. Historic property. A parcel that is not listed on the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory as a Landmark, as defined by Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation).

C. Legal parcel. A parcel which has been legally created in compliance with this Title and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), as applicable at the time the parcel(s) was created. The City Engineer may require a certificate of compliance to verify conformance with this requirement.

D. Prior subdivision. A parcel that was not created by a parcel map approved pursuant to Government Code Section 66411.7 or by a parcel map or subdivision map pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.41.

E. Hazardous waste site. A parcel that is not identified as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25356.

Exception: This restriction shall not apply where the parcel has been cleared for residential use or mixed-use development by the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control.

F. Flood zone. A parcel that is not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance flood (one hundred-year flood), as shown on official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Exception: This restriction shall not apply if FEMA has issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) for the parcel(s), or where a condition of tentative map approval can ensure that future dwellings constructed upon the new Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 216 of 776

parcels may be made to comply with Chapter 21.22 (Flood Damage Prevention), as determined by the Floodplain Administrator.

G. Earthquake fault zone. A parcel that is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as identified in official maps published by the State Geologist.

Exception: This restriction shall not apply where a condition of tentative map approval can ensure that future dwelling units constructed upon the new parcels resulting from the urban lot split will comply with the applicable seismic protection building code standards, including those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5, commencing with Section 18901, of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code) and Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, as determined by the Building Official.

H. Natural habitat. A parcel that is not recognized by the City as a habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).

I. For a parcel where a prior dwelling unit(s) was demolished within the last three years, the demolished unit(s) must not have been occupied by a tenant at any time during the three years preceding the date of the tentative parcel map application for an urban lot split. The date of demolition shall be either the date a demolition permit was issued or the date the City documented that an unlawful demolition was performed without a permit.

Exception: This restriction shall not apply to housing that was destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood, wind, or other calamity or act of God or the public enemy, clearly beyond the control of the property owner.

20.14.040 Objective subdivision standards.

The new lots proposed by a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split shall comply with the minimum parcel size, minimum lot width, and minimum public frontage requirements specified by Section 6 (Objective Subdivision Standards), and all other applicable objective subdivision standards set forth in Section 3 (General Subdivision Standards), of the interim ordinance amending this Chapter.

20.14.050 General requirements and restrictions.

The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed urban lot splits allowed by this Chapter:

A. Adjacent parcels. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously conducted an urban lot split to create an adjacent parcel as provided for in this Chapter.

B. Applicant eligibility. Notwithstanding Section 21.38.030.A (Eligibility for filing), an applicant for a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split shall be a natural person who intends to occupy one of the resulting parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three years, as required by Government Code Section 66411.7(g)(1). The Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 217 of 776

subject parcel may be owned by an individual, trust, or legal entity, including a limited liability company or corporation, provided that the owner authorizes the applicant to file the application and to sign the affidavit required by subsection E.

C. Dedication and easements. The community development director shall not require dedications of rights-of-way nor the construction of offsite improvements, however, may require recording of easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities.

D. Existing structures. Existing structures located on a parcel subject to an urban lot split shall not be subject to a setback requirement. However, any such existing structures shall not be located across the shared property line resulting from an urban lot split, as specified by Section 21.18.040.A.5. This restriction shall not preclude the creation of adjacent or connected structures with walls meeting at a shared property line, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards sufficient to allow separate conveyance as individual dwelling units
E. Intent to occupy. Prior to recordation of a parcel map, the applicant shall sign an affidavit provided by the community development director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one of the newly created parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split (or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a new dwelling in the case of a vacant lot).

Exception: This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is "community land trust," as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a "qualified nonprofit corporation" as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

F. Nonconforming conditions. The City shall not require, as a condition of approval of the tentative parcel map application, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.

However, no new nonconforming conditions may result from the urban lot split other than as specified by Table 2 (General Development Standards – Single-Family Residential District). This provision shall not be construed as to prevent the City from taking enforcement action to remedy unlawful nonconforming zoning conditions pursuant to Chapter 21.70 (Enforcement) following tentative parcel map approval for an urban lot split.

G. Number of dwelling units. No parcel created through an urban lot split shall be allowed to include more than two existing dwelling units as defined by Government Code section 66411.7(j)(2). Any excess dwelling units that do not meet these requirements shall be relocated, demolished, or otherwise removed prior to recordation of a parcel map. As a condition of tentative parcel map approval, the community development director shall require recordation of a deed restriction on each new lot created by an urban lot split to document this restriction prior to, or concurrent with, recordation of the parcel map.

H. Park impact fee. A fee in-lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to Chapter 20.24 (Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Subdivisions) is not required. However, construction of new dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split may be subject to a park impact fee in accordance with Chapter 13.08 (Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Developments).

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 218 of 776

I. Tree removal permits. Notwithstanding Section 21.32.050 (Protected trees), protected tree(s) may be removed in conjunction with an approved tentative parcel map application without a Tree Removal Permit when the tree(s) directly conflicts with emergency vehicle access to the lot or when removal is necessary to retain an existing dwelling unit, and the subdivision cannot feasibly be redesigned to preserve the tree(s).

Any approved tree removal shall occur after the City Engineer’s approval of the parcel map, but prior to its recordation. Any protected tree removed shall be subject to payment of an in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 21.32.110 (Site Limitations and In-Lieu Fee for Replacement Trees).

J. Subsequent subdivision. A parcel created through an urban lot split shall not be further subdivided pursuant to Government Code Sections 66411.7 or 66499.41. The subdivider shall sign a covenant provided by the community development director documenting this restriction. The covenant shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with recordation of the parcel map.

K. Restrictions on demolition. The proposed urban lot split shall not require the demolition or alteration of any of the following:

1. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income;

2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power;

3. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years; or

4. A historic resource located on a property within a designated historic district, as defined in Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation).

L. Storm drain area fee. Prior to recordation of a parcel map, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, as set by the City's Schedule of Fees and Charges.

M. Utilities. Utilities serving new parcels that cross property lines shall be placed in appropriate public or private easements. The requirements of the utility providers shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a parcel map.

N. Zoning and design standards. Construction of dwelling units upon the lots created by an urban lot split shall be subject to the objective zoning and design standards provided by Section 8 (Objective Zoning Standards),Section 9 (Required Parking), and Section 10 (Objective Design Standards) of the interim ordinance adopting this provision that apply uniformly to properties in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. If any such standard(s) would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels of the urban lot split or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet, the provisions for an exception in Section 11 (Exceptions) of the interim ordinance adopting this provision shall be followed.

20.14.060 Application process.

Applications for urban lot splits shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 219 of 776

A. Application type. An urban lot split shall be reviewed by the community development director as a ministerial application for a tentative parcel map, as required by Section 20.16.020 (Tentative parcel map).

B. Application filing. Applications for a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split, along with all required materials and fees, shall be filed with the community development department, in accordance with Chapter 21.38 (Application Filing, Processing, and Fees).

C. Review process. The community development director shall ministerially review tentative parcel map applications for urban lot splits in accordance with Chapter

20.16 (Parcel Map Procedures). If the community development director determines that the tentative parcel map is eligible for approval as an urban lot split and complies with the objective standards and general requirements of this Chapter, the tentative parcel map shall be approved. The community development director shall approve or deny a completed tentative parcel map application for an urban lot split within 60 days from the date the application is deemed complete. If no action is taken within the 60-day period, the application shall be deemed approved by operation of law.

D. Conditions of approval. Approval of a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split may include standard conditions of approval that are objective, non-discretionary, and broadly applicable to tentative parcel maps, as necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter or any other applicable provision of the Campbell Municipal Code.

E. Approval expiration. Approval of a tentative parcel map shall be valid for a period of two years in accordance with Section 20.16.033 (Expiration of tentative parcel maps). Within this period, a parcel map must be recorded with the Office of the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder, as specified by Section 21.56.030 (Permit time limits and extensions).

F. Final map. Following approval of a tentative parcel map, the applicant shall file for a parcel map with the public works department, including all required application materials and payment of required fees. The city engineer shall ministerially approve the parcel map if it is consistent with the community development director’s tentative parcel map approval, including any conditions of approval. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66463(b), the city engineer is authorized to accept, on behalf of the city, any easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities, as shown on the parcel map, provided such easements are consistent with the tentative parcel map approval. City council approval of the parcel map shall not be required unless the subdivider voluntarily offers dedications of public rights-of-way.

G. Denial. The community development director may deny an application for a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split that meets the requirements of this section only if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that dwelling units to be constructed upon the proposed new parcel(s) would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon the public health and safety for which there is no feasible Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 220 of 776

method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. An adverse impact to the physical environment shall not be a basis for denial.

H. Appeals. A decision of the community development director on a tentative parcel map for an urban lot split is a ministerial action and not appealable.

SECTION 6 (OBJECTIVE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS): The minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum public street frontage of parcels proposed in new conforming subdivisions, urban lot splits, or lot line adjustments in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District shall be as specified by Table 1 (Parcel Standards – Single-Family Zoning District), which shall supersede conflicting provisions in Section 21.08.040 (Residential subdivision standards).

Table 1
(Parcel Standards – Single-Family Residential Zoning District) Minimum Lot Area (1) Minimum Lot Width (2)
Zoning Map
Symbol Conforming
Subdivisions
Urban Lot Splits Conforming
Subdivisions
(3)
Urban Lot
Splits
Minimum Public
Street Frontage
R-1-6 6,000
square feet
60 feet
R-1-8 8,000
square feet
70 feet
R-1-9 9,000
square feet
70 feet
R-1-10 10,000
square feet
80 feet
R-1-16 16,000
square feet
1,200 square feet
AND
Each lot ≥ 40% of
the area of the
original parcel
80 feet
25 feet
• 25 feet (NonFlag Lots)
• 12 feet (Flag
Lots) (4)
Notes:
(1) The minimum lot area for a flag lot shall not include the access corridor portion of the lot. Further, for conforming subdivisions (i.e., those not created by an urban lot split), flag lots shall have a minimum lot area equal to ten percent (10%) greater than the minimum identified, excluding the access corridor portion of the lot.
(2) The minimum lot width for a flag (rear) lot shall not include the access corridor portion of the lot. (3) Except for lots created on the bulb of a cul-de-sac which shall be subject to a minimum lot width of 60 feet. (4) The access corridor of a flag lot shall be in fee as part of the parcel and not as an easement and shall be of a maximum width of fifteen (15) feet.
(5) Existing lots located within the boundaries of the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan shall not be subdivided or reconfigured by a Lot Line Adjustment to create a flag lot configuration.

SECTION 7 (NUMBER OF UNITS): The number of primary dwelling units permitted on a property within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District shall be as follows in accordance with Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7:

A. Minimum allowed. Up to two (2) primary dwelling units are permitted, irrespective of any conflict with the maximum density specified by the General Plan land use designation for the property, except for properties designated as a landmark or located Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 221 of 776

within a historic district pursuant to Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation), which shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) primary dwelling unit.

B. Maximum allowed. More than two (2) primary dwelling units may be permitted if the total number does not exceed the maximum density specified by the General Plan land use designation for the property.

C. Exception. No parcel created through an urban lot split in accordance with Section 5 (Urban Lot Splits) of this interim ordinance shall be allowed to include more than two dwelling units as defined by California Government Code section 66411.7(j)(2).

D. Dwelling unit type. Primary dwelling units may take the form of detached single-family dwellings, attached townhomes, and/or duplexes. A duplex may consist of two dwelling units in a side-by-side or front-to-back configuration within the same structure or one dwelling unit located atop of another dwelling unit within the same structure.

SECTION 8 (OBJECTIVE ZONING STANDARDS): All land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential Zoning District), shall be designed, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2 (General Development Standards – Single Family Residential District), in addition to the development standards contained in Article 3 (e.g., landscaping, fences, parking and loading) and Article 4 (e.g., accessory structures), which shall supersede conflicting provisions in Section 21.08.050 (Residential development standard).

Table 2
General Development Standards – Single-Family Residential District Neighborhood Plan (1) | Zoning District Map Symbol
Not Within Within an Area Plan
an Area Plan CVNP STANP CVNP STANP (2)
Development
Standard
R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-8 R-1-9 R-1-10 &
R-1-16
Main Structure
Maximum Height
(3)(4)
35 feet 28 feet
Main Structure
Maximum Stories 2 ½ stories 2 stories 2 ½ stories
Maximum Lot
Coverage (5) 40% 45% 35%
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
(5)

0.45 Minimum Useable
Open Space (6) 750 square feet (per lot)
Minimum Building
Separation
Distance (7) (8)
5 feet
Minimum Main Structure Property Line Setbacks (8) (9)
Front 20 feet 25 feet
Rear 4 feet
Interior Side (10) 4 feet
Street Side (where
applicable) 4 feet (11)
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 222 of 776

Neighborhood Plan (1) | Zoning District Map Symbol
Not Within Within an Area Plan
an Area Plan CVNP STANP CVNP STANP (2)
Development
Standard
R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-8 R-1-9 R-1-10 &
R-1-16
Parking Facilities
(12) 25 feet
Notes:
(1) The abbreviation "STANP" designates the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and "CVNP" designates the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan. The boundaries of both neighborhood plans are identified by Figure LU-2 (Special Planning Areas) of the General Plan. The standards and requirements provided in this table shall prevail over any conflict with a neighborhood plan, including any allowance for an exception to the maximum FAR or required setbacks. (2) Consistent with STANP Land Use Policy 'D', parcels that do not meet the minimum lot size requirement for the district in which it is located (e.g. a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-1-10 Zoning District) may exercise the side and rear setbacks and lot coverage requirements of the most restrictive zoning district in which the lot would be conforming (e.g. the setback and lot coverage requirement for a 6,000 square foot lot in an R-1-10 Zoning District would be based on the standards for the R-1-6 zoning district.)
(3) See Section 21.18.050 (Exceptions to height provisions), for exceptions to the maximum height requirement.
(4) The height of main structures shall be measured from finished grade, irrespective of any neighborhood plan provision to the contrary.
(5) For properties subject to the STANP or CVNP, the maximum FAR and Lot Coverage shall be calculated excluding the access corridor of a flag lot from the net lot area. (6) See definition for "Open space, usable,” for specific standards for the required open space area. (7) This standard applies to the required separation between primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and accessory structures, and any combination thereof. (8) See Section 21.18.040.B (Exceptions) for exceptions to setback and building separation distance requirements.
(9) No setback shall be required for an existing main structure, or a main structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing main structure. (10) No interior side setback shall be required between individual townhomes, provided that building code safety standards are satisfied as to allow conveyance as a separate fee parcel. (11) To ensure adequate site visibility for pedestrian and vehicular safety, in no circumstance shall a structure be constructed or placed within the triangular areas of a property as depicted in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice and screens). (12) Applies to the vehicular entry to garages, carports, and uncovered parking stalls, measured perpendicularly from the public right-of-way to the nearest point of the garage door, the threshold to a carport or garage entry (without doors), or the outer edge of a parking stall, respectively. All other applicable setbacks continue to apply to these parking facilities. This setback does not apply to parking facilities with vehicular entries that are parallel to the public right-of-way.

SECTION 9 (REQUIRED PARKING). The parking requirement contained in Table 3-1 (Parking Requirements by Land Use) Section 21.28.040, Table 3-1 (Parking Requirements by Land Use) is hereby amended to read as follows with strikethroughs (strikethroughs) indicating deleted text and underlining (underlining) indicating added text:

Properties in the R-1 (Single-family) dwelling
Zoning District
2 1 spaces for each unit, 1 of which shall
be covered.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 223 of 776

SECTION 10 (OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS). This section establishes objective design standards for the construction of new primary dwelling units to ensure design quality, neighborhood compatibility, and predictability in the review process.

A. Applicability. Except for a housing development project processed pursuant to Government Code section 65852.28, the objective design standards in Table 3 apply as follows:

1. Neighborhood Plan Areas. All standards in Table 3 apply to the construction of a new primary dwelling unit on a property in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District that is subject to either the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan or the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan, as depicted on General Plan Figure LU-2 (Special Planning Areas).

2. Citywide Standard. Standard No. 3.d (Upper-Story Windows) applies to the construction of a new primary dwelling unit on all properties in the R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) Zoning District citywide, including properties outside the Neighborhood Plan Areas.

B. Scope. This subsection identifies the types of construction subject to the objective design standards in Table 3 and clarifies the treatment of existing portions of a structure and work that does not constitute construction of a new primary dwelling unit.

1. New Dwellings. A new primary dwelling unit subject to subsection A shall comply with the objective design standards in Table 3.

2. New Structures Using Portions of an Original Structure. Construction of a new structure using portions of an original structure, as defined in Chapter 18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work), shall be subject to this section in the same manner as the construction of a new primary dwelling unit. Existing portions of the original structure may be retained without compliance with Table 3 where no change is made to their exterior form, exterior wall or roof framing, or location of exterior openings.

3. Excluded Work. Additions, exterior alterations, and ordinary maintenance and repair to an existing primary dwelling unit are not subject to this section unless the work constitutes construction of a new structure using portions of an original structure pursuant to paragraph 2.

C. Objective Design Standards. The objective design standards in Table 3 shall apply in accordance with subsections A and B. An architectural element or building feature that is not expressly regulated by Table 3 is not subject to the requirements of this section.

Table 3
Objective Design Standards for New Primary Dwellings – Single-Family Residential District No. Objective Design Standard

1. Materials and Colors

1.a. Number of Wall
Colors
No more than two wall colors may be used on each building elevation.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 224 of 776

No. Objective Design Standard
Note(s):
(1) The term "wall colors" includes painted, integrally colored, and factory-finished stucco and siding, but excludes the intrinsic naturally occurring coloration of materials such as unpainted metal, unpainted wood, tile, stone, brick, and glass.
(2) Colors applied solely to architectural trim, including window and door surrounds, fascia, cornices, corner boards, and similar narrow decorative elements, do not count toward the maximum number of wall colors. (3) For purposes of this standard, a building elevation includes all exterior wall surfaces facing the same direction, regardless of offsets, projections, or changes in wall plane.

1.b. Number of Wall
Materials
Up to two permitted wall materials, plus one accent material, may be used on the dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) Permitted wall materials include: stucco, horizontal or vertical fiber cement siding (any profile), horizontal or vertical wood siding (any profile), and horizontal or vertical engineered (composite) wood siding (any profile). (2) When the combined area of glass and framing within a continuous glazed assembly exceeds 50 percent of the surface area of the wall, without interruption by a wall material, the glazed assembly shall constitute an impermissible wall material.
(3) Stacked stone or brick veneer may be used as the accent material, provided that it does not exceed 25 percent of the total exterior wall surface area of any building elevation, as defined in Standard No. 1.a, Note (3).

1.c.

Number of
Roofing
Materials
Up to two permitted roofing materials may be used on the dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) Roofed architectural features such as dormers and porches are not subject to the overall roofing material limit.

However, the permitted roofing material types listed in Note (2) continue to apply to these features. (2) Permitted roofing materials include: asphalt composite shingles, photovoltaic shingles, standing seam metal, clay tile, concrete tile, and slate shingles. Roof-mounted photovoltaic panels may be installed over any permitted roofing material and shall not be counted as a separate roofing material.

2. Building Form

2.a. Roof Form and
Pitch
Roof forms shall be limited to hipped, cross-hipped, hipped-and-valley, front gable, and side gable forms, or a combination thereof, with a pitch between 4:12 and 8:12.

Note(s):
(1) The roof structure of dormers, porches, and entryway elements shall comply with the requirements of this section, except that shed forms are also permitted.

2.b. Plate Height The plate height of each story shall not exceed 12 feet.

Note(s):
(1) The term "plate height" means the vertical distance from the finished floor of a story to the underside of the top plate of the exterior wall framing for that story.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 225 of 776

No. Objective Design Standard

2.c. Finished Floor
Height
The finished floor height of the first story shall not exceed 18 inches.

Note(s):
(1) Finished floor height is measured vertically from the finished grade adjacent to the structure to the finished floor surface of the first story.

2.d. Columns and
Pillars
Columns and pillars shall not exceed 14 feet in height or the first-story plate height of the dwelling, whichever is lower.

Note(s):
(1) This standard applies to vertical elements that function as structural or decorative supports for a roof, porch, or entry feature.
(2) Column and pillar height is measured from the finished floor of the structure or grade at the base of the column or pillar, whichever is lower, to the top of the beam, cap, or roof element it supports.

3. Architectural Features

3.a. Front Door
Openings
A front door opening shall not exceed six feet in width or nine feet in height.

Note(s):
(1) The term "front door opening" means the framed opening occupied by the operable door or doors. It does not include sidelights, transom windows, trim, pilasters, arches, pediments, or other elements of a front door surround regulated by Standard No. 3.b.
(2) Where a dwelling has more than one exterior entry door facing a street, the term "front door" means the entrance located on the building elevation bearing the address identification approved pursuant to California Fire Code Section 505.1.
(3) Door opening width is measured between the inside faces of the door frame, and height is measured from the finished floor at the threshold to the underside of the structural header above the door opening.

3.b. Front Door
Surrounds
A front door surround shall not exceed 14 feet in height.

Note(s):
(1) The term "front door surround" means the architectural assembly that frames a front door opening, including sidelights, transom windows, trim, pilasters, arches, and pediments. The term does not include a roofed or covered feature that projects farther from the wall than an allowable eave projection specified by Section

21.18.040.B.1 (Architectural Features), which shall be governed as a porch. (2) The height of a front door surround is measured vertically from the finished floor at the door threshold to the highest point of the surround.

3.c. Porches
A porch shall have a minimum depth of five feet. The height of a porch shall not exceed 150 percent of the first-story plate height of the dwelling.

Note(s):
(1) The term "porch" means a roofed, unenclosed exterior area that projects farther from the building wall than an allowable eave projection specified by Section 21.18.040.B.1 (Architectural Features) and does not meet the Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 226 of 776

No. Objective Design Standard
definition of an "attached patio cover" in Standard No. 3.h (Attached Patio Covers). A porch may be raised or located at or near finished grade and may extend along one or more building elevations. (2) Porch depth is measured perpendicular to the exterior wall, from the exterior wall to the innermost face of the porch railing or the outermost column, whichever is farther from the wall, or to the outer edge of the porch floor where no railing or column is provided.
(3) The height of a porch is measured vertically from finished grade to the highest point of the porch roof. (4) For purposes of this standard, the first-story plate height shall be the plate height of the exterior wall of the dwelling from which the porch projects. Where a porch projects from exterior walls having different first-story plate heights, the maximum height shall be determined separately for each portion of the porch based on the wall from which that portion projects.

3.d. Upper-Story
Windows
Windows on stories above the first story that are located less than eight feet from a rear or interior side property line shall have a minimum sill height of six feet above finished floor.

Note(s):
(1) Sill height is measured vertically from the finished floor of the story on which the window is located to the lowest point of the window glazing, regardless of interior stairways, landings, or split-level configurations. (2) This standard applies to operable and non-operable windows, including transoms or clerestories, where the lowest point of the window glazing is below the required sill height. (3) Distance to a property line is measured horizontally from the exterior of the window glazing to the nearest point on the applicable property line.

3.e.

Balconies,
Decks, and
Rooftop
Terraces
Balconies are permitted only on the front building elevation and shall include solid, obscure side walls. Rooftop terraces and rooftop decks are prohibited. For properties subject to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan, a balcony or upper-level deck shall not extend along a building wall adjacent to a side property line or be located within 20 feet of a rear property line when either property line adjoins a parcel in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. These restrictions do not apply to a balcony or deck that is fully inset behind a building wall, with no opening along the side or rear elevation.

Note(s):
(1) An opaque or obscure glass balcony wall shall be considered a permissible solid wall. (2) The phrase "fully inset behind a building wall" means the balcony or deck is enclosed on three sides by exterior walls of the dwelling, with no portion of its opening facing a side or rear elevation.

3.f. Garage Width
Standard. The linear width of an attached garage shall not exceed 50 percent of the linear width of the primary dwelling unit for properties subject to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, or 40 percent for properties subject to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan. A garage may exceed these limits only when an alternative design feature, described below, is incorporated.

Alternative. In lieu of the specified maximum garage width, one of the following alternative design elements may be incorporated:
a. The garage, across its full linear width as described in Note (1), shall be recessed a minimum of five feet behind the remainder of the primary dwelling unit, forming offset building walls; or
Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 227 of 776

No. Objective Design Standard
b. A trellis constructed of wood or metal shall be installed over the full width of the garage door and attached to the front elevation of the primary dwelling unit.

Exception. The requirements of this standard shall not apply where the garage door is oriented away from the street (i.e., a “side entry” garage).

Note(s):
(1) The term "linear width of the garage" means the full width of the garage structure, including the garage door(s) and any wall area extending between the outermost points of the garage walls. (2) The term "linear width of the primary dwelling unit" means the full extent of the building’s front elevation, including the attached garage, regardless of variations in building wall planes, as illustrated below:

3.g. Attached Patio
Covers
An attached patio cover shall be subject only to the requirements of this standard. a. The height of an attached patio cover shall not exceed 14 feet. b. Where a solid roof is provided, the roof pitch shall not exceed 8:12. A solid roof with a pitch of 4:12 or greater shall use one of the allowable roofing materials identified in Standard No. 1.c (Number of Roofing Materials).

Note(s):
(1) The term "attached patio cover" means a solid or slatted roof structure constructed over a patio or deck and attached to an exterior wall of a primary dwelling, where the roof structure is not formed by a continuation or extension of the dwelling’s rafters, trusses, joists, beams, or other roof or floor framing members. A roof structure formed by such a continuation or extension is not an attached patio cover for purposes of this standard and shall be considered part of the primary dwelling. An attached patio cover may be prefabricated or site-built and may be supported by posts, columns, or other structural supports bearing on separate footings. The area beneath the attached patio cover shall remain unenclosed. (2) The height of an attached patio cover is measured vertically from the finished surface of the patio or deck beneath the patio cover to the highest point of the roof structure.

SECTION 11 (EXCEPTIONS). If any standard in this interim ordinance or the Campbell Municipal Code would physically preclude the construction of up to two primary dwelling units or prevent either unit from achieving a minimum floor area of eight hundred (800) square feet, the Community Development Director shall grant an exception to the applicable standard(s) to the minimum extent necessary to allow a unit of at least 800 square feet, as specified by this section.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 228 of 776

A. Determination. The Community Development Director shall grant exceptions to development standards in the following priority order and only to the minimum extent necessary to resolve a physical constraint. Exceptions that do not remove a physical constraint shall not be granted.

1. Elimination of the rear setback (for parcels with a rear property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or roadway);

2. Elimination of the interior-side setback (for parcels with a side property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or street);

3. Reduction of the garage entry setback/minimum driveway depth to no less than 20 feet;

4. Required parking may be uncovered (rather than covered);

5. Elimination of the minimum parking requirement;

6. Increase to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR);

7. Increase to the maximum lot coverage;

8. Reduction to the minimum required private open space;

9. Increase to the number of allowable stories to three stories at a maximum height of 35 feet;

10. Allowance to remove a "protected tree(s)" pursuant to Chapter 21.32 (Tree Protection Regulations) without an otherwise required Tree Removal Permit; then

11. Reduction or elimination of any other standard not identified.

SECTION 12 (PROPERTY LINE ENCROACHMENTS): Section 21.18.040.A (Requirements) is hereby amended to add a new subsection ‘5,’ to read as follows:

5. No portion of any building, including eaves or roof overhangs, shall extend beyond a property line, or into an access easement or the public right-of-way.

SECTION 13 (CHAPTER 21.25): Chapter 21.25 (Two-Unit Housing Development) of the Campbell Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

SECTION 14 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES). The following requirements shall prevail over any other provisions to the contrary in Section 21.36.020 (Accessory Structures):

A. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall meet all setback requirements for primary structures of the applicable zoning district in which they are located, irrespective of any conflicting requirement specified by an area or neighborhood plan.

B. Location. Accessory structures may be located anywhere on a lot, except for usable open space areas and required minimum setbacks for primary structures.

C. Design criteria. Accessory structures shall not be subject to any design requirements.

SECTION 15 (DRIVEWAYS). Notwithstanding Section 21.28.090.A (Driveway Separation), no setback from a side property line shall be required for a driveway serving a single-family residential property where surface runoff is prevented from flowing onto the adjoining property Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 229 of 776

by sloping the driveway to drain away from the side property line, installing a drainage system, or using pervious pavers designed to infiltrate runoff.

SECTION 16 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION). Any requirement for a Historic Resource Alteration Permit to alter, expand by addition, or demolish a designated Structure of Merit pursuant to Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation), when proposed in association with an urban lot split or housing development pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, respectively, shall not apply.

SECTION 17 (LEGACY PERMITS). Notwithstanding the limitations of Section 21.56.060.E (Legacy Permits), a primary dwelling unit constructed pursuant to a legacy permit on a parcel with a General Plan land use designation that directly corresponds to the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District, as specified in Section 21.04.020, Table 2-1 (Zoning Districts and General Plan Designations), may be altered or expanded by addition, provided that the work complies with the development standards set forth in Section 8 (Objective Zoning Standards).

Where the work constitutes construction of a new structure using portions of an original structure, as defined in Chapter 18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work), the work shall also comply with Section 10 (Objective Design Standards). For purposes of applying Section 10, the parcel shall be treated as a parcel in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District.

SECTION 18 (ZONING CLEARANCE APPROVAL): Notwithstanding Section 21.42.020 (Site and architectural review permit required) and Section 21.56.060 (Amendments to an approved project), construction of new primary dwelling unit or alteration or expansion of an existing primary dwelling in compliance with this interim ordinance shall be ministerially reviewed by consideration of a Zoning Clearance in compliance Chapter 21.40 (Zoning Clearances). If the Community Development Director determines that an application for a Zoning Clearance complies with the objective standards and general requirements of this interim ordinance and the Campbell Municipal Code and that the parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 65913.4, the Zoning Clearance shall be approved.

The Community Development Director shall render a decision on the Zoning Clearance application within 60 days from the date the application is deemed complete. If no action is taken within the 60-day period, the application shall be deemed approved.

SECTION 19 (ZONING CLEARANCE DENIAL): The Community Development Director may deny an application for Zoning Clearance that meets the requirements of this interim ordinance only if the Building Official issues a written finding—based on a preponderance of the evidence—that the proposed dwelling unit(s) would have a specific, adverse impact (as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5) on the public health and safety, and that no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid this impact. An adverse impact to the physical environment shall not be a basis for denial.

SECTION 20 (SEVERABILITY): If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this interim 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 interim ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this interim 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.

Item 8.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 230 of 776

SECTION 21 (STATE LAW). Any provision of this interim ordinance which is inconsistent with Sections 66452.6, 65852.21, or 66411.7 of the California Government Code shall be interpreted in a manner which is the most limiting on the ability to allow construction of two units to effectuate an urban lot split, but which is consistent with State law. The provisions of this interim ordinance shall supersede and take precedence over any inconsistent provision of the Campbell Municipal Code to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this interim ordinance for the duration of its effectiveness.

SECTION 22 (APPLICATIONS IN PROGRESS): Notwithstanding Section 21.01.050.E (Effect of Zoning Code Changes on Projects in Progress), this interim ordinance shall not apply to (1) a land use permit application that was filed with the Community Development Department and for which all required fees were paid before the effective date of this ordinance, regardless of whether the application has been deemed complete, or (2) any land use permit application submitted after that date if a related request for a determination of “new structure using portions of the original structure,” pursuant to Chapter 18.32 (Determination of Scope of Work), was filed with the Building Division before the effective date of this ordinance. Applicants may voluntarily withdraw such applications at any time and seek a partial refund of fees in compliance with Section 21.38.030.D (Refunds).

SECTION 23 (TERMINATION OF PRIOR INTERIM ORDINANCE): Interim Ordinance No. 2321, as extended by Interim Ordinance No. 2323 and No. 2339, shall no longer be in force or effect.

SECTION 24 (PUBLICATION): The City Clerk shall cause this interim ordinance or a summary thereof to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days after its adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 25 (EFFECTIVENESS): This interim ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption for a period of 45 days, unless extended by the City Council.

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
Monday, August 03, 2026 231 of 776
City Council Report
DATE: August 3, 2026
TITLE: Approval of Plans and Specifications, Authorization to Solicit Bids, Award and Approve Contract, and Other Associated Actions for the Campbell Adult Center Relocation and Renovation Project No. 25-LL (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution 1) approving the plans and specifications for the Campbell Adult Center Relocation and Renovation Project (No. 25-LL); 2) authorizing the solicitation of bids; 3) awarding and approving the subsequent construction contract to the lowest, responsive bidder in an amount not to exceed $2,260,000, plus a 10% contingency of $226,000; 4) authorizing the City Manager to execute said contract as specified in Campbell Municipal Code Section 3.20.100; 5) authorizing the Finance Director to perform associated budget adjustment; 6) authorizing the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute contract change orders up to and within the allocated construction contingency; and 7) authorizing the Public Works Director to reject bids and rebid the project, should bids received have unamenable irregularities.

BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2024, the City Council approved the FY 2025-2029 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which included Project No. 25-LL for the Campbell Community Center E Wing Renovation and Relocation of the Campbell Adult Center. On November 20, 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the architectural and schematic design of the Campbell Adult Center. On January 10, 2025, the City Clerk received six proposals. The evaluation panel consisting of three staff reviewed the proposals and interviewed the top three proposers. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, Studio G Architects was deemed to be the most qualified for the work.

On March 4, 2025, the City Council approved a contract with Studio G Architects for the design of the E Wing Renovation and Relocation of the Campbell Adult Center Project in the amount of $283,818.

Studio G Architects has completed the design of the new space. The plans were reviewed and approved by the Building Division. The final Plans and Specifications are now complete and can be viewed at the City Clerk’s Office or online here .

DISCUSSION
Item 9.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 232 of 776

The Campbell Community Center is the original Campbell High School and the layout mimics that of a high school campus. The classroom wings are used by the Recreation and Community Services Department for classes and programs as well as being leased to private schools or businesses. The E wing currently contains five classrooms and exterior facing women’s restroom. Of the five classrooms, three are used for City programming, and two are leased to tenants.

The design team took a holistic approach to achieve a cohesive design that addresses ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) deficiencies and staff needs while minimizing major changes and cost for all areas identified. This project will renovate the E wing at the Campbell Community Center to relocate the 50+ Adult Center so that the entrance is visible and highly accessible from the north parking lot. The objectives of the project are to: 1) relocate the entrance to face the north parking lot; 2) improve the interior layout to connect the classrooms; 3) create offices for staff; 4) include three gender neutral restrooms within the space; and 5) remodel the exterior facing women’s restroom to be a single stall restroom.

PROJECT SCHEDULE
Staff has prepared an anticipated timeline for the E Wing Renovation and Relocation of the Campbell Adult Center Project (No. 25-LL) as follows:

Activity Description Timeline (Estimated)
Approval of Final Plans and Specifications August 3, 2026 Advertise for Bids August 2026
Bid Opening and Award Construction
Contract August/September 2026
Construction Phase September 2025 – June 2027

FISCAL IMPACT
The anticipated Source and Use of Funds for the project is as follows:

Item 9.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 233 of 776

SOURCE OF FUNDS
Adopted Budget
HUD Grant $146,370
Parkland Dedication Funds $2,278,125
Total $2,424,495

USE OF FUNDS
Budget
Design $251,138
Construction Engineering $32,680
Construction Contract & Contingency $2,486,000
Total $2,769,818
Shortfall ($345,323)
The current sources of funding approved for this project include $2,278,125 in Parkland Dedication Funds and a Federal HUD Grant in the amount of $146,370 – the release of these funds is pending environmental clearance. The project is deemed excluded from environmental requirements, but a NEPA clearance documentation is still required for the grant.

The final engineer’s estimate for the construction is estimated at $2,260,000. Adding a 10% construction contingency of $226,000; the construction contract's total estimate is $2,486,000. This brings the total projected cost of the project to $2,769,818, resulting in a shortfall of $345,323. Staff recommends a budget adjustment to appropriate $345,323 from the Parkland Dedication Fund to cover the funding shortfall.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not approve the Project Plans and Specifications and direct staff to re-scope the Project.

PREPARED BY: Francisco Castellanos, Senior Project Manager Item 9.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 234 of 776

Report Approval Details
Document
Title:

Report - Approval of Plans and Specifications, Authorization to Solicit Bids, Award and Approve Contract, and Other Associated Actions for the Campbell Adult Center Relocation and Renovation Project.docx
Attachments: Resolution - 260707_25LL_.docx
Budget Adjustment.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

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

Item 9.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 235 of 776
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING

SOLICITATION OF BIDS, AWARDING AND APPROVING CONTRACT, AND

OTHER ASSOCIATED ACTIONS FOR

THE CAMPBELL ADULT CENTER RELOCATION AND RENOVATION
PROJECT (25-LL)

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024, the City Council approved the 2025-2029 FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which included the Campbell Community Center E Wing Renovation and Relocation of the Campbell Adult Center Project (25-LL); and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the architectural and schematic design for the project; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2025, the City Clerk received six proposals, with the evaluation panel consisting of three staff reviewed the proposals and interviewed the top three proposers; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the evaluation process, Studio G Architects was found to be the most qualified for the work; and
WHEREAS, City Council approved a contract with Studio G Architects for the architectural and schematic design of the project on March 4, 2025, in the amount of $283,818; and
WHEREAS, the design team took a holistic approach to achieve a cohesive design that addresses ADA deficiencies and staff needs; and
WHEREAS, the final plans and specifications for the project are now complete; and
WHEREAS, the final engineer’s estimate for the construction is estimated at $2,260,000 plus a 10% construction contingency of $226,000, the construction contract total estimate is $2,486,000; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated project cost is $2,769,818 and currently $2,424,495 has been budgeted, which creates a shortfall of $345,323; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends a budget adjustment to appropriate $345,323 from the Parkland Dedication Fund to cover the funding shortfall.

Item 9.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 236 of 776
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby 1) approve the plans and specifications for the Campbell Community Center E Wing Renovation and Relocation of the Campbell Adult Center (No. 25-LL); 2) authorize the solicitation of bids; 3) award and approve the subsequent construction contract to the lowest, responsive bidder in an amount not to exceed $2,260,000, plus a 10% contingency of $226,000; 4) authorize the City Manager to execute said contract as specified in Campbell Municipal Code Section 3.20.100; 5) authorize the Finance Director to perform associated budget adjustment; 6) authorize the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute contract change orders up to and within the allocated construction contingency; and 7) authorize the Public Works Director to reject bids and rebid the project, should bids received have unamenable irregularities.

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
Monday, August 03, 2026 237 of 776
City of Campbell
Request for Budget Adjustments
Department/Program Division Date Request No.

August 3, 2026 BA-1
Budget to be Reduced
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount
Budget to be Increased
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount

REVENUES
435.990 6999 345,323.00

EXPENDITURES
295.990 9999 Transfer Out - to CIP Fund 345,323.00
435.25LL 7883 Improvements - Adult Center Relocation and Renovation Project (25-LL 345,323.00 REASON FOR REQUEST - BE SPECIFIC:

Finance Director Recreation and Community Svcs Director City Manager Recreation / Public Works
Will Fuentes Natasha Bissell Brian Loventhal
25-LL - Adult Center Relocation and
Renovation Project
Transfer In - from Park Dedication Fund
To appropriate an additional $345,323 from the Parkland Dedication Fund to the Adult Center Relocation and Renovation Project (25-LL) to cover the project's funding shortfall.

Item 9.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 238 of 776
City Council Report
DATE: August 3, 2026
TITLE: Approval of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line.

BACKGROUND
Campbell Avenue is one of three major east-west corridors that traverse the full width of the City of Campbell. These three east-west corridors all cross State Route 17 and connect the east and west halves of the city. East Campbell Avenue connects Downtown Campbell with the Pruneyard and has over the years been a major focus of City studies and analysis.

In May 2007, City Council approved the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan (Master Plan) which establishes guidelines and policies for public improvements and private development for East Campbell Avenue between Railway Avenue and Union Avenue.

The goal of the Master Plan was to tie historic Downtown Campbell to the Pruneyard office and shopping center, creating a more connected and attractive gateway to Downtown.

The Master Plan identified street and frontage improvements, intersection and pedestrian crossing improvements, as well as recommendations for improvements to the Los Gatos Creek Bridge and Highway 17 Overpass (Portals). East Campbell Avenue was envisioned as four travel lanes, with curbside parking and wide sidewalks on both sides of the street, lined with street trees and streetlights. Intersection and pedestrian crossing improvements, including curb bulb-outs with ADA-compliant curb ramps at intersections, mid-block bulb-outs, new crosswalks, and a new traffic signal at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Page Street. Many of these improvements have been completed, including the intersection and signal modification at Railway Avenue and East Campbell Avenue, sidewalk and bulb-out installations along East Campbell Avenue between Railway Avenue and Dillon Avenue / Page Street, the widening of the Los Gatos Creek Bridge, and most recently the East Campbell Avenue Portals under Highway 17.

The East Campbell Avenue Plan Line was originally programmed in FY 2019 to create a more detailed plan that staff could utilize to respond quickly to the heightened development activity being seen along the corridor at that time. Unfortunately, in FY 2022, this project was placed on the Unfunded Projects to accommodate CIPR budget shortfall.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 239 of 776

In FY 2025, this project was reprogrammed to the Capital Improvement Plan. As discussed in more detail later in this memorandum, subsequent changes to State housing laws and the City’s pursuit of a multimodal plan, makes this the right time to revisit the Master Plan and update it to current standards and requirements.

On September 2, 2025, City Council approved an agreement with HMH Engineers (HMH) of San Jose to prepare the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line.

DISCUSSION
A plan line project typically follows master plan work to achieve the stated vision and to ensure it is safe and accessible by all roadway users. Plan lines are utilized to help determine factors including but not limited to: number and types of lanes of traffic, width and type of sidewalk, street furniture/tree/lighting placement, width of bike lanes, and whether there will be parking/no parking. Plan lines are not detailed engineering drawings but rather planned cross sections throughout the corridor.

The East Campbell Avenue Plan Line (Plan Line) project has two primary goals: 1) update the street sections shown in the previously adopted East Campbell Avenue Master Plan to show how it can functionally operate as a multimodal corridor for all users; and 2) provide the necessary detail to meet the objective standards requirement mandated by State Law for new development projects within the study area. The State of California passed several key pieces of legislation including the Housing Crisis Act in 2019, which requires objective standards to be established for new housing projects. This requires that the City provides publicly available information allowing housing developers to determine in advance of a Planning application any additional right-of-way and street frontage improvements that will be required of their development. The Plan Line project will establish the objective right-of-way standards for this corridor that housing developers can reference, and that the City can utilize to quickly condition the right-of-way dedication and street improvements required of these new developments.

The scope of the Plan Line study extends beyond the limits of the original Master Plan to leverage and complement other key efforts completed or underway to achieve a cohesive multimodal network, including the Bascom Corridor Complete Streets Study completed in 2020 by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Bascom Corridor Complete Streets Study identified improvements required to transform Bascom Avenue between Interstate 880 and State Route 85 from a vehicle focused arterial to a complete street multimodal corridor and introduced conceptual changes to the intersection of East Campbell Avenue and Bascom Avenue. While the Master Plan’s limits are from Railway Avenue to Union Avenue, the Plan Line extends the study area to South Bascom Avenue.

The Plan Line takes into consideration approved, pending, and potential land development projects, and identifies specific improvements required to achieve a multimodal (complete street) corridor including bike lanes within the existing right-of-way.

Public Engagement
To inform the Plan Line Study, two sets of public outreach and engagement meetings were scheduled. The first set was intended to solicit feedback from the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), property owners, and the community at large.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 240 of 776

The second set of meetings was scheduled to socialize the design alternatives developed based on the initial feedback.

The first of three meetings took place on November 20, 2025, with the City’s BPAC.

During that meeting staff presented a design alternative that was able to include bike lanes within the roadway alignment envisioned with the 2007 Master Plan, but as discussed below the community favored an alternative that preserved the existing leftturn lanes. Staff received feedback with common themes that would be heard repeatedly throughout the outreach process: the need for continuous, and preferably protected bike lanes to increase the comfort and safety of bicyclists; retaining the existing left-turn lanes between Dillon Avenue and Poplar Avenue to allow for safer vehicle turns; and mixed views on the removal of on-street parking spaces.

A community meeting was held at the Campbell Community Center on the evening of December 10, 2025, with 17 members of the community in attendance. To ensure as much participation as possible from users of East Campbell Avenue, signage for the community meeting was placed on a-frames along the study area, and outreach was posted on the City’s website and noticed on the City’s social media accounts. During the meeting staff received feedback consistent with what was heard at the previous BPAC meeting: the need for continuous, and preferably protected bike lanes to increase the comfort and safety of bicyclists; retaining the existing left-turn lanes between Dillon Avenue and Poplar Avenue; and mixed views on the removal of on-street parking spaces.

In addition, participants commented on certain sections of the sidewalk along the corridor being too narrow. To ensure that property owners along the corridor were also involved, staff held several meetings with them prior to the community meeting.

With that feedback in hand, HMH prepared additional design alternatives that were presented during the second round of public outreach, beginning with a meeting with the BPAC on March 19, 2026. Staff presented a preferred design alternative that provided a continuous bike lane through the corridor and kept the left-turn lanes. The BPAC’s feedback was positive, and they were supportive of the continuous bike lanes and glad to see the retention of the left-turn lanes.

A second community meeting was held at the Campbell Community Center on the evening of April 23, 2026, with 22 members of the community in attendance. The preferred alternative design was presented and well received. The loss of on-street parking was discussed, and a property owner requested staff to review an alternative design that provided parking on the north side of East Campbell Avenue instead of the south side shown along the future Cresleigh development. HMH prepared an alternate layout to study this request in more detail; however, it was determined that the resulting layout would require significant shifts in the traffic lanes - creating safety concerns and making it unsupportable.

Additional refinements were made to the preferred alternative design, including the alternative parking layout. The updated design was taken to the Planning Commission on May 26, 2026, for their comments and feedback. The Planning Commission discussed the project at length and provided overall positive feedback and support for the project.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 241 of 776

On June 18, 2026, the final layout was taken to the BPAC for their review and feedback.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the BPAC approved a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Plan Line.

The attached Final Plan Line Study provides the following information.

Existing Conditions
The Plan Line Study documents the existing conditions of East Campbell Avenue, including adjacent land uses, pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities. It also documents the existing right-of-way, and physical constraints that limit what is feasible.

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 bicyclists to have dedicated bike lanes separate from the vehicle lanes. There is a desire to maintain the existing left-turn lanes at the intersections between Dillon Avenue and Poplar Avenue. The public also expressed a desire to maintain as much on-street parking as possible, however recognized that parking will be lost in order to make space for dedicated bike lanes.

Alternatives Analysis
Three alternatives were considered based on safety, operational impacts, and public feedback. The corridor is divided into three sections: 1) Railway Avenue to Poplar Avenue – this is the most challenging section, where the proposed alternatives are significantly different; 2) Poplar Avenue to Union Avenue – with the existing Los Gatos Creek Bridge and the Highway 17 undercrossing (Portals) largely dictating the roadway width, as well as bike lanes already in-place, this section does not change significantly compared to the existing conditions; and 3) Union Avenue to South Bascom Avenue – the available right-of-way allows for upgraded bike lanes along this section. Modification of the existing free-right turn lanes is also proposed, which is discussed in more detail below.

Preserve Left-Turn Lanes (Preferred) Alternative. This alternative maintains the existing left-turn lanes between Dillon Avenue and Poplar Avenue. It provides continuous bike lanes, with portions of the bike lanes east of Highway 17 being buffered from the adjacent vehicular lane. It does result in a loss of existing on-street parking, as well as future on-street parking envisioned in the 2007 Master Plan. It will also require some roadway widening along the Greylands frontage when that property redevelops at some time in the future. In the interim, that section of East Campbell Avenue between Page Street and Poplar Avenue would continue to utilize “sharrows” – pavement markings that indicate to drivers that they must share the traffic lane with bicyclists. With the future construction of the Page signal modification, the existing bulb-out at the northwest corner of East Campbell Avenue and Page Street would be removed to allow for the new bike lane to be incrementally extended from Foote Avenue to Page Street as part of the signal project. The existing parking along the Lloyd Square frontage would be removed at this time.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 242 of 776

This alternative and the following are very similar between the Los Gatos Creek Bridge and South Bascom Avenue. Existing right-of-way allows for buffered bike lanes between Union Avenue and South Bascom Avenue. Both alternatives also include removal of the slip-lane / free-right / porkchop islands at the northwest and southwest corners of South Bascom Avenue and East Campbell Avenue. Removal of these higher-speed turn lanes will improve pedestrian safety and convenience as pedestrians will be able to cross East Campbell Avenue without having to wait within the small “porkchop” islands.

Remove Left-Turn Lanes Alternative. This alternative utilizes the roadway configuration proposed in the 2007 Master Plan by eliminating the existing left-turn lanes between Dillon Avenue and Poplar Avenue. This alternative provides continuous buffered bike lanes and on-street parking consistent with the 2007 Master Plan but creates safety issues for pedestrians at the intersections where the protected left-turns are removed, as well as increased vehicular queueing as through traffic has to wait behind vehicles waiting to turn left.

Road Diet Alternative. This alternative would reduce the number of vehicle lanes from four to two, with one vehicle lane in each direction. While this alternative would provide protected bike lanes throughout the corridor and result in no loss of on-street parking, the impacts to vehicular traffic were deemed to be so significant that further analysis was not pursued. As previously discussed, East Campbell Avenue is one of only three east-west corridors through the City, and removal of 50% of the traffic capacity from a roadway already at capacity during peak hour traffic was not considered a viable option.

Traffic Analysis
The preferred and non-preferred alternatives were evaluated for their impacts to level of service, queuing, and safety at intersections along the corridor. The Road Diet alternative was not evaluated as previously discussed. AM and PM peak hour traffic operations were evaluated under Existing Conditions (Year 2025) and Cumulative Conditions (based on the Campbell Housing Element 2023-2031 model). The analysis concluded that removing left-turn lanes at Dillon Avenue, Page Street, and Gilman Avenue would increase intersection delays particularly at Campbell Avenue/Civic Center Drive/Railway Avenue and Campbell Avenue/Dillon Avenue. Queueing on eastbound Campbell Avenue and especially on northbound Gilman Avenue would be worse if left-turn lanes were removed. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at signalized intersections and the potential for head-on crashes at unsignalized intersections would increase if left-turn lanes were eliminated.

Overall, the Preserve Left-Turn Lanes (Preferred) Alternative would provide better traffic operations and a safer corridor design for all users. The Remove Left-Turn Lanes Alternative would have more adverse effects on traffic operations and queuing.

Parking Analysis
The Master Plan envisioned up to 41 on-street parking spaces along East Campbell Avenue between Railway Avenue and Poplar Avenue at full buildout of the plan – based on the removal of the left-turn lanes along this segment. That includes the following parking spaces yet to be realized: six (6) parking spaces along the Campbell Park frontage that would require removal of the existing mature trees; eleven (11) parking Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 243 of 776

spaces along the Greylands frontage; and seven (7) parking spaces along the Cresleigh frontage. While the Remove Left-Turn Lanes Alternative would provide most of this parking, with the exception of the parking along the Campbell Park frontage, that alternative cannot be recommended due to the pedestrian safety concerns previously discussed. The Preserve Left-Turn Lanes (Preferred) Alternative would result in 16 parking spaces, with removal of the 8 existing spaces in front of the Lloyd Center, and the addition of 7 new spaces in front of the Cresleigh development.

Study Recommendation
The final Plan Line Study dated July 2026 recommends the “Preserve Left-Turn Lanes” alternative as this alternative offers the safest operations for all roadway users. It also offers a dedicated bike lane through the corridor for bicyclists and minimizes disruption to vehicular traffic for this critical east-west corridor. While this alternative has the greatest impact to on-street parking, as previously discussed, it offers the maximum benefit and meets the intent of creating a true multi-modal corridor for all users.

Next Steps
In accordance with the requirements of Section 11.20 of the Campbell Municipal Code, the next steps following City Council approval of the Plan Line include: 1) the preparation of a Plan Line exhibit (by HMH); 2) adoption of the Plan Line by ordinance at a later City Council meeting; and 3) recordation of the Plan Line at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City with approval of this Plan Line as it does not in itself authorize any construction.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the Plan Line. This alternative is not recommended since the public generally supports the project, and the project establishes the necessary dedications and improvements that, per State law, need to be disclosed in advance to future development projects.

PREPARED BY: Roger Storz, Senior Civil Engineer
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 244 of 776

Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Approval of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line.docx Attachments: Resolution E Campbell Plan Line.docx
E CAMPBELL AVE PLAN LINE REPORT_FINAL.pdf
Final Approval Date: July 29, 2026
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 245 of 776

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

APPROVING THE EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan in 2007 to improve the connection between Downtown Campbell and the Pruneyard; and WHEREAS, the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan was approved prior to the current standards of complete streets and multi-modal opportunities for all users; and WHEREAS, the State of California has adopted legislation requiring that housing developers be made aware of specific objective standards related to the dedication of right-of-way and the construction of street improvements prior to making a formal development application to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to ensure that East Campbell Avenue between Railway Avenue and South Bascom Avenue provides a comprehensive multi-modal experience for all users and that housing developers have the information required by State law; and WHEREAS, City Council approved the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Project 25-CC as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program to address these needs; and WHEREAS, On September 2, 2025, City Council approved an agreement with HMH Engineers of San Jose to prepare the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line; and WHEREAS, public outreach included multiple community and property owner meetings, and multiple meetings with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); and WHEREAS, recurrent themes included: the need for continuous, and preferably protected bike lanes to increase the comfort and safety of bicyclists; retaining the existing left-turn lanes between Dillon Avenue and Poplar Avenue to allow for safer vehicle turns; and mixed views on the removal of on-street parking spaces; and WHEREAS, HMH Engineers prepared the document “East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study July 2026” (plan line study); and
WHEREAS, the plan line study includes three alternatives: 1) Preserve Left-Turn Lanes, 2) Remove Left-Turn Lanes, and 3) Road Diet; and
WHEREAS, the plan line study recommends the Preserve Left-Turn Lanes alternative as the preferred alternative for the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line as it offers the maximum benefit and meets the intent of creating a true multi-modal corridor for all users; and WHEREAS, On April 23, 2026, the preferred alternative was presented to the community and received a favorable response; and
WHEREAS, On May 26, 2026, the preferred alternative was presented to the Planning Commission and received a favorable response; and
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 246 of 776

WHEREAS, On June 18, 2026, the preferred alternative was presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) who recommend that the City Council approve the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line; and
WHEREAS, The next steps following City Council approval of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line include: 1) the preparation of a East Campbell Avenue Plan Line exhibit (by HMH); 2) adoption of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line by ordinance at a later City Council meeting; and 3) recordation of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby approve the preferred alternative “Preserve Left-Turn Lanes”, as shown in the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study dated July 2026, as the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line.

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
Monday, August 03, 2026 247 of 776
CITY OF CAMPBELL | July 2026
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 248 of 776

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 249 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 5

2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 9

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 11

4. PUBLIC OUTREACH .................................................................................................. 17

5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 21

6. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................... 29

7. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 31 A. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1 EXHIBIT
B. NON-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 EXHIBIT
C. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS
D. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 250 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 251 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
5 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW
East Campbell Avenue currently presents a significant gap in the walking and biking network between Historic Downtown Campbell and The Pruneyard Shopping Center (Pruneyard). Residents and visitors who wish to travel on foot or by bicycle between Civic Center Drive and Railway Avenue to the west, and South Bascom Avenue to the east, face inadequate and often uncomfortable conditions along this corridor. While Downtown Campbell and the Pruneyard are both popular destinations for the community, the existing street infrastructure does not adequately serve those who wish to travel between them by active transportation.

The properties along East Campbell Avenue today are primarily commercial and retail uses that have been designed around vehicle access — with wide driveways, surface parking, and limited accommodation for people on foot or bike.

The City envisions transforming this corridor into a vibrant, mixed-use district that prioritizes pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, supported by a thoughtfully designed streetscape. The East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study advances this vision by updating the 2007 East Campbell Avenue Master Plan to establish a roadway configuration that meaningfully improves walking and biking conditions. The result will be a higher level of connectivity consistent with the growth and development anticipated for the area under the City’s 2040 General Plan, the 2023–2031 Housing Element, and the adopted Form-Based Zone Map.

The East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study documents the proposed roadway improvements along the corridor, as well as the land dedications and street-facing (frontage) improvements that future development projects will be required to provide as a condition of development. In this way, the Plan Line ensures that private developments contribute to the broader public goal of a safer and more complete street.

Figure 1.1: East Campbell Avenue Master Plan
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 252 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
6 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing bicycle facilities along East Campbell Avenue fall short of providing a safe, comfortable route between Historic Downtown Campbell and The Pruneyard Shopping Center. While dedicated bike lanes exist on some segments, other portions of the corridor rely on Shared Lane Markings — commonly known as “sharrows” — which are pavement symbols that indicate bicyclists and motor vehicles share the same travel lane. Sharrows provide no physical separation or protected space for cyclists and are generally considered unsuitable for riders who are newer to cycling, less confident in traffic, or traveling with children.

The existing sidewalks within the study area vary considerably in width, ranging from as narrow as five feet to as wide as fifteen feet. A five-foot sidewalk is the minimum required by accessibility standards and offers very little buffer for pedestrians walking alongside high volumes of fast-moving traffic nor space for sidewalk amenities such as street trees, streetlights and furniture which elevate the pedestrian experience. Wider sidewalks are recommended to improve comfort, accessibility, and users of all ages and abilities.

The project corridor passes through two existing structures that present important design constraints. The first is the Los Gatos Creek Bridge, which spans Los Gatos Creek and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The bridge supports the roadway over the creek and constrains the potential cross section of the Plan Line to the existing bridge width. Widening the bridge to support the Plan Line would involve significant in-creek work which would significantly worsen environmental impacts and increase the cost of the project.

The second structure crossing is the undercrossing at California State Route 17 (Highway 17), where East Campbell Avenue passes under the freeway. The bridge columns and abutments create constraints to the potential East Campbell Avenue roadway configuration. The structure was modified in 2016 as part of the Campbell Portals and Pedestrian Facilities project which added bike lanes and a wide sidewalk through the structure. Modifying the structure, again, to support the Plan Line would involve substantial costs.

Modifications to both structures were reviewed and deemed to be unnecessary to achieve the goals of the project.

Figure 1.2: East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study Limits Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 253 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
7 PUBLIC OUTREACH
Community engagement is a cornerstone of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study. Because the proposed improvements directly affect the daily experience of residents, business owners, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers who use the corridor, it was essential that the planning process reflect the needs and priorities of the people who know it best. Public outreach was conducted in two rounds, providing the community with meaningful opportunities to review alternatives, ask questions, and share feedback before recommendations were finalized.

Input gathered through these efforts directly shaped key decisions in the Plan Line — most notably, the community's strong preference to retain left-turn lanes along the corridor, which became a defining constraint in evaluating and selecting the preferred alternative.

Outreach efforts were organized in two rounds with three distinct groups:
•City of Campbell’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) •Property Owners along the Corridor
•Local Community
The first round of outreach focused on reviewing existing constraints and concerns, while presenting an alternative aligned with the 2007 Master Plan. In this effort, community members were invited to share their input and experiences travelling along the project corridor as well as input on potential Project solutions and impacts.

During these meetings, community members expressed a consistent desire for improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities that prioritize safety, access and comfort for all ages and abilities and expressed concerns regarding traffic operations at key intersections. In this round of outreach, the community also represented a strong desire to maintain the existing left-turn lanes on the existing corridor.

This community input, paired with the established visions and goals for the Plan Line, were used as a basis for developing three distinct alternatives.

The second round of outreach focused on a presentation of the preferred alternative developed by the design team as well as highlighting the deficiencies of the other two alternatives. Each of the three groups were engaged and were overall supportive of the preferred alternative.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 254 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
8 PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS
The project considered three alternatives.

Alternative Configuration Description
1 Preserve Left-Turn
Lanes
Provides continuous bike lanes, some of which are buffered. Leftturn lanes are maintained from the existing condition. Proposed sidewalks are widened, where possible.
2 Remove Left-Turn
Lanes
Left-turn lanes are removed to accommodate buffered bike lanes.

On-street parking is added where feasible, consistent with the 2007 Master Plan. Proposed sidewalks are widened where
possible.
3 Road Diet
Reduce the number of vehicle lanes from four to two, with one direction of travel each way, to accommodate protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

Table 1.1: Alternatives Considered

EVALUATION
Alternatives developed were then evaluated to establish the preferred alternative. To inform this recommendation, the project team reviewed the following metrics established from community and City staff input:
•Access and Safety
•Traffic Operations
•Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
•Parking
•Consistency with Public Input
•Feasibility

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
After evaluation of the alternatives, the Study recommends Alternative 1: Preserve Left-Turn Lanes as the preferred alternative and to be established as the Plan Line for East Campbell Avenue from Railway Avenue to South Bascom Avenue. Alternative 1 performed above its peers with respect to the evaluation criteria established. This alternative provides safe and continuous bicycle lanes through the corridor which separate cyclists and pedestrians from on-street vehicular conflicts, avoids significant impacts to traffic operations, and is the most consistent with public input provided over both rounds of outreach.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 255 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
9 2.INTRODUCTION
VISION
The East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study is guided by a clear vision to create a safe, welcoming, and well-connected corridor that serves all modes and users of all ages and abilities. Through extensive community outreach, the project team heard directly from residents, business owners, and regular corridor users about the barriers and challenges they experience today. It is clear that the existing street configurations create challenges for users on various modes to comfortably navigate the corridor.

PROJECT GOALS
The primary goal of this project is to update and extend the reach of the East Campbell Master Plan, approved in May 2007, and create a complete roadway facility that accommodates all users and encourages active transportation. This type of design approach is often referred to as a “complete street” which balances the needs of all users rather than prioritizing vehicles alone. In addition, the Plan Line documents the land and street-facing improvements that new development projects along the corridor will be required to provide, ensuring private development contributes to the public benefit of a more connected street.

The Plan Line is designed to add bicycle lanes, thoughtfully balance the allocation of street space among all uses (travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, parking, and landscaping), and to lay the groundwork for future development along the corridor. Proposed improvements comply with current federal, state, and local design requirements to ensure a viable and approvable configuration.

Figure 2.1: Vision Concept Illustration from 2007 East Campbell Avenue Master Plan Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 256 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
10 BACKGROUND
City of Campbell 2040 General Plan
In April 2023, the City of Campbell adopted the 2040
General Plan, also known as Envision Campbell General Plan Update. 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 2040
Plan, in combination with the 2023–2031 Housing Element which was adopted in April 2023, 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.

Form-Based Zone Map
In April 2023, the City of Campbell adopted the Form-Based Zone Map (FBZM) via Ordinance No. 2293, pursuant to CMC Section 21.07.030. The FBZM established by the CMC applies to all applications for new housing development projects.

This map calls for ground-floor commercial along the entire East Campbell Avenue corridor as part of the Ground Floor Non-Residential Requirement, Tier 1. This zoning designation will inform streetscape frontage design at the time of construction.

City of Campbell 2007 East Campbell Avenue Master Plan
In May of 2007, the City of Campbell adopted the East
Campbell Avenue Master Plan which served as a guide for the City to achieve its vision of tying the Historic Downtown Campbell to the Pruneyard Shopping Center, creating an
inviting, safe, functional and connected corridor between Civic Center Drive/Railway Avenue and Highway 17. This
effort focused on infrastructure improvements to improve connectivity along the corridor and several key
improvements have now been implemented.

The plan revolved around reconfiguring the roadway to
better represent a ‘Downtown’ street which has curbside parking, wider sidewalks, and pedestrian-oriented street lighting, trees, and amenities. Improvements include, but are not limited to, updating the roadway configuration to support multi-modal transportation opportunities and adding design character and streetscape improvements to the corridor consistent with the Downtown theme.

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.

Source: City of Campbell 2040 General Plan
Pedestrian & Transit-Oriented Design:

Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access,
including safer routes to transit.

Connectivity: Improve east-west access
from Downtown Campbell to The
Pruneyard.

Source: East Campbell Avenue Master Plan
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 257 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
11 3.EXISTING CONDITIONS

LAND USE
East Campbell Avenue within the study area runs next to several significant land use destinations.

The Pruneyard Shopping Center, at the east end of the corridor, is an iconic shopping and dining destination which draws visitors from within the city limits and the larger region. It is a key commercial and recreational hub in Campbell, with a mix of retail, dining, and entertainment options.

Historic Downtown Campbell is located just west of the project study area. 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.

Since the implementation of the 2007 Master Plan, the density of development in the study area has only increased, in part due to the passing of California Senate Bill 79 and buildout of the City’s 2040 General Plan. And additional high-density housing opportunities have been identified along the corridor which further supports the need to implement complete street improvements to improve connectivity from new development to key destinations.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The existing sidewalks within the study area vary considerably in width, ranging from as narrow as five feet to as wide as fifteen feet. A five-foot sidewalk is the minimum required by accessibility standards and offers very little buffer for pedestrians walking alongside high volumes of fast-moving traffic nor space for sidewalk amenities such as street trees, streetlights and furniture which elevate the pedestrian experience. Wider sidewalks are recommended to improve comfort, accessibility, and users of all ages and abilities.

EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines bicycle classifications throughout the state. Facilities on roadways are defined into four classifications shown in Table 3.1.

Classification Terminology Description
Class I Shared Use Paths A completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.

Class II Bike Lanes
A restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

Class III Bike Routes A right-of-way on-street or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

Class IV Separated Bikeways
A right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

Table 3.1: Bicycle Facility Classifications
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 258 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
12 The existing bicycle facilities along East Campbell Avenue fall short of providing a safe, comfortable route between Historic Downtown Campbell and The Pruneyard Shopping Center. While dedicated bike lanes exist on some segments, other portions of the corridor rely on Shared Lane Markings — commonly known as “sharrows” — which are pavement symbols that indicate bicyclists and motor vehicles share the same travel lane. Sharrows provide no physical separation or protected space for cyclists and are generally considered unsuitable for riders who are newer to cycling, less confident in traffic, or traveling with children.

Location Direction Description
Civic Center Drive & Railway
Avenue to Foote Avenue
Eastbound Class III sharrows
Westbound 5-foot wide Class II green-painted bike lanes with bike boxes
Foote Avenue to Poplar
Avenue
Eastbound Class III sharrows
Westbound Class III sharrows
Poplar Avenue to Barbano
Avenue
Eastbound 5-foot wide Class II bike lanes, with some green-painted areas near the Union Avenue intersection
Westbound 5-foot Class II bike lanes
Barbano Avenue to South
Bascom Avenue
Eastbound n/a
Westbound n/a
Table 3.2: Existing Bicycle Facilities
Class II bike lanes designate an exclusive lane for cyclists, clearly striped and separated from vehicle travel lanes. Class III bikeways, by contrast, provide no dedicated space for cyclists at all and riders must share lanes with moving vehicles.

This creates a condition that reduces comfort and increases stress levels for both cyclists and drivers. At the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour along East Campbell Avenue, sharing a lane with vehicle traffic can be particularly daunting for less experienced riders or those who commute regularly along the corridor. This constraint discourages a significant portion of potential cyclists from using the route.

According to the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan, most of the project corridor is rated as Level of Traffic Stress 3 (LTS 3). This four-point scale measures how comfortable and safe a given street feels for cyclists, with LTS 1 being suitable for all ages and abilities, and LTS 4 being appropriate only for the most experienced riders. An LTS 3 rating indicates conditions comfortable only for “enthused and confident” cyclists who are experienced enough to ride comfortably alongside moving traffic. The project corridor is also designated as a CrossCounty Bicycle Corridor, underscoring its regional significance and the importance of improving its bicycle infrastructure.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 259 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
13 Figure 3.1: Campbell Bikeways Network Map
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 260 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
14 EXISTING & MASTER PLAN ALIGNMENTS
The Master Plan proposed cross section improvements for the East Campbell Avenue corridor, which can be compared to the proposed cross sections described in later sections of this report. Figure 5.1 shows the plan location associated with each ‘segment’ shown below.

Figure 3.2: 2007 Master Plan – Segment 1 Typical Section (Railway Ave to Poplar Ave) Figure 3.3: 2007 Master Plan – Segment 2 Typical Section (Poplar Ave to Union Ave) Figure 3.4: 2007 Master Plan – Segment 3 Typical Section (Union Ave to S Bascom Ave) Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 261 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
15 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
The project corridor passes through two existing structures that present important design constraints. The first is the Los Gatos Creek Bridge, which spans Los Gatos Creek and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The bridge supports the roadway over the creek and constrains the potential cross section of the Plan Line to the existing bridge width. Widening the bridge to support the Plan Line would involve significant in-creek work which would significantly worsen environmental impacts and increase the cost of the project.

The second structure crossing is the undercrossing at California State Route 17 (Highway 17), where East Campbell Avenue passes under the freeway. The bridge columns and abutments create constraints to the potential East Campbell Avenue roadway configuration. The Highway 17 underpass was significantly improved in 2016 through the Campbell Portals and Pedestrian Facilities project. That effort created dedicated, separated pedestrian walkways, and widened the bicycle lanes through the underpass. To achieve this, portions of the original concrete retaining walls (known as wing walls) flanking the structure were removed, and new tie-back retaining walls were constructed to open the space beneath the freeway. The completed project also incorporated artistic treatments, improved lighting, and decorative features at the walkway entrances, transforming this underpass into a distinctive and welcoming gateway into the corridor.

Modifications to both structures were reviewed and deemed to be unnecessary to achieve the goals of the project.

Figure 3.5: 2016 Campbell Portals and Pedestrian Facilities Project Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 262 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
16 OTHER MAJOR CONSTRAINTS
East Campbell Avenue presents several distinctive
physical and operational characteristics that shape
what improvements are feasible and how the Plan
Line has been designed. The following subsections
describe the key constraints considered in developing
the alternatives.

Available Right of Way
The City has been mindful of the impacts to
neighboring agencies and adjacent property owners
throughout this process. The public right-of-way
required is a critical factor in determining what
improvements are reasonable and achievable. Each
alternative was carefully evaluated for its effect on
existing private property and the degree to which
additional land would need to be dedicated by a future
developer. The proposed street cross sections were
designed to accommodate vehicular travel lanes, bike
lanes, sidewalks, parking zones, and streetscape
features. While there are a limited number of
properties where additional right-of-way is requested,
the majority of the Plan Line can be implemented
within the existing public right-of-way.

Overall, the alternatives analysis demonstrates the
City’s commitment to evaluating improvements in a
way that minimizes disturbance to partner facilities
and preserves long-term accessibility, safety, and
operational needs within the right-of-way.

Utilities
At this stage, the alternatives did not evaluate utility impacts. As the project advances, a comprehensive utility analysis will be needed with the goal to minimize
disturbance to existing utility infrastructure to maintain reliable service to the surrounding community. Typical
utilities within the project area are likely to include:
• Pacific Gas and Electric - Electric
• Pacific Gas and Electric - Gas
• San Jose Water Company - Water
• West Valley Sanitation District - Sewer
• Comcast - Communications
• AT&T - Communications
• Verizon - Communications
Agencies & Stakeholders
The City is sensitive to the needs of partner agencies. Early and continued engagement with utility owners and other
partner agencies will be needed to support on-going project development and to minimize impacts on existing utilities.

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

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 263 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
17 4.PUBLIC OUTREACH

OUTREACH PLAN & STRATEGIES
As part of this study, the City committed to providing regular and meaningful community engagement, developing
multiple formats for community dialogue and interaction.

The primary purpose of these efforts was to listen to and understand current concerns and desires for the proposed project and to solicit feedback and concurrence on the
preferred alternative. The City sought to learn how and why people might use this route, important destinations and connections, barriers to using this segment, and amenities the community would like to see. Stakeholders associated with the project include the Campbell Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), local businesses, and Campbell residents.

To reach as many community members as possible, the
project and outreach events were publicized through Aframes posted within the project area, flyers, the City’s mailing lists, and online channels. The City also shared information about the events through social media on
Instagram and Facebook, announced the events at BPAC
meetings, and reached out directly to businesses along the corridor.

OUTREACH EVENTS
Campbell Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC) – Thursday, November 20, 2025
Early in the Project Study, the team engaged the BPAC
meeting and discussed the following key objectives:
• Intent to update the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan dated May 2007
• Incorporation of Class II or Class IV bike lanes
• Optimization of right-of-way to accommodate
additional elements such as on-street parking and
wider sidewalks
• Potential to remove left-turn lanes from the corridor • Incorporation of a new signal at the Page Street &
Gilman Avenue offset intersection
• Incorporate future frontage development along the
corridor frontage
The BPAC provided feedback which favored the additional bicycle facilities, strongly encouraged the project to keep the left-turn lanes, and expressed concerns on potential adverse effects to traffic and queuing distances.

Property Owners Meeting – Tuesday, December 9, 2025
The City hosted a field meeting with property owners and businesses along the corridor to discuss concerns about existing conditions and to provide an informational review of the 2007 Master Plan and the Plan Line project concepts.

Public Outreach Meeting – Wednesday, December 10,
2025
The City hosted a public outreach meeting to engage
community members during the initial stages of the study.

The meeting provided an overview of the project - including potential improvements to bicycle and pedestrian mobility along the project corridor - and gathered community input on concerns related to bicyclists and pedestrians, parking use, and traffic.

City staff and project team members delivered a formal
presentation reviewing existing conditions, design
constraints, and the same key objectives presented to the BPAC. Participants were then invited to an interactive
workshop with stations organized by geographic segment
of the corridor. These visuals helped residents better
understand the range of features and options that could enhance safety and connectivity for bicyclists and
pedestrians along the corridor. Meeting participants were encouraged to share their comments and concerns . Refer to Figure 4.1 for the comments provided.

In general, feedback consisted of:
• Support for protected and continuous bike lanes
throughout the corridor
• Concerns about traffic operations with the removal of left-turn lanes
• Desire for wider, safe, and better-lit sidewalks
• Mixed views about on-street parking
• Request for consideration of a road diet
• Request for streetscape enhancements
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 264 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
18 Figures 4.1 - 4.3: Photos of public comments at
public engagement stations
Campbell Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee –
Thursday, March 19, 2026
During this regularly scheduled BPAC meeting, the design team presented the three alternatives analyzed,
emphasizing the preferred alternative, which included
continuous bike lanes and maintained the existing left-turn lanes.

Feedback from the BPAC primarily consisted of clarifying questions about the function of left-turn lanes, the capacity of existing intersections, and the newly proposed signal at Page Street, alongside overall support for the preferred alternative.

Property Owners Meetings – April 2026
The City held one-on-one discussions with individual
property owners along the corridor as a follow-up to the initial contact. These meetings reviewed how the preferred alternative would affect each owner’s frontage and
explained why that alternative was chosen. For some
owners, impacts included the potential loss of street
parking, street improvements, and sidewalk widening.

While property owners were generally supportive of the
preferred alternative, some expressed concerns about
maintaining access to their properties and businesses. And although most property owners would have preferred the
potential for more street parking, they understood why
some spaces had to be eliminated. Based on feedback from one owner in particular, the design team conducted an
additional study to evaluate an alternative street alignment that could preserve existing on-street parking. This study is discussed in Section 5, Alternative 1.

Public Outreach Meeting – Thursday, April 23, 2026
The second community meeting also focused on the three
alternatives with an emphasis on the preferred
alternative. It included a detailed look at the proposed design for each geographic segment of the corridor and an open question-and-answer session, which allowed
attendees to seek clarification, raise concerns, and share their perspectives.

The meeting drew overwhelming support for the
preferred alternative, consistent with feedback the
community had provided in the first public outreach
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 265 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
POC
19 meeting. This included support for the proposed
continuous bike lanes and for signalizing the Page Street and Gilman Street offset intersection. The public also
asked clarifying questions about signal timing and function and offered feedback on how the corridor functions today.

Attendees additionally raised questions about the future and timeline of major development projects along the
corridor, which will use the proposed Plan Line to help define their frontage improvements.

FEEDBACK DURING EVENTS
Feedback received from all stakeholders fell into several “themes” as follows:

Safety
• Protected and continuous bike lanes throughout
the project limits.
• Wider, safer, and better-lit sidewalks, with
improved accessibility and pedestrian comfort.

Ease of Use
• Concerns about traffic operations at key
intersections, signal coordination with Railway
Avenue, and use of the corridor when Downtown
Campbell is closed for Farmer’s Market on
Sundays.

Connectivity
• Better connections to nearby amenities such as
Campbell Park, the Historic Downtown, the
Pruneyard, and Los Gatos Creek Trail.
• Streetscape enhancements, such as adding more
trees.

Access
• Mixed views about on-street parking. Some
support converting parking to bike lanes and
streetscape improvements, while others want to
preserve the parking.

These represent the most common concerns voiced by
residents; a more comprehensive list of community
comments is provided in Appendix C.

SUMMARY
Respondents broadly emphasized the need for safer bike
and pedestrian infrastructure, with many calling for clearer separation from vehicle traffic. 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 the improvements
proposed in the preferred alternative.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 266 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 267 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 21

5.ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Based on the 2007 East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, stakeholder feedback, and best design practices, the project team developed three alternatives. All three alternatives add bicycle infrastructure to the roadway and include the new signal at the Page Street and Gilman Avenue offset intersection as proposed by the 2007 Master Plan. In the following sections, each alternative is analyzed against the evaluation criteria listed in the introduction.

Alternative Description

1. Preserve Left-Turn
Lanes

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Provides continuous Class II bike lanes, some of which are buffered. Left-turn lanes are maintained from the existing condition. Proposed sidewalks are widened where possible.

2. Remove Left-Turn
Lanes
Left-turn lanes are removed to accommodate Class II
buffered bike lanes. On-street parking is added where
feasible, consistent with the 2007 Master Plan. Proposed sidewalks are widened where possible.

3. Road Diet
Reduce the number of vehicle lanes from four to two, with one direction of travel each way, to accommodate Class IV bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

Table 5.1: Analyzed Alternatives
The project is divided into three roadway segments, each representing different contexts, needs, and potential design interventions. Segment 1 runs from Railway Avenue to Poplar Avenue. Segment 2 continues from Poplar Avenue to Union Avenue and includes the existing Los Gatos Creek Bridge and Highway 17 underpass. And Segment 3 extends from Union Avenue to South Bascom Avenue.

Figure 5.1: Project Segments

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 268 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 22
ALTERNATIVE 1: PRESERVE LEFT-TURN LANES - PREFERRED
Alternative 1 retains the existing left-turn lanes to preserve traffic operations at intersecting streets. The alignment is shown in detail in Appendix A and described below. Alternative 1 would also signalize the intersection of East Campbell Avenue and Page Street, operating it under a single controller with the Gilman Avenue intersection.

Segment 1
Segment 1 carries the most extensive cross-section changes in the corridor. Between Railway Avenue and Foote Avenue, the overall lane configuration will be maintained with some elements narrowed to accommodate an added bike lane on the south side of the road. Both the north and south on-street parking areas will be narrowed to 7 feet, and the No. 1 lane on the eastbound side of the road will be narrowed to 10 feet. All other through-lanes in this area will be 11 feet wide.

Between Foote Avenue and Page Street, 8 westbound parking spaces will be eliminated to accommodate a 5-foot wide bike lane. In response to public outreach, the desire to maintain existing left-turn lanes and add bicycle infrastructure requires the trade-off of removing some on-street parking*. However, additional parking is added on the opposite side of the street, as described below. Refer to sub-section “*Segment 1 – Alternative Parking Alignment Consideration” for additional detail on the removal of on-street parking.

Additionally, the concrete curb extension at the northwest corner of Page Street will need to be removed to accommodate the bike lane. Although removing the curb extension lengthens the crossing distance, the removal would coincide with installation of the new traffic signal. The new pedestrian crossing signal phase will mitigate the lengthened crossing distance.

Between Dillon Avenue and Gilman Avenue on the eastbound side, the proposed configuration is consistent with the planned Cresleigh development frontage, accommodating both a widened sidewalk and 7 new on-street parking spaces; this is shown in Section 1A below and on the plan sheets provided in Appendix A.

The Page Street and Gilman Avenue offset intersection would be operated under a single controller. Notably, during the protected left-turn phase from East Campbell Avenue onto both Page Street and Gilman Avenue, pedestrians would not be permitted to cross either street; these protected left-turn phases minimize vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Signal design, traffic impacts, and a detailed analysis of this alternative are provided in Appendix D: Traffic Operations Analysis.

Between Page Street and Poplar Avenue on the westbound side, the final Plan Line alignment requires the existing curb to be pushed northward by 2 feet to accommodate 5-foot bike lanes in each direction. Additionally, the future sidewalk should be expanded to 15 feet to align with the 2007 Master Plan’s goal of widening the East Campbell Avenue right-ofway; this will require approximately 12 feet of right-of-way dedication from the Greylands property. These curb and sidewalk improvements will need to be studied in detail during design due to many existing utilities and transformer vaults within the northern sidewalk. Coordination with utility companies, including PG&E and AT&T, will be required during design. These modifications to the curb, gutter and sidewalk should be implemented during future development of the Greylands properties. The Plan Line proposes to maintain the southern curb, gutter and ten-foot sidewalk, due to the existing large-canopy trees along the Campbell Park frontage. These trees provide valuable shade to park and sidewalk users and would have too great an impact if removed. This also preserves the recently relocated bus stop at the northwest corner of Campbell Park. These changes are shown in Section 1B below.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 269 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 23
Because the timeline for redeveloping the Greylands properties on the northern side of East Campbell Avenue between Page Street and Poplar Avenue is unknown, an interim condition must be considered for this portion of the roadway.

Appendix A includes the interim condition, which maintains the existing roadway between Gilman Avenue and Poplar Avenue. Shared lane markings (also known as ‘sharrows’) will be maintained in the outermost lanes, and the vehicular lanes will remain as-is until the northern property can be redeveloped. Bike lanes cannot be accommodated in this section without widening the street.

Figure 5.2: Proposed Plan Line Update - Typical Section 1A Figure 5.3: Proposed Plan Line Update - Typical Section 1B Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 270 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 24
*Segment 1 – Alternative Parking Alignment Consideration During the Public Outreach process for this Plan Line, an existing property owner on the north side of the street between Foote Avenue and Page Street expressed concerns about the removal of the 8 on-street parking spaces, and requested an additional study to consider maintaining that parking, and instead removing proposed parking from the south side in front of the Cresleigh development. The design team studied the impacts of this alternative parking alignment and found that it produced an undesirable roadway geometry. This alternative would shift the vehicular lanes south between Foote Avenue and Gilman Avenue, but the lanes would have to shift back to match the rest of the proposed East Campbell Avenue alignment to the east and west. The resulting lane shifts across intersections are undesirable in standard roadway design, which favor straighter, more consistent lanes. This shift also raises bicyclistsafety concerns because of the larger lane shift across Gilman Avenue. Because of the existing bus stop at the corner of Campbell Park, buses merge with the bike lane to pick up and drop off passengers; while buses could essentially drive straight into that bus stop, bicyclists crossing the intersection would be shifting north to the new bike lane alignment, raising concerns about bicycle visibility and safety in this conflict zone.

Additionally, with the bike lane added on the north side of the street, one of the existing parking spots would still need to be removed to ensure adequate visibility between bicyclists in the bike lane and cars exiting the existing parking lot.

This would decrease the number of on-street parking spots to 7, equal to the number of spots proposed in Alternative

1. For these reasons, this configuration was excluded from the final layout of Alternative 1. See Figure 5.4 for a visual representation of this study.

Figure 5.4: Alternative Parking Alignment Study
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 271 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 25
Segment 2
Segment 2 is the most constrained segment and includes the bridge over Los Gatos Creek and Trail, as well as the Campbell Portals/Highway 17 undercrossing. It already includes Class II bike lanes and 10-foot sidewalks and meets the requirements of this Plan Line update. One minor modification is proposed at the northeast corner of the Poplar Avenue intersection. The proposed Plan Line includes widening the back of walk to provide a 10-foot sidewalk west of the existing Los Gatos Creek Bridge. Widening this sidewalk will depend on redevelopment of the property and on feasibility given the existing grades. During detailed design of this widening, special attention should be paid to the potential impacts on Los Gatos Creek and the environmental permitting implications. No other modifications are proposed for this segment, aside from minor bike-lane striping updates to improve visibility and awareness at bus stop conflicts with the bike lane. Section 2 below shows the existing condition to remain.

Figure 5.5: Existing Conditions - Typical Section 2
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 272 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 26
Segment 3
Segment 3 maintains the existing curb-to-curb dimensions of the roadway but incorporates Class II buffered bike lanes from Union Avenue to South Bascom Avenue by narrowing the center turn lane to 10 feet and creating consistent 11- foot lanes throughout the segment. Additional minor improvements include painted green skip-striping at bus stops to increase visibility and awareness between bus drivers and bicyclists.

Between Union Avenue and Barbano Avenue, the Plan Line proposes to widen the southern sidewalk to 10 feet, for consistency with the rest of the corridor.

The proposed Plan Line improvements also include modifications to both the northwest and southwest corners of the East Campbell Avenue and South Bascom Avenue intersection. To protect bicyclists, the right-hand slip lanes will be removed, and a bike box will be added on East Campbell Avenue to accommodate bicyclists making left turns onto South Bascom Avenue. The existing pedestrian curb ramps will need to be converted to directional curb ramps. These curb extensions will also shorten pedestrian crossing distances and eliminate conflicts between pedestrians crossing to the intermediate islands and cars making unrestricted right turns. See Appendix A for the conceptual plans depicting these improvements.

Figure 5.6: Proposed Plan Line Update - Typical Section 3 Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 273 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 27
ALTERNATIVE 2: REMOVAL OF LEFT-TURN LANES
This alternative removes left-turn lanes where needed to accommodate Class II buffered bike lanes throughout the entire East Campbell Avenue corridor and maintains consistency with the 2007 Master Plan’s intent to add on-street parking between Railway Avenue and Poplar Avenue where space is available behind the existing curb. Alternative 2 would also signalize the intersection of East Campbell Avenue and Page Street, operating it under a single controller with the Gilman Avenue intersection. Alternative 2 differs from Alternative 1 only in Segment 1. Segments 2 and 3 would be implemented as previously described.

Alternative 2 considered the removal of left-turn lanes at the following intersections. In place of a left-turn lane, drivers would instead make a permissive left turn, waiting in the left/through lane until a gap in oncoming traffic allows the turn.
• East Campbell Avenue / Dillon Avenue
• East Campbell Avenue / Page Street
• East Campbell Avenue / Gilman Avenue
The use of permissive left-turn phasing at all three of these intersections would increase conflicts with pedestrians in the crosswalk crossing Gilman Avenue. According to the FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE), one of the most common conflicts at signalized intersections occurs between vehicles making permissive left turns and pedestrians crossing during the concurrent pedestrian signal phase. Drivers making permissive left turns often focus on identifying gaps in oncoming vehicle and bicycle traffic and may not adequately yield to pedestrians in the parallel crosswalk. In addition, at congested intersections, permissive left-turn operations can result in drivers accepting smaller gaps, turning at higher speeds, or entering the intersection during yellow or allred intervals. As a result, protected left-turn phasing (and, in the case of this project, maintaining the existing left-turn lanes) is more effective at reducing vehicle–pedestrian conflicts than permissive phasing.

In addition, the detailed traffic operations analysis of the removal of left turn lanes found that this alternative would create either unacceptable levels of service or left-turn queueing beyond the available storage during peak hours at the following intersections:
• East Campbell Avenue / Railway Avenue / Civic Center Drive • East Campbell Avenue / Dillon Avenue
• East Campbell Avenue / Page Street
Refer to Appendix D for further details of the traffic impacts of Alternative 2.

Figure 5.7: Removal of Left Turn Lanes – Segment 1 A & B Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 274 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 28
ALTERNATIVE 3: ROAD DIET
A road diet alternative would require East Campbell Avenue to reduce the number of vehicle lanes from four to two, one in each direction, to accommodate Class IV bike lanes and wider sidewalks. While a road diet could allow for continuous and better-protected bicycle facilities, existing and future queueing along East Campbell Avenue, particularly at key intersections, would be exacerbated by reduced roadway capacity. Given that East Campbell Avenue is one of only three east–west corridors that cross Highway 17, and the alternative routes of Hamilton Avenue and Camden Avenue are already congested, a road diet on East Campbell Avenue may leave drivers no option but to cut through the adjacent neighborhoods (e.g. Sam Cava Lane to Gilman Avenue). Because of the significant expected impacts to drivers, this alternative was deemed not preferred for the final Plan Line alignment; it was not studied further, and no proposed layout was drawn. Refer to Appendix D for further discussion of traffic impacts.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 275 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 29

6.RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1 is the preferred and proposed alignment for the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line. It integrates continuous bike lanes with minimal right-of-way impacts, avoids significant impacts on traffic operations, and aligns best with the primary stakeholder feedback received during public outreach. Layout drawings for Alternative 1 are provided in Appendix A and document the proposed roadway improvements as well as the right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements that will be required from new development projects along the corridor.

Table 6.1 compares the three alternatives against the defined evaluation criteria and supports the recommendation for Alternative 1. A “high” score indicates a positive outcome for the alternative, while a “low” score indicates a negative result.

Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Safety High
Safer corridor design
for all users
Low
Safety concerns at
left-hand turns
High
Similar safety to
Alternative 1
Traffic
Operations
High
Minimum impacts to
queuing
Neutral
Impacts to queuing
Low
Major impacts to
traffic operations
Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress
High
Improves existing
condition with
continuous bike lanes,
some buffered
High
Buffered bike lanes
along entire corridor
High
Buffered bike lanes
along entire corridor
Parking Neutral
No net change to
existing parking
High
Adds parking
High
Adds parking
Consistency with
Public Input
High
Addresses majority of
public feedback
Low
Does not align with
desire to keep lefthand turn lanes
Low
Does not align with
desire to maintain
traffic operations
Feasibility High
Clear path to
implementation,
minimal right-of-way
impacts, public
support
Neutral
Design feasible
without right-of-way
impacts, but safety
concerns prevail
Low
Overall impacts too
great
Table 6.1: Compared Alternatives
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 276 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 30
Alternative 2, while it aligns most closely with the 2007 Master Plan design, creates notable impacts on pedestrian safety and traffic operations along the East Campbell Avenue corridor, and does not align with primary stakeholder feedback.

For these reasons and the evaluation above, this alternative was not chosen.

Alternative 3, while it would allow for considerably wider bike lanes and sidewalks, creates significant impacts on traffic both on the corridor and in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted in the previous section, these impacts make the alternative infeasible.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 277 of 776
EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY 31

7. APPENDICES
A. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1 EXHIBIT
B. NON-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 EXHIBIT
C. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS
D. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 278 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
32 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 279 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
33 APPENDIX A
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1: PRESERVE LEFT-TURN LANES – PLAN

VIEW EXHIBIT
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 280 of 776

RAILWAY AVE

CIVIC CENTER DR

FOOTE AVE

PAGE ST

DILLON AVE

R R R R

E CAMPBELL AVE

GILMAN AVE

POPLAR AVE
Los Gatos Creek
Los Gatos Creek Los Gatos Creek Trail
Campbell Park Los Gatos Creek Trail 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 E. CAMPBELL Ave PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC WORKS MAINTAIN EXISTING LANE

CONFIGURATION, BUT NARROW
INTERIOR LANES TO 10FT TO

ACCOMMODATE SOUTH BIKE LANE

NARROW PARKINGTO ACCOMMODATEBIKE LANE

NARROW PARKINGTO ACCOMMODATEBIKE LANE
REMOVE 8 PARKINGSPACES TO CREATEROOM FOR A BIKELANE

REQUIRES REMOVAL OF

THE EXISTING CONCRETE

CURB EXTENSION

REMOVEPAINTEDHATCHED AREA

PROPOSED PLAN LINE LAYOUT IS

CONSISTENT WITH PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 7

ADDED ON-STREET PARKING

SPACES AND A WIDER SIDEWALK

EXISTING BACKOF WALK
EXISTING BACKOF WALK 10FT INTERIOR LANES

REQUIRED IN ORDER TO FITIN THE BIKE LANES WHILEAVOIDING TREE REMOVALALONG THE PARK

EXISTING CONCRETE

MEDIAN TO REMAIN
FUTURE 15FT SIDEWALK & WIDENEDRIGHT OF WAY CONSISTENT WITHRAILWAY AVE TO PAGE ST

MAINTAINS EXDESIGN
FINAL PLAN LINE CONDITION REQUIRESNORTHERN CURB TO BE SHIFTED 2 FEET. SEEINTERIM CONDITION (LAST SHEET OF THISAPPENDIX) WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED UNTIL THEGRAYLANCE PROPERTIES CAN BE REDEVELOPED.

EXISTING CURB SHOWNFOR REFERENCE

EXISTING CURB SHOWN

FOR REFERENCE
WIDEN SIDEWALK BETWEENINTERSECTION AND EXISTING BRIDGESTRUCTURE TO 10FT TO MAKECONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SIDEWALKON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BRIDGE.

PROTECT EXISTING TREES ATCAMPBELL PARK IN PLACE
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 281 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE

UNION AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE
BARBANO AVE E. CAMPBELL Ave PUBLIC WORKS 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MAINTAINS EX DESIGN

NEW GREEN PAINT FORBIKE/BUS CONFLICT AREA

BUFFERED BIKELANES

EXTEND EX BIKE LANEFROM OTHER SIDE OFBARBANO, THRU THISINTERSECTION

NEW GREEN PAINT FORBIKE/BUS CONFLICT AREA

NEW GREEN PAINT FORBIKE/BUS CONFLICT AREA

MAINTAIN WIDER EASTBOUNDBIKE LAND AT INTERSECTIONDUE TO EXISTING ROADWAYSHIFT Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 282 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE
S BASCOM AVE E. CAMPBELL Ave PUBLIC WORKS 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STRAIGHTEN OUT

EXISTING CENTER LANE

EXTEND EXISTING BIKE

LANE TO INTERSETION

EXTEND EX BIKE LANE

FROM OTHER SIDE OF

BARBANO, THRU THIS

INTERSECTION

WIDEN CURB EXTENSION & BUILD

NEW DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

REMOVE RIGHT HAND SLIP LANE

EXISTING CONCRETE

MEDIAN TO REMAIN

FUTURE BASCOMCOMPLETE STREETSPROJECT BY VTA

FRONTAGE TO BE

IMPROVED PER IMAGE

STREET REQUIREMENTS

ADJUST ALIGNMENTOF CROSSWALK

WIDEN CURB EXTENSION & BUILD

NEW DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

REMOVE RIGHT HAND SLIP LANE

ADD BIKE BOX
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 283 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE

PAGE ST

GILMAN AVE

POPLAR AVE
Los Gatos Creek
Los G
Campbell Park Los Gatos Creek Trail
Los Gatos Creek 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 E. CAMPBELL Ave PUBLIC WORKS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - INTERIM CONDITION PAGE ST TO POPLAR AVE INSTALL 5FT BIKE LANE ON WESTBOUND SIDE, BETWEEN PAGE ST AND GILMAN AVE. IN THE FINAL CONDITION, THIS BIKE LANE WILL BE WIDENED TO 7TF, BUT REMAIN A CLASS II LANE FOR CONSISTENCY. MAINTAIN EXISTING SHARED ROADWAY BICYCLE MARKINGS BETWEEEN GILMAN AVE AND POPLAR AVE GRAY LINEWORK INDICATES EXISTING CONDITION TO REMAIN IN INTERIM CONDITION

RELOCATE SHARED

ROADWAY BICYCLE MARKING

MAINTAIN EXISTING SHARED ROADWAYBICYCLE MARKINGS BETWEEENGILMAN AVE AND POPLAR AVE Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 284 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
34 APPENDIX B
NON-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2: REMOVE LEFT-TURN LANES – PLAN

VIEW EXHIBIT
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 285 of 776

RAILWAY AVE

CIVIC CENTER DR

FOOTE AVE

PAGE ST
DILLON AVE E CAMPBELL AVE GILMAN AVE POPLAR AVE Los Gatos Creek Los Gatos Creek Los Gatos Creek Trail Campbell Park Los Gatos Creek Trail1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 E. CAMPBELL Ave REMOVAL OF LEFT-TURN LANES ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC WORKS REMOVE LEFT HAND TURN POCKETS WESTBOUND ONTO DILLON AVE & EASTBOUND ONTO PAGE ST

ADD PARKING CONSISTENT

WITH APPROVED CRESTLEIGH

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

REMOVE LEFT HAND TURN

POCKET FOR VEHICLES

TURNING FROM PAGE ST

ONTO E CAMPBELL AVE

REMOVE CENTER MEDIANTO MAKE MORE ROOMFOR BIKE LANES

MAINTAINS EXDESIGN NARROW SIDEWALK TO MAINTAIN

EXISTING PARKING AND ADD A

EASTBOUND BIKE LANE

ADD PARKING CONSISTENT
WITH 2007 MASTER PLAN
ADD PARKING CONSISTENTWITH 2007 MASTER PLAN
WIDEN SIDEWALK BETWEENINTERSECTION AND EXISTING BRIDGESTRUCTURE TO 10FT TO MAKECONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SIDEWALKON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BRIDGE

PROTECT EXISTING TREES ATCAMPBELL PARK IN PLACE
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 286 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE

UNION AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE
BARBANO AVE E. CAMPBELL Ave REMOVAL OF LEFT-TURN LANES ALTERNATIVE 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 PUBLIC WORKS MAINTAINS EX DESIGN

NEW PAINTFOR BUS STOP

BUFFERED BIKELANES

EXTEND EX BIKE LANEFROM OTHER SIDE OFBARBANO, THRU THISINTERSECTION

NEW GREEN PAINT FORBIKE/BUS CONFLICT AREA

MAINTAIN WIDER EASTBOUNDBIKE LAND AT INTERSECTIONDUE TO EXISTING ROADWAYSHIFT Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 287 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE
S BASCOM AVE E. CAMPBELL Ave PUBLIC WORKS 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 10 20 40 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STRAIGHTEN OUT

EXISTING CENTER LANE

EXTEND EXISTING BIKE

LANE TO INTERSETION

EXTEND EX BIKE LANE

FROM OTHER SIDE OF

BARBANO, THRU THIS

INTERSECTION

WIDEN CURB EXTENSION & BUILD

NEW DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

REMOVE RIGHT HAND SLIP LANE

EXISTING CONCRETE

MEDIAN TO REMAIN

FUTURE BASCOMCOMPLETE STREETSPROJECT BY VTA

FRONTAGE TO BE

IMPROVED PER IMAGE

STREET REQUIREMENTS

ADJUST ALIGNMENTOF CROSSWALK

WIDEN CURB EXTENSION & BUILD

NEW DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

REMOVE RIGHT HAND SLIP LANE
ADD BIKE BOX E. CAMPBELL Ave REMOVAL OF LEFT-TURN LANES ALTERNATIVE Item 9.2 Monday, August 03, 2026 288 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
35 APPENDIX C

PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 289 of 776
Memorandum
Date: December 15, 2025
To: Roger Storz, Campbell, CA
From: Shikha Jain
Subject: East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #1 Background
The City of Campbell is undertaking the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study to update the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan to a street design that improves walking and biking facilities.

The East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, adopted in May 2007, identified several priorities—such as on-street parking, pedestrian accommodations, and vehicle operations—that must be balanced within a constrained right-of-way along East Campbell Avenue from Railway Avenue to Union Avenue. The intent of this plan was to strengthen the connection between historic Downtown Campbell and the Pruneyard office and shopping center, creating a more cohesive, attractive, and functional corridor. While the plan outlined the desired ultimate roadway geometry, it did not describe how the corridor should transition from its existing conditions to the envisioned future configuration. The East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Project seeks to update and enhance this older conceptual design into a multimodal corridor plan, incorporating current best practices, detailed geometric layouts, and right-of-way needs. This effort will also define the path that will be used to transition from existing geometrics to the ultimate configuration as parcels redevelop along the corridor.

As part of the public outreach effort, the City of Campbell hosted a community meeting on December 10, 2025, at the Campbell Community Center. The meeting provided an opportunity for community members to learn about the plan, ask questions, and share their experiences with using this corridor. The feedback from this event is intended to inform the project team of the community’s challenges, opportunities, and priorities to assist in and guide the development of the plan line going forward.

Community members were notified of the meeting through flyers, A-frames posted along the corridor, City’s mailing list, social media (Instagram, Facebook), project webpage, announcement at the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting, and outreach to businesses along the corridor.

Goals of the Community Meeting
• Provide project overview
• Receive input on bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns along the corridor, on-street parking usage, traffic issues, and other transportation concerns Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 290 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #1 December 15, 2025 P a g e | 2
Details
Date: December 10th, 2025
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM
Location: Campbell Community Center, Roosevelt Redwood Room (Q80) City Team: Roger Storz, Matthew Jue
Consultant Team: Jon Cacciotti (HMH – project prime), Shikha Jain (Hexagon – subconsultant leading outreach and traffic analysis)
Meeting Attendees: 17
Meeting Format
Upon arrival, community members were asked to sign in using a sign-in sheet provided at the entrance. The event opened with a brief presentation led by Roger, Jon, and Shikha. Roger introduced the project team, shared his contact information, and provided an overview of the project background. Shikha outlined the meeting agenda and goals and facilitated a brief poll to understand who was in attendance and how they learned about the meeting. Jon followed with a summary of the project scope, process, schedule, preliminary concepts, and key tradeoffs. Shikha then presented an overview of the traffic analysis. Clarifying questions were addressed organically throughout the presentation.

Following the presentation, attendees participated in an interactive workshop session. Participants visited three stations, each focused on a different segment of the corridor, and used sticky notes to share comments and concerns directly on the display boards. The meeting concluded with a wrapup session, during which staff from each station provided a brief summary of the feedback received at their respective boards and Jon provided a quick overview of next steps.

Polls
The first poll enquired who was attending the meeting. Twelve participants indicated that they live nearby, and all attendees reported that they visit the corridor frequently. Four attendees noted that they are associated with a business along the corridor. In terms of travel behavior, all attendees stated that they walk regularly along East Campbell Avenue, and four attendees reported that they bike along the corridor on a regular basis.

The second poll asked how attendees learned about the community meeting. Seven participants indicated that they heard about the meeting through social media, three through the flyer, and one through the project website. Additional sources mentioned included the City’s mailing list, A-frame signs placed along the corridor, and outreach from the Downtown Campbell Neighborhood Association.

Community Input
During the presentation and question and answer session of the meeting, community members asked clarifying questions about the project, how redevelopment of properties along the corridor could play a role in the implementation of the corridor plan, as well as how key intersections— specifically Page Street at Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue at Campbell Avenue—would operate under proposed changes. Attendees sought additional information on the potential signalization of the Page Street and Campbell Avenue intersection, as well as the expected effects of the geometric changes being considered at both intersections Following the presentation, staff and participants transitioned to the interactive stations.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 291 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #1 December 15, 2025 P a g e | 3
General themes of feedback received at the interactive stations is presented below. • Support for protected and continuous bike lanes throughout the corridor. • Interest in improving the connection to Los Gatos Creek Trail. • Desire for wider, safer, and better-lit sidewalks, with improved accessibility and pedestrian comfort.
• Mixed views on parking, with some wanting to preserve curb parking and others supporting repurposing parking for bike or streetscape improvements. • Requests for streetscape enhancements like adding more trees. • Concerns about traffic operations, especially at key intersections (Page Street and Gilman Avenue), related to signal coordination with Railway Avenue, and when Downtown Campbell is closed on Farmers’ Market Sundays.
• Consideration of a road diet for this corridor.

Photos of the boards from the meeting and transcribed stickies are included in the appendix.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 292 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #1 December 15, 2025 P a g e | 4
Appendix
Figure 1: Segment 1 (Railway Avenue to Poplar Avenue)
Stickies:
• “Bike lane (protected) plus widening
sidewalks through this section would
encourage more families to walk/bike
downtown (or to the VTA). This should
be complimented with more bike
parking (Maybe near blue line
pizza?).”
• “Looks at traffic with the regular
Campbell Avenue Downtown section
closings”
• “Synchronize traffic with train better”
• “If lanes are narrowed on Campbell
Avenue, tight turn from Railway
Avenue to Campbell Avenue would
need to be re-engineered”
• “Behind the buildings that houses
Campbell Liquor is horrible. Trash and
weeds populate the area between the
buildings and the tracks”
• “This crosswalk (crossing Campbell
Avenue from north side to south side
at Railway Avenue) takes forever – its
faster to jaywalk and dart across after
railway”
• “Please include a protected bike lane
connecting union and the Los Gatos
Creek Trail to Downtown Campbell.

This would drastically reduce car
traffic into Downtown, helping to
reduce parking demand/hassle.

Additionally, peds and bikes actually
stop at the businesses on Campbell
Avenue instead of driving past on their
way Downtown.”
• “E bikes need to be regulated when
sidewalks are widened and speed
limits enforced”
• “Don’t eliminate curb parking – all
parking important”
• “Add center plus trees; Reduce
eliminate curb parking”
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 293 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #1 December 15, 2025 P a g e | 5
• “Campbell Avenue is going so fast,
cars prefer to park on side streets,
overloading side streets, instead of
parking along Campbell Avenue”
• “Lots of protected left turns onto page
street from Campbell Avenue going
east is dangerous – Campbell Avenue
is so busy, will never be able to turn
left”
• “Preserve trees”
• “Need enough parking for new
developments”
• “Could left onto Page be protected, at
least partially”
• “Poor bike infrastructure, extremely
pro protected bike lanes especially
until park”
• “Narrow (non ADA compliant?)
sidewalks on the north side”
• “Move traffic from Campbell Avenue to
Hamilton Avenue. Campbell Avenue
should be less busy”
Figure 2: Segment 2 (Poplar Avenue to Union Avenue)
Stickies:
• “An informational pop-up at the park
would be appreciated. We need to find
ways to include Campbell’s young
people in this conversation”
• “When Greylands is developed, raise
the level of Poplar Avenue so going off
Poplar, drivers can see down past Los
Gatos Creek Bridge”
• “This side of intersection (north side of
Poplar Avenue and Campbell Avenue
intersection) needs to be wider for
pedestrians”
• “Wide/widen sidewalks throughout the
corridor”
• “I’d like to hear about connection to
Los Gatos Creek Trail in this process.

Many people use line plan”
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 294 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #1 December 15, 2025 P a g e | 6
• “Parking is not a great way to protect
bike lanes”
• “Extremely in favor of protected bike
lanes”
• “More light in underpass sidewalk”
• Unhoused living in underpass
sidewalk makes sidewalk feel less
safe”
• More trees in this area”
• “I second this comment. More trees
would help encourage more people to
walk through this area when its
hot/sunny”
• “This single best opportunity with this
project would be connecting the Los
Gatos Creek Trail and Union Avenue
to Downtown Campbell with a
protected bike lane. This would allow
those with access to the trail plus
people on Union Avenue the
opportunity to not drive to Downtown,
thus reducing car traffic, parking
hassle. Additionally, bicyclists and
pedestrians stop at the businesses on
Campbell Avenue, where cars drive
by.”
Figure 3: Segment 3 (Union Avenue to Bascom Avenue)
Stickies:
• “Road diet for entire corridor”
• “Eliminating center turn lane to add
buffered bike lanes is a decent idea”
• “Trees in center”
• “Consideration for new developments
on traffic”
• “Bike lanes sound great. Leaving bike
lanes is also important”
• “Pro continuous and protected bike
lanes on north and south”
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 295 of 776
Memorandum
Date: April 27, 2026
To: Roger Storz, Campbell, CA
From: Shikha Jain
Subject: East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #2 Background
The City of Campbell is undertaking the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study to update the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, adopted in 2007, to a street design that improves walking and biking facilities. This study builds on the Master Plan’s vision by advancing the conceptual design into a multimodal corridor plan with updated best practices, refined geometric layouts, and defined right-of-way needs.

As part of the public outreach effort for this study, the City of Campbell hosted a community meeting on April 23, 2026, at the Campbell Community Center. This was the second community meeting for the project. The first meeting provided an opportunity for community members to learn about the plan and share input on key challenges, opportunities, and priorities to help guide its development. The second meeting focused on presenting the alternatives analyzed as part of the study, including a detailed overview of both the preferred and non-preferred alternatives. It also provided community members with an opportunity to ask clarifying questions and share feedback.

Community members were notified of the meeting through flyers, A-frames posted along the corridor, City’s mailing list, social media (Instagram, Facebook), project webpage, announcement at the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting, and outreach to businesses along the corridor.

Goals of the Community Meeting
• Share draft plan line alternatives analysis
• Share preferred alternative and cross-section concepts • Answer clarifying questions and receive feedback
• Build consensus around the preferred alternative
Details
Date: April 23, 2026
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM
Location: Campbell Community Center, Roosevelt Redwood Room (Q80) City Team: Roger Storz, Matthew Jue
Consultant Team: Jon Cacciotti (HMH), Alyson Goulden (HMH), Shikha Jain (Hexagon) Meeting Attendees: 22
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 296 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #2 April 27, 2026 P a g e | 2
Meeting Format
Community members were asked to sign in upon arrival. The meeting began with a brief presentation led by Roger, Jon, and Shikha. Roger introduced the project team, provided an overview of the project background, and outlined the agenda and goals. Shikha conducted a brief poll to understand attendee demographics and participation in the first meeting. Jon then summarized community, BPAC, and property owner feedback to date, and presented the project alternatives, including a detailed overview of the preferred and non-preferred options, as well as next steps. Shikha provided an overview of the traffic analysis. The presentation explained that due to safety considerations, this project really had only one alternative the City could stand behind. The presentation also explained how this alternative deviated from the 2007 adopted master plan.

Clarifying questions were addressed throughout the presentation, with additional questions and feedback collected at the end.

Polls
The first poll asked about attendee characteristics. Fourteen participants indicated they live nearby, and all reported visiting the corridor frequently. Three attendees were associated with businesses along the corridor. All participants stated they walk along East Campbell Avenue regularly, and six reported biking along the corridor on a regular basis.

The second poll found that nine participants had attended the first community meeting.

The third poll asked how attendees learned about the meeting. Two participants cited social media, five the flyer, and one the project website. Additional sources included the City’s mailing list, Aframe signs along the corridor, and outreach from the Downtown Campbell Neighborhood Association.

Note that several attendees arrived after the polls were conducted and are not reflected in these results.

Community Input
The question and answer session of the meeting is summarized below. Note that no significant questions were asked about Segments 2 or 3 of the Plan Line.

Question/Comment Answer
Concerned about loss of parking spaces in the
preferred option, especially when comparing it
to seeing lots of new parking spaces in the
non-preferred option
Noted
Can Page Street be signalized even before the
development of Cresleigh? Getting out of Page
Street is a nightmare. Can’t wait for
signalization.

Signalization of Page Street/Campbell Avenue
intersection is in the City’s CIP. Cresleigh is
conditioned to design the signal and pay fair
share towards its construction. The City will
construct the signal, remove the bulbout and
parking spaces on the northwest corner and
stripe the bike lane. Cresleigh is expected to go
into construction later in 2026.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 297 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #2 April 27, 2026 P a g e | 3
What will the ingress and egress be for the
Cresleigh development?
Vehicles will use Gilman and Dillon to access
different parking garage areas for the future
development
In the interim condition of the roadway between
Page Street and Gilman Avenue, the sharrows
feel unsafe. Can it be narrowed to one travel
lane and a bike lane?
Narrowing at one segment along the corridor is
the same as a road diet and would not work.

Concern about sharrows noted.

The eastbound left turn pocket at Page Street
would not have sufficient storage.

The traffic analysis notes that the storage
would not be sufficient and there might be
spillover of 1 to 2 cars. The City can modify
signal timing in the future to improve operations
if required.

Biking along Campbell Avenue will not feel safe
until development comes in and the interim
condition is removed.

Noted
Questioned the functionality of how parked
cars exit the on-street parking on the south
side between Page Street and Gilman Avenue.

Noted
Vehicles turning eastbound left from Campbell
Avenue onto Foote Avenue feels unsafe. Could
a median be added to restrict the left turns?
Noted. This would be a change since this
movement is allowed today
Why is a protected left-turn pocket safer than
shared left-through movement?
Provided an overview of phasing, and potential
of vehicle-vehicle conflicts and vehiclepedestrian conflicts for a shared left-through movement. Explained that the pedestrian
phase goes concurrently with the shared leftthrough movement, and left-turning vehicles have to find a gap in traffic in the opposite
direction as well as navigate pedestrians
crossing that leg.

Could Page Street and Gilman Avenue operate
with protected left-turn phasing without a leftturn pocket. (asked in regards to the nonpreferred option) No. FHWA does not allow a left-turn arrow for a
shared left-through movement.

Could Page Street and Gilman Avenue operate
with split phasing i.e. eastbound goes and then
westbound goes. (asked in regards to the nonpreferred option) It could. But eastbound and westbound
volumes are heavy and split phasing will result
in longer queues and level of service
deficiencies.

Have the queueing issues due to the light rail
at Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive been
evaluated?
The traffic analysis did evaluate this
intersection and there are existing and
projected future queueing issues. However,
improving queueing at the intersection is not a
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 298 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #2 April 27, 2026 P a g e | 4
part of this study’s scope. The preferred plan
line concept would not modify this section of
the roadway.

There are several approved developments
near Campbell Avenue. All these vehicles will
get into Campbell Avenue and worsen
congestion.

Noted. The traffic study looks at future
conditions i.e. the City’s 2040 General Plan
Buildout that includes regional growth as well
planned development in the City.

What is the plan/timeline for Greylands? There is no definitive timeline. The property will be redeveloped at a time the property owners
decide.

Do studies show that bike lanes attract
bicyclists?
Do not have data for projects in Campbell, but
studies globally show that if you build bike
lanes, they will come. Bike lanes are built
incrementally and as the network gets built out,
more bicyclists will feel comfortable in using
them. Bike lanes are most effective when they
connect destinations, and in this case, the bike
lanes on Campbell Avenue would connect the
Downtown to Pruneyard.

A few individuals spoke up about how their
personal habits would change and they would
definitely use the corridor to get to downtown
once the lanes are built
You’re proposing to remove 8 parking spaces
in exchange for 7 spaces across the street.

Three of these spaces will be in the offset
intersection and will produce a confusing traffic
pattern that will lead to traffic incidences.

Instead of straight traffic flow in front of Lloyd
Square, vehicles would have to veer to the
right in order to avoid traveling into the bike
lane. It’s possible to avoid all these problems
by eliminating the parking in front of Cresleigh.

Noted. The team will analyze this option.

Bicyclists are observed riding on the sidewalk
which makes pedestrians feel uncomfortable.

Bikes coming down Harrison Avenue ride the
wrong way to get to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

Noted.

I live off Union Avenue and bike on Campbell
Avenue to get to the Los Gatos Creek Trail
because Segment 1 of Campbell Avenue is
scary. I use the trail to go to businesses and
restaurants in other Cities instead of Downtown
Campbell. I am supportive of the Plan Line
project, since it would give me a safer path to
Downtown where I can patronage Campbell
businesses as well.

Noted.

Is there sufficient space to add protected bike
lanes in segment 1, under the preferred
scenario?
Cannot narrow lanes beyond 10 feet.

Therefore, the width of the bike lanes, although
close enough, is not sufficient for protected
bike lanes.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 299 of 776
East Campbell Avenue Plan Line – Community Meeting #2 April 27, 2026 P a g e | 5
Under existing conditions, eastbound vehicles
at Gilman Avenue/Campbell Avenue have
been noted to drive through the intersection,
even when the signal goes from yellow to red
and a couple of seconds after red. Pedestrians
crossing Campbell Avenue at Gilman Avenue
from the park going north feel unsafe. A longer
yellow or all red phase would make this
movement safer.

Noted.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 300 of 776

EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN LINE STUDY
36 APPENDIX D

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 301 of 776
Memorandum
Date: April 1, 2026
To: Roger Storz, City of Campbell
From: Shikha Jain, Miles Henninger
Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis of the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line in Campbell, CA Background
The City of Campbell is undertaking the East Campbell Avenue Plan Line Study to update the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan to a street design that improves both walking and biking facilities, while defining the path that will be used to transition from existing geometrics to the ultimate configuration as parcels redevelop along the corridor.

The East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, adopted in May 2007, identified several priorities—such as on-street parking, pedestrian accommodations, and vehicle operations—that must be balanced within a constrained right-of-way along East Campbell Avenue from Railway Avenue to Bascom Avenue (see Figure 1). The intent of this plan was to strengthen the connection between historic Downtown Campbell and the Pruneyard office and shopping center, creating a more cohesive, attractive, and functional corridor.

As identified in the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, the existing right of way along the study corridor is constrained and in order to accommodate continuous bicycle facilities within this right of way, there would be tradeoffs like removal of left-turn lanes or removal of a travel lane, which could affect traffic operations. The evaluation of these tradeoffs, methodologies, and findings are presented in this memorandum.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 302 of 776
Campbell
17 E Campbell Ave E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave Railway Ave
Foote Ave Foote Ave
Page St Page St
Dillon Ave Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave Gilman Ave
Union Ave Union Ave
S Bascom Ave S Bascom Ave
Poplar AvePoplar Ave
Maple Ave Maple Ave
First St First St
Grant St Grant St
Civic Center Dr Civic Center Dr
E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave
Union Ave
S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
Campisi Wy Campisi Wy ampisi Wy
= Study Corridor
LEGEND
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Figure 1
Site Location
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 303 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 3
Scope of Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze traffic operations in accordance with standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Campbell to evaluate changes in roadway geometry to accommodate continuous bicycle facilities within the existing right of way along the study corridor. Any associated safety implications under these scenarios are also discussed.

Two roadway reconfiguration scenarios were analyzed:
• No Left-turn Lane Scenario: Currently, there is a westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue, eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue, westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue, eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes at the intersection of Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue, and a two-way median left-turn lane between Union Avenue and Bascom Avenue.

East of Poplar Avenue, Campbell Avenue widens and already has continuous bicycle lanes.

West of Poplar Avenue, Campbell Avenue is narrower, and in order to maintain the existing leftturn lanes and accommodate continuous bicycle facilities within the curb-to-curb width, eight onstreet parking spaces on the north side of the roadway between Foote Avenue and Page Street and the curb extension on the north-west corner of the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Page Street would need to be removed. Therefore, an analysis to evaluate intersection traffic operations with the removal of left-turn lanes at the intersections west of Union Avenue was conducted. Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
o Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning-movement counts conducted on October 16, 2025. Traffic counts are included in Appendix A.
o Cumulative Conditions. The City’s Housing Element Update model run was used to develop intersection volumes under cumulative conditions. The Housing Element Update model includes the Cresleigh Homes development project. Therefore, this scenario assumes the signalization of the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue as part of the Cresleigh Homes development agreement.
o Cumulative No Left-Turn Lanes. Cumulative traffic volumes were applied to the study intersections with the removal of left turns. Intersection effects associated with the removal of left-turn lanes were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions. • Road Diet Scenario: As an alternative to removing left-turn lanes, this scenario considers removal of one travel lane to accommodate bicycle facilities west of Poplar Avenue. Feasibility was evaluated qualitatively based on intersection level of service and queueing results from the no-left-turn lanes analysis.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 304 of 776
Campbell
17 1 2 3 4 5 6
E Campbell Ave E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave Railway Ave
Foote Ave Foote Ave
Page St Page St
Dillon Ave Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave Gilman Ave
Union Ave Union Ave
S Bascom Ave S Bascom Ave
Poplar AvePoplar Ave
Maple Ave Maple Ave
First St First St
Grant St Grant St
Civic Center Dr Civic Center Dr
E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave
Union Ave
S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
Campisi Wy Campisi Wy ampisi Wy
X = Study Intersection
= Study Corridor
LEGEND
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Figure 2
Study Intersections
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 305 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 5
Removal of Left-Turn Lanes Scenario
Under the existing, cumulative, and cumulative no left turn lane scenarios described previously, six intersections were analyzed in consultation with City staff to analyze the effect on traffic operations and queueing as they would be affected by the addition of bike lanes along Campbell Avenue. The intersections are listed below and shown in Figure 2:

1. Railway Avenue and Campbell Avenue

2. Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue

3. Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue

4. Page Street and Campbell Avenue

5. Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue

6. Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue
No intersections east of Union Avenue were analyzed since Campbell Avenue widens and already has continuous bicycle lanes. No geometry changes would be required at those intersections.

A tabular summary of traffic volumes under Existing and Cumulative scenarios at each intersection is contained in Appendix B.

Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis was obtained from traffic counts, the City of Campbell, the City’s Housing Element Update Model, and field observations. The following data was collected:
• Existing traffic volumes
• Lane geometries
• List of approved developments
• Cumulative Volumes
Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

This study utilizes Synchro software to determine intersection levels of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology. The HCM 2000 methodology estimates the average control delay per vehicle in seconds. Control delay is the amount of delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial deceleration delay, queue moveup time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For stop-controlled intersections, the delay is reported for the intersection movements that have stop signs. The average control delay can then be correlated to a level of service. Tables 1 and 2 present the level of service definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively.

The HCM 2000 methodology was used instead of the latest HCM methodology since Synchro’s HCM 7th Edition methodology cannot evaluate the signal timing setup used by intersections on this corridor.

Table 1
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 306 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 6
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Table 2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay City of Campbell Level of Service Standard
Per Campbell’s Envision Campbell General Plan 2040, the standard for acceptable intersection operations for signalized intersections under the City’s jurisdiction is LOS D during weekday AM and PM peak hours. The City does not have a standard for unsignalized intersection operations, so Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
per Vehicle (sec.)
Sources: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines , Santa Clara County Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, June 2003.

E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.1 to 80.0
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

Greater than 80.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios.

Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. up to 10.0
B
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
per Vehicle (sec.)
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression. up to 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression. 10.1 to 15.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.

15.1 to 25.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression and high V/C ratios. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

35.1 to 50.0
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation and poor progression.

Greater than 50.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression.

D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression or high V/C ratios. 25.1 to 35.0 Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 307 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 7
LOS D was used as the standard for the purposes of this study, consistent with previous studies in the area.

Signal Warrant Analysis
The need for signalization of an unsignalized intersection is assessed based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2014. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service but simply provides an indication of whether vehicular peak hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify the installation of a traffic signal. Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before determining that a traffic signal is necessary. Peak-hour traffic signal warrant checks were conducted for the Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue and Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersections.

Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis
An evaluation of vehicle queuing was conducted using the Synchro software, utilizing its estimate of the 95th percentile queue and a comparison of this estimate to available storage space for the movement assuming 25 feet per vehicle. The vehicle queuing analysis was used to determine if the available storage would be sufficient for the 95th percentile queue at the study intersections even with the removal of left turns at some of the study intersections.

Existing Conditions
Traffic Volumes
AM and PM peak hour turning-movement counts were collected at each of the study intersections on October 16, 2025, a typical weekday. Existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The counts are attached in Appendix A.

The Campbell Farmers Market operates each Sunday from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM on Campbell Avenue between Third Street and Central Avenue. During this period, this segment of Campbell Avenue is closed to vehicular traffic, and vehicles are diverted to Civic Center Drive and Railway Avenue to circulate around downtown, resulting in a temporary increase in traffic volumes on these roadways.

However, overall weekend traffic volumes are generally lower than weekday peak-hour volumes, and the traffic diversion occurs only for a limited duration each week. Given the temporary nature of this condition and the relatively low background traffic levels, a separate analysis scenario for the farmers market period is not included in this study.

Roadway Network
Between Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Union Avenue, Campbell Avenue consists of two lanes in each direction with left-turn pockets at its intersections with Dillon Avenue, Page Street, Gilman Avenue, and Union Avenue. On-street parking is provided along all side streets with the exceptions of Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Union Avenue, and along Campbell Avenue on both sides between Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Foote Avenue, and on the westbound side only between Foote Avenue and Page Street.

Class II bicycle facilities (striped bike lanes) are provided east of Poplar Avenue and on the westbound side only between Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Foote Avenue. West of Poplar Avenue, Class III bicycle facilities (sharrows) are provided along Campbell Avenue. A concrete median is present between Poplar Avenue and the SR-17 overpass.

Continuous sidewalks are provided along both sides of the corridor. Crosswalks with pedestrian pushbuttons across Campbell Avenue are provided at all signalized intersections along the corridor, while painted crosswalks across side streets only are provided at all other intersections.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 308 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 8
All intersections along this segment of Campbell Avenue are one-way stop-controlled, except for the intersections with Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive, Gilman Avenue, and Union Avenue, which are signalized. Existing lane configurations of the study intersections are shown in Figure 4.

Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Roadway conditions were observed during the AM and PM peak periods on typical weekdays.

Observations focused on the operations of the study intersections including Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue while it is being crossed by the light rail, to identify any existing operational deficiencies, and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service.

Light Rail crossings were observed to last approximately 32 seconds. Potential safety issues with vehicles sneaking through the intersection as the gates were lowering were observed.

Long westbound vehicle queues were observed in the westbound direction during the AM and PM peak hour, extending past the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue to the Los Gatos Creek bridge. Vehicles in the queue were observed to be generally turning westbound right at the intersection of Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue. Vehicles in queues were observed to generally obey the “keep clear” zones at Foote Avenue and Page Street, allowing vehicles making southbound or eastbound left-turns to access the intersections. Changes were made to intersection characteristics in the Synchro software based on these observations to more closely resemble existing conditions at the intersection. No queueing issues were observed in the eastbound direction at the study intersections on Campbell Avenue during either peak hour.

Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Table 3 shows the calculated level of service for each intersection. Based on the City of Campbell’s operating standard of LOS D, all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service.

The level of service calculations are provided in Appendix C.

While the intersection of Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue operates at an acceptable level of service, potential safety issues with vehicles sneaking through the intersection as the gates were lowering were observed as described in the previous section. It is recommended that safety issues at this intersection be evaluated.

Signal Warrant Evaluation
Neither the intersection of Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue nor the intersection of Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue met thresholds which would warrant signalization during the AM or PM peak hours. The signal warrant analysis is provided in Appendix D.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 309 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 9
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
# Intersection Pk Hr Control
Avg.

Delay LOS
1 AM 20.9 C
PM 31.1 C
2 AM 13.6 B
PM 19.8 C
3 AM 29.9 D
PM 34.2 D
4 AM 17.7 C
PM 29.3 D
5 AM 8.6 A
PM 9.6 A
6 AM 19.0 B
PM 25.9 C
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Controlled
1 Adjustments were made based on field observations. Light Rail crossings are represented as an all-red phase in Synchro based on the total duration of crossings in 1 hour divided by the amount of signal cycles in 1 hour.

Union Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
Signal
Notes
For TWSC intersections, delay represents worst approach delay and LOS represents worst approach LOS
Page Street & Campbell
Avenue
TWSC
Gilman Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
Signal
Foote Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
TWSC
Dillon Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
TWSC
Existing Conditions
Railway Avenue &
Campbell Avenue1
Signal
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 310 of 776
Campbell
17 1 2 3 4 5 6
E Campbell Ave E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave Railway Ave
Foote Ave Foote Ave
Page St Page St
Dillon Ave Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave Gilman Ave
Union Ave Union Ave
S Bascom Ave S Bascom Ave
Poplar AvePoplar Ave
Maple Ave Maple Ave
First St First St
Grant St Grant St
Civic Center Dr Civic Center Dr
E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave
Union Ave
S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
Campisi Wy Campisi Wy ampisi Wy
X = Study Intersection
= Study Corridor
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Figure 3
Existing Traffic Volumes
Campbell
Ave
Foote
Ave
Page
St
GilmanAve
DillonAve
UnionAve
Campbell
Ave Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
RailwayAve
Civic
Center
Dr
1 2
45 3
6 6(5)
76(80)
268(827)
30(47)
104(142)
658(401)
5(20)
127(317)
1(8)
15(18)4(14)
777(565)
2(11)
13(20)
384(1133)
3(6)
42(82)
2(7)1(0)1(5)
147(84)
809(576)
16(7)
4(2)
348(1138)
3(6)
25(20)25(33)
926(638)
15(18)
17(38)
370(1187)
27(27)
95(206)
45(67)
927(620)
379(1208)
16(24)
512(246)
43(60)
144(127)
22(103)15(92)5(18)
74(133)
409(351)
6(6)
28(108)
296(687)
161(587)
Campisi
Wy
Dwy
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 311 of 776
Campbell
17 1 2 3 4 5 6
E Campbell Ave E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave Railway Ave
Foote Ave Foote Ave
Page St Page St
Dillon Ave Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave Gilman Ave
Union Ave Union Ave
S Bascom Ave S Bascom Ave
Poplar AvePoplar Ave
Maple Ave Maple Ave
First St First St
Grant St Grant St
Civic Center Dr Civic Center Dr
E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave
Union Ave
S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
Campisi Wy Campisi Wy ampisi Wy
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Figure 4
Existing Lane Configurations
Campbell
Ave
Foote
Ave
Page
St
GilmanAve
Dillon
Dwy
Ave
UnionAve
Campbell
Ave Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
RailwayAve
Civic
Center
Dr
1 2
45 3
6 Campisi
Wy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
X = Study Intersection
= Study Corridor
LEGEND
= Traffic Signal
STOP = Stop Sign
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 312 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 12
Cumulative Conditions
Traffic Volumes
The City’s Housing Element Update model run was used to develop intersection volumes under cumulative conditions. Figure 5 shows the cumulative volumes.

Roadway Network
The intersection lane configuration under cumulative no project conditions would be the same as under existing conditions.

The proposed Cresleigh Homes project located along Campbell Avenue on the south side of the roadway between Dillon Avenue and Gilman Avenue as part of its development agreement is required to signalize the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue. The signal would be coordinated with the existing signal at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue, while keeping the existing geometry. This improvement is assumed under the cumulative scenario.

In order to accommodate continuous bike lanes while keeping the left-turn lanes, the curb extension at the north-west corner of the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Page Street would need to be removed. This would lengthen the pedestrian walk times across the intersection by two seconds.

Longer pedestrian walk times across the intersection due to the removal of the curb extension were assumed under this analysis.

Cumulative No Left-Turn Lanes Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes used to analyze cumulative no left-turn Lanes conditions were the same as under cumulative conditions.

Roadway Network
Under cumulative no left-turn lanes conditions, left-turn only lanes would be removed and left-turns would be shared with the through lanes at Campbell Avenue’s intersections with Dillon Avenue, Page Street, and Gilman Avenue (see Figure 6) to accommodate continuous bicycle facilities within the existing right-of-way. With the removal of the left-turn only lane, the signal phasing at the Campbell Avenue and Page Street and Campbell Avenue and Gilman Street intersections would be modified to permitted-protected left-turn phasing from protected left-turn phasing. The removal of left turn only lanes and the proposed signal modifications are also consistent with the approved 2007 East Campbell Avenue Master Plan.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 313 of 776
Campbell Campbell
17 1 2 3 4 5 6
E Campbell Ave E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave Gilman Ave
Union Ave Union Ave
S Bascom Ave S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
E Campbell Ave
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave
Union Ave
S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
Campisi Wy Campisi Wy
X = Study Intersection
= Study Corridor
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Figure 5
Cumulative and Cumulative No-Left Traffic Volumes
Campbell
Ave
Foote
Ave
Page
St
GilmanAve
DillonAve
UnionAve
Campbell
Ave Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
RailwayAve
Civic
Center
Dr
1 2
45 3
6 220(86)
249(183)692(918)
30(47)
104(168)
752(745)
67(163)
154(342)
2(60)
15(18)4(14)
820(920)
2(11)
13(20)
835(1249)
14(16)
46(128)
2(7)1(0)1(5)
203(92)
841(921)
16(7)
4(2)
798(1254)
4(6)
72(72)83(91)
966(939)
55(53)
58(93)
783(1295)
27(29)
222(541)
310(186)
967(921)
849(1374)
17(24)
525(296)
47(63)
197(127)
68(258)18(96)5(18)
74(167)
726(630)
6(6)
203(220)
636(1063)
241(600)
Campisi
Wy
Dwy
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 314 of 776
Campbell
17 1 2 3 4 5 6
E Campbell Ave E Campbell Ave
Campisi Wy Campisi Wy
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave Gilman Ave
Union Ave Union Ave
S Bascom Ave S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
E Campbell Ave
Campisi Wy
Railway Ave
Foote Ave
Page St
Dillon Ave
Gilman Ave
Union Ave
S Bascom Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
First St
Grant St
Civic Center Dr
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Figure 6
Cumulative and Cumulative No-Left Lane Configurations
Campbell
Ave
Foote
Ave
Page
St
GilmanAve
DillonAve
UnionAve
Campisi
Wy
Campbell
Ave Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
Campbell
Ave
RailwayAve
Civic
Center
Dr
1 2
45 3
6 Dwy

STOP STOP
STOP
X = Study Intersection
= Study Corridor
LEGEND
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Sign
= Cumulative No-Left Turn
Lane Configuration Changes
STOP
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 315 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 15
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Table 4 shows the calculated level of service for each intersection under cumulative and cumulative no left-turn lanes conditions. Under cumulative conditions, the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour, and the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Dillon Avenue would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during both peak hours. Furthermore, signal warrant analysis shows that the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Dillon Avenue would meet the signal warrant during the PM peak hour.

Relative to cumulative conditions, under the cumulative no left turn lanes scenario, average delay at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue would be slightly better during the AM peak hour and at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue would be slightly better during both peak hours.

Under the cumulative no left turn lanes scenario, average delay at the intersection of Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue would increase, even though no geometric changes are proposed at this intersection.

As discussed in the following section, eastbound queues at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue under the cumulative no–left-turn lanes scenario are expected to extend to Foote Avenue, which could contribute to increased delay for vehicles turning left from Foote Avenue onto Campbell Avenue.

The intersection of Campbell Avenue and Dillon Avenue would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F under the cumulative no–left-turn lane scenario and would continue to meet signal warrant criteria during the PM peak hour. Although signal warrant criteria are met, signalization at this intersection is not recommended due to its close proximity to the signalized intersections at Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue and Page Street and Campbell Avenue. As delays increase at this location, motorists are expected to divert to nearby signalized intersections, such as Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue, to access Campbell Avenue.

Intersection level of service calculations are provided in Appendix C.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 316 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 16
Table 4
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
# Intersection Pk Hr Control
Avg.

Delay LOS
Avg.

Delay LOS
Change in
Delay
1 AM 46.6 D 46.6 D 0.0
PM 71.9 E 71.9 E 0.0
2 AM 12.8 B 14.4 B 1.6
PM 26.2 D 31.9 D 5.7
3 AM 72.7 F 76.2 F 3.5
PM 88.3 F 109.8 F 21.5
4 AM 9.9 A 6.9 A -3.0
PM 16.4 B 17.3 B 0.9
5 AM 11.4 B 9.4 A -2.0
PM 24.4 C 23.1 C -1.3
6 AM 31.7 C 31.7 C 0.0
PM 43.0 D 43.0 D 0.0
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Controlled
Bold indicates unacceptable LOS
1 Adjustments were made based on field observations. Light Rail crossings are represented as an all-red phase in Synchro based on the total duration of crossings in 1 hour divided by the amount of signal cycles in 1 hour.

Union Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
Signal
Notes
For TWSC intersections, delay represents worst approach delay and LOS represents worst approach LOS Page Street & Campbell
Avenue
Signal
Gilman Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
Signal
Foote Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
TWSC
Dillon Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
TWSC
Cumulative Cumulative No Left-Turn Lanes
Railway Avenue &
Campbell Avenue1
Signal
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 317 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 17
Vehicle Queueing
Vehicle queuing was evaluated using Synchro software, based on estimates of the 95th percentile queue length and a comparison of these queues to the available storage for each movement, assuming 25 feet per vehicle. The queuing analysis was conducted to determine whether available storage would be sufficient to accommodate the 95th percentile queues at the study intersections, including under scenarios where left-turn lanes are removed at select locations. Eastbound and westbound queues were analyzed to assess potential increases in queueing along the study corridor, while queues on minor-street approaches were evaluated to identify potential increases in delay resulting from corridorwide operational changes. Queues at the intersection of Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue were not analyzed, as this intersection is further away from locations where left-turn lanes are proposed to be eliminated and would not be affected by upstream or downstream queuing. A summary of the queuing analysis is provided in Table 5.

Westbound Queues along Study Corridor
Under existing conditions, 95th percentile westbound vehicle queues at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive exceed the available storage. During the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile westbound right-only queue extends nearly to the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue, while during the PM peak hour it extends nearly to the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue. Under cumulative conditions, these queues would worsen, extending beyond the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue during the AM peak hour and approaching the intersection of Poplar Avenue and Campbell Avenue during the PM peak hour.

Under the cumulative no–left-turn lanes scenario, no change in queueing would occur for this movement.

At the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue, 95th percentile westbound left-turn queues exceed the available storage by approximately one vehicle during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile westbound left-turn movement would exceed storage by approximately nine vehicles in the AM peak hour and seven vehicles in the PM peak hour. Under cumulative no–left-turn lane conditions, the exclusive westbound left-turn movement would be eliminated and left turns would operate from the shared through lane. Under this scenario, the 95th percentile westbound queues at this intersection are estimated to be approximately five vehicles in the AM peak hour and four vehicles in the PM peak hour. The reduction in queue at this intersection could be due to the slight improvement in delay at the intersection as discussed in the previous section.

However, the primary queuing constraint along the study corridor is the westbound right-turn movement at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive. Removal of westbound left-turn lanes at other intersections along the corridor would not change the westbound queues at this intersection. Improvements to westbound queueing conditions along the corridor would likely require evaluation of signal coordination and progression. However, light rail preemption could still result in queuing issues by throwing the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive out of progression.

Eastbound Queues along Study Corridor
Under existing conditions, the 95th percentile eastbound vehicle queue at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue extends beyond the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue.

Under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile eastbound through queue at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue (assumed to be signalized) would extend past Dillon Avenue, while under cumulative no–left-turn lanes conditions the 95th percentile eastbound through queue would extend to Foote Avenue. Similar to westbound queueing, improvements to eastbound queueing conditions along the corridor would likely require evaluation of signal coordination and progression. However, light rail Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 318 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 18
preemption could still result in queuing issues by throwing the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive out of progression.

The eastbound through queue at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue is not reported under cumulative and cumulative no–left-turn conditions because the intersections of Page Street and Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue would operate under a single signal controller. As a result, eastbound queueing is measured from the Page Street and Campbell Avenue intersection rather than at the Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersection.

Eastbound queue at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive is not reported since it is not part of the study corridor.

Page Street/Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Southbound left-turn and Northbound left-turn
The intersections of Page Street and Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue are located in close proximity to one another. With the signalization of Page Street and Campbell Avenue, the two intersections would operate under a single signal controller, as previously discussed. The spacing between the two intersections is approximately 100 feet. Under this configuration, southbound left-turn movements from Page Street onto Campbell Avenue and northbound left-turn movements from Gilman Avenue onto Campbell Avenue would queue within this shared segment and proceed concurrently with the eastbound and westbound through movements.

Under cumulative conditions, approximately 83 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 91 vehicles during the PM peak hour are projected to turn southbound left from Page Street onto Campbell Avenue, equating to roughly one to two vehicles per minute. Similarly, approximately 27 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 29 vehicles during the PM peak hour are projected to turn northbound left from Gilman Avenue onto Campbell Avenue, or less than one vehicle every one to two minutes. The segment between Page Street and Gilman Avenue consists of two travel lanes in each direction and can accommodate approximately eight vehicles per direction. Given the relatively low demand for these turning movements, the available storage between Page Street and Gilman Avenue would be sufficient, and spillback blocking the intersections is not anticipated.

Northbound Right-turn
Storage for this movement is the length of the existing right-turn pocket, totaling 65 feet, or two vehicles. Under existing conditions, the 95th percentile queues currently exceed the provided storage by one vehicle during the PM peak hour. Under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile queues for the northbound right-turn movement would exceed the provided storage during the PM peak hour by 14 vehicles. Under cumulative no left turn lane conditions, the 95th percentile queues for the northbound right-turn movement would exceed the provided storage during the AM peak hour by 3 vehicles and during the PM peak hour by 22 vehicles. The increase in queues under cumulative no left-turn conditions is due to the reduced green time for the northbound right-turn movement during the peak hour due to the overall longer cycle length of the intersection. Vehicles queues would take longer than one cycle to clear due to conflicts with pedestrians crossing Campbell Avenue. Although the queued vehicles may temporarily block several driveways along Gilman Avenue, they are not expected to block adjacent intersections.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 319 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 19
Table 5
Vehicle Queues
# Intersection Movement
Number
of
Lanes
Storage
1 (feet)
Storage1
(vehicles2)
Queue
Length3
(feet)
Queue
Length3
(vehicles2)
Queue
Length3
(feet)
Queue
Length3
(vehicles2)
Queue
Length3
(feet)
Queue
Length3
(vehicles2)
Queue
Length3
(feet)
Queue
Length3
(vehicles2)
Queue
Length3
(feet)
Queue
Length3
(vehicles2)
Queue
Length3
(feet)
Queue
Length3
(vehicles2)
1 WBL/T/R 1 100 4 395 16 373 15 515 21 678 28 515 21 678 28 WBR 1 100 4 513 21 400 16 673 27 797 32 673 27 797 32
2 Foote Avenue &
Campbell Avenue SBL/R 1 65 2 4 1 11 1 3 1 15 1 4 1 19 1 3 Dillon Avenue &
Campbell Avenue NBL/T/R 1 750 30 7 1 34 2 56 3 154 7 62 3 163 7 4 SBL/R 1 375 15 14 1 27 2 79 4 105 5 121 5 149 6
EBT (EBT/L4) 2 135 5 - - - - 96 4 209 9 99 4 320 13
EBL 1 50 2 2 1 3 1 56 3 94 4 - - - -
5 NBL 1 65 2 24 1 33 2 27 2 33 2 36 2 43 2
NBR 1 65 2 32 2 69 3 50 2 385 16 101 5 580 24
EBT5 2 65 2 32 2 133 6 - - - - - - - -
WBT (WBT/L4) 2 250 10 39 2 32 2 96 4 126 6 114 5 86 4
WBL 1 65 2 35 2 72 3 254 11 218 9 - - - -
WB = Westbound, SB = Southbound, NB = Northbound, EB = Eastbound, L/T/R = Shared left-through-right, '-' indicates no reported queue Bold indicates that queues would exceed storage or reach the upstream intersection 1 Storage per lane. If there is an existing turn pocket, the storage of the turn pocket is reported, otherwise the distance to next major intersection is reported. 4 Geometry under Cumulative No Left-Turn Lanes Scenario 5 Eastbound through queue for the Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersection is not reported under cumulative and cumulative no left turn conditions since Page Avenue and Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue would operate with one signal controller, therefore, the eastbound queue is measured from the Page Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersection instead of at the Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersection.

AM PM
Existing Cumulative Cumulative No Left Turn Lanes

AM PM AM PM
2 1 vehicle = 25 feet
3 Queue length per lane is reported.

Railway Avenue/Civic
Center Drive &
Campbell Avenue
Page Street &
Campbell Avenue
Gilman Avenue &
Campbell Avenue
Source: Synchro 12 95th Percentile Queues
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 320 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 20
Safety Considerations
Removal of Left-turn Lanes
Under the cumulative no–left-turn lane scenario, the existing eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue and the existing westbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue would be removed. Left-turn movements at both intersections would instead operate from the shared through lane. As discussed in the previous section, the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue would be signalized under cumulative conditions.

With the removal of the exclusive left-turn pocket, the signal at the intersection of Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue would operate with permitted–protected left-turn phasing rather than protected-only phasing, meaning that the protected left-turn phase would be followed by a permitted phase during which left-turning vehicles must yield to opposing through traffic. The signal at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue would operate with permitted-only phasing.

According to the FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE)1, one of the most common conflicts at signalized intersections occurs between vehicles making permissive left turns and pedestrians crossing during the concurrent pedestrian signal phase.

Drivers making permissive left turns often focus on identifying gaps in oncoming traffic and may not adequately attend to pedestrians in the parallel crosswalk. In addition, at congested intersections, permissive left-turn operations can result in drivers accepting smaller gaps, turning at higher speeds, or entering the intersection during yellow or all-red intervals. As a result, protected left-turn phasing is more effective at reducing vehicle–pedestrian conflicts compared to protected/permissive phasing, which only partially mitigates these conflicts. Consistent with this, the FHWA Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse indicates that protected left-turn phasing has CMFs ranging from 0.58 to 0.99 depending on crash type, whereas converting from protected-only phasing to flashing yellow arrow protected/permissive phasing has a CMF greater than 1.0, indicating the potential for an increase in crashes2.

In addition, under the cumulative no–left-turn lane scenario, the westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue would also be removed. Roadway safety research indicates that the presence of left-turn lanes or a median center turn lane on two-lane or four-lane corridors improves motor vehicle safety by reducing rear-end, head-on, and turning-related crashes3.

Left-turn lanes reduce turning-related crashes by removing turning vehicles from the through travel lane while drivers wait for an acceptable gap, and they also reduce head-on collisions by providing a buffer between opposing directions of travel4. Furthermore, a study evaluating the safety performance of adding a left-turn lane or median center turn lane to an undivided four-lane roadway identified a CMF of

0.482 for such treatments on roadways with low to moderate average daily traffic in urban and suburban areas5.
1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (n.d.). Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). U.S. Department of Transportation.
2 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (n.d.). Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Transportation
3 Subasish Das, Xiaoduan Sun, Karen Dixon, M. Ashifur Rahman. 2014. "Safety effectiveness of roadway conversion with a two way left turn lane." Science Direct. 4 Amjadi, Roya. 2008. "Safety Evaluation of Center Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes on Two-Lane Roads." FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-08-046.
5 Rahman, M.A., X. Sun, and S. Das. 2018. "Safety Performance Evaluation of Urban Undivided Four-Lane to Five-Lane Conversion in Louisiana." Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 18-06321.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 321 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 21
Removal of Curb Extension
To retain the left-turn lanes at the intersections, the curb extension at the northwest corner of the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue would be removed, along with on-street parking on the north side of Campbell Avenue between Page Street and Foote Avenue. Curb extensions—also known as bulb-outs or neckdowns—extend the sidewalk or curb line into the parking lane, reducing the effective street width and improving safety by increasing visibility, reducing turning vehicle speeds, shortening pedestrian crossing distances, and preventing vehicles from parking near corners6.

With the removal of on-street parking along this segment of the roadway, the curb extension would no longer be necessary, as extending the curb line into the parking lane to improve visibility would not be required. The intersection would continue to maintain a relatively tight turning radius, keeping vehicle speeds low. Although pedestrians would experience a slightly longer crossing distance, this would be addressed through signal timing adjustments by providing additional pedestrian walk time. The level of service analysis indicates that increasing the pedestrian walk time would not result in an increase in vehicle delay.

Removal of Travel Lane (Road Diet) Scenario
To accommodate continuous bicycle facilities within the existing right-of-way along the study corridor, removal of a vehicular travel lane or a road diet—could be considered. As discussed in the previous section, intersection queueing along the corridor is already a concern. Existing westbound queues during the AM peak hour at the Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue intersection are substantial and are projected to increase under cumulative conditions as additional development occurs. Eastbound queues from the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue under cumulative conditions would also block the Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue intersection. Removal of a travel lane would further exacerbate these queues and could result in traffic diversion to adjacent neighborhoods and parallel streets. Finally, side-street delays would worsen due to fewer gaps in Campbell Avenue traffic.

In addition, Campbell Avenue is one of only three east–west corridors in the City that cross State Route 17; therefore, reduced capacity along this corridor would likely lead to significant operational impacts on the broader roadway network. The other two east–west corridors, Hamilton Avenue and Camden Avenue are already congested, and with Campbell Avenue becoming more congested, traffic could cut through neighborhood streets.

Key Takeaways
The existing right of way along the Campbell Avenue between Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Union Avenue is constrained and in order to accommodate continuous bicycle facilities within this right of way, there would be tradeoffs like removal of a curb extension and some on-street parking, removal of left-turn lanes, or removal of a travel lane. Removal of left-turn lanes or removal of a travel lane could affect traffic operations.

Removal of Left-Turn Lanes Scenario
The detailed traffic operations analysis of the removal of left turn lanes, which would occur at the intersections of Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue, Page Street and Campbell Avenue, and Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue was conducted. The findings of the analysis are listed below:
• Level of Service
6 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (n.d.). Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). U.S. Department of Transportation.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 322 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 22
• Under cumulative and cumulative no left turn lanes scenario, the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour.
• Under cumulative and cumulative no left turn lanes scenario, the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Dillon Avenue would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during both peak hours. Furthermore, signal warrant analysis shows that the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Dillon Avenue would meet the signal warrant during the PM peak hour. However, signalization at this intersection is not recommended due to its close proximity to other signalized intersections. As delays increase at this location, motorists are expected to divert to nearby signalized intersections, such as Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue, to access Campbell Avenue. • Queueing
• The primary westbound queuing constraint along the study corridor occurs at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive with 95th percentile queues projected to extend beyond the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Gilman Avenue during the peak hours. Removal of left-turn lanes would not worsen the westbound queues at this intersection. Improvements to westbound queueing conditions along the corridor would likely require evaluation of signal coordination and progression. However, light rail preemption could still result in queuing issues by throwing the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive out of progression. • Under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile eastbound through queue at the intersection of Page Street and Campbell Avenue (assumed to be signalized) would extend past Dillon Avenue, while under cumulative no–left-turn conditions the 95th percentile eastbound through queue would extend to Foote Avenue. Improvements to eastbound queueing conditions along the corridor would also likely require evaluation of signal coordination and progression. However, light rail preemption could still result in queuing issues by throwing the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive out of progression.
• Given the relatively low demand for the southbound left from Page Street onto Campbell Avenue and the northbound left-turn movements from Gilman Avenue onto Campbell Avenue, the available storage between Page Street and Gilman Avenue would be sufficient, and spillback blocking the intersections is not anticipated. • Under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile queues for the northbound right-turn movement would exceed the provided storage during the PM peak hour by 14 vehicles.

Under cumulative no left turn conditions, the 95th percentile queues for the northbound right-turn movement would exceed the provided storage during the AM peak hour by 3 vehicles and during the PM peak hour by 22 vehicles. Although the queued vehicles may temporarily block several driveways along Gilman Avenue, they are not expected to block adjacent intersections.
• Safety
• Eliminating left-turn lanes at signalized intersections would require permitted–protected leftturn operations, which are associated with increased vehicle–pedestrian conflicts and higher crash potential compared to protected-only phasing.
• Eliminating left-turn lanes at unsignalized intersections is associated with reducing safety by increasing turning-related and head-on crash potential. • With removal of the curb extension at Page Street and Campbell Avenue, pedestrians would experience a slightly longer crossing distance, which would be addressed through signal timing adjustments by providing additional pedestrian walk time. This would not result in an increase in vehicle delay.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 323 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis April 1, 2026 P a g e | 23
Road Diet Scenario
While a road diet could allow for continuous bicycle facilities, existing and future queueing along Campbell Avenue—particularly at key intersections—would be exacerbated by reduced roadway capacity. Given that Campbell Avenue is one of only three east–west routes crossing State Route 17, a road diet would likely result in traffic diversion and broader operational impacts on the City’s roadway network.

Recommendation
To implement continuous bicycle facilities along Campbell Avenue within the constrained right-of-way between Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Union Avenue, it is recommended to remove on-street parking between Foote Avenue and Page Street and remove the curb extension at the northwest corner of the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Page Street, while retaining the existing left-turn lanes along the study corridor. This scenario would also include signalizing the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Page Street and operating it under a single controller with the Gilman Avenue intersection.

This approach balances the City’s goal of providing continuous bicycle facilities with the need to maintain acceptable traffic operations and minimize safety risks at key intersections. Where feasible, further evaluation of signal coordination and progression along the corridor could also help improve queueing conditions and overall traffic flow.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 324 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Traffic Operations Analysis
Technical Appendices
April 1, 2026
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 325 of 776
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 326 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE RAILWAY AVE CIVIC CENTER DR (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 RAILWAY AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE AM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
0 739
792
395
31 350
133
110

0.98 N
S
W E

0.00 0.93

0.92 0.83
() (1,322)
(1,399)
(577)
(185)
(194)
(54) (545)
000
658
104
30 1
127
5 0
0 0
0676268 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE RAILWAY AVE

CIVIC CENTER DR
0 6
20 4 N
S
W E
3 3
10 10
0 0
3 1
0 000
0 3
0 1
001
0 0
1 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 3 16 124 0 3 1 0 0 54 22 0 863 7:15 AM 0 2 19 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 1 17 199 0 1 3 0 1 115 26 0 1,064 7:30 AM 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 7 26 233 0 0 3 0 0 149 26 0 1,184 7:45 AM 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 11 12 307 0 2 0 0 0 196 51 0 1,261 8:00 AM 0 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 5 28 325 0 0 6 0 0 171 65 0 1,275 8:15 AM 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 2 29 0 8 27 319 0 1 5 0 1 170 64 0 8:30 AM 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 7 25 310 2 3 3 0 0 151 77 0 8:45 AM 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 1 39 0 10 24 321 2 2 6 0 0 166 62 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 6 76 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 125 1 30 102 646 1,254
Mediums 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 12 21
Total 0 0 0 0 5 127 1 30 104 658 6 76 268 0 0 0 1,275
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 327 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE FOOTE AVE FOOTE AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 FOOTE AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE AM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
19 15
779
388
0 0
397
792

0.98 N
S
W E

0.79 0.91

0.00 0.93
(22) (16)
(1,390)
(568)
(1,406)
(578)
() () 154
0 2
777
0 0
384
13 0
0 0
0000 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE

FOOTE AVE

FOOTE AVE
17 0
23 0 N
S
W E
0 0
12 11
8 9
0 0
3 000
0 0
5 0
000
1 0
2 0
0 N
S
W E
1 2
0 1
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 71 106 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 1 795 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 137 180 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 1 984 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 183 220 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 1 1,102 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 220 289 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 1,178 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 90 0 0 197 295 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 1,195 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 89 0 0 200 298 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 105 0 0 184 296 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 100 0 0 196 306 0 0 7 7 0 2 0 1 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 0 4 0 15 0 0 0 0 13 377 0 0 763 2 1,174
Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 14 0 21
Total 0 0 0 0 13 384 0 0 777 2 0 0 0 4 0 15 1,195
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 328 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE DILLON AVE DILLON AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 DILLON AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE AM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
4 20
972
393
149 45
355
814

0.90 N
S
W E

0.75 0.79

0.59 0.91
(8) (28)
(1,614)
(611)
(1,400)
(562)
(214) (69)
210
16 809
145
3 348
4 2
0 1
03042 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE DILLON AVE

DILLON AVE
17 0
19 1 N
S
W E
0 0
12 7
7 10
0 1
1 000
0 0
3 1
000
1 0
3 0
0 N
S
W E
0 1
0 1
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 32 0 12 67 119 0 0 2 6 0 0 3 1 940 7:15 AM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 40 0 12 135 195 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 0 1,153 7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 22 179 242 0 0 4 9 0 1 4 0 1,296 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 71 229 384 0 0 5 6 1 7 7 0 1,376 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 86 1 34 193 332 0 0 4 4 1 2 12 1 1,313 8:15 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 92 1 22 198 338 0 0 6 2 0 5 17 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 102 0 18 189 322 1 0 4 5 1 2 6 1 8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 96 0 16 194 321 1 0 7 6 0 4 6 1 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Lights 3 0 40 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 4 343 3 144 798 16 1,357
Mediums 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 11 0 17
Total 0 2 0 0 4 348 3 145 809 16 3 0 42 1 1 2 1,376
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 329 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE PAGE ST PAGE ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 PAGE ST & E CAMPBELL AVE AM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
50 32
941
395
0 0
387
951

0.92 N
S
W E

0.67 0.81

0.00 0.95
(93) (67)
(1,588)
(629)
(1,602)
(617)
() () 25025
15 926
0 0
370
17 0
0 0
0000 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE

PAGE ST

PAGE ST
10 0
18 0 N
S
W E
0 0
12 6
3 7
0 0
0 000
0 0
5 0
000
0 0
5 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 34 0 0 77 118 0 0 2 6 0 2 0 2 943 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 39 0 0 141 197 0 0 2 4 0 4 0 7 1,156 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 38 0 0 192 254 0 0 4 8 0 3 0 13 1,301 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 69 0 0 292 374 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 6 1,378 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 96 0 0 219 331 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 6 1,355 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 102 0 0 220 342 0 0 5 1 0 4 0 4 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 5 103 0 0 195 331 0 0 4 2 0 10 0 9 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 7 105 0 0 216 351 0 0 7 4 0 12 0 3 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
Lights 0 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 0 0 17 363 0 0 915 15 1,358
Mediums 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 10 0 18
Total 0 0 0 0 17 370 0 0 926 15 0 0 0 25 0 25 1,378
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 330 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE GILMAN AVE GILMAN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 GILMAN AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE AM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
0 0
972
474
61 122
395
954

0.92 N
S
W E

0.00 0.82

0.85 0.95
() ()
(1,644)
(737)
(1,606)
(629)
(117) (187)
000
0 927
45 16
379
0 0
0 0
027095 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE GILMAN AVE

GILMAN AVE
10 7
17 0 N
S
W E
3 4
11 6
3 7
0 0
0 000
2 0
4 0
001
1 0
3 2
0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 1
1 10 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 13 72 128 0 4 2 7 4 0 4 0 996 7:15 AM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 7 138 209 0 1 2 3 2 0 14 0 1,230 7:30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 6 193 254 0 4 5 6 4 0 9 0 1,392 7:45 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 10 288 405 0 0 4 3 1 0 29 0 1,489 8:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 9 222 362 0 2 5 4 7 0 25 0 1,464 8:15 AM 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 15 213 371 0 2 6 1 3 0 22 0 8:30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 11 204 351 0 3 2 2 5 0 19 0 8:45 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 15 228 380 0 2 6 4 5 0 17 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
Lights 26 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372 15 45 917 0 1,468
Mediums 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 9 0 19
Total 0 0 0 0 0 379 16 45 927 0 27 0 95 0 0 0 1,489
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 331 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE UNION AVE UNION AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 UNION AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE AM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
42 77
489
445
250 699
485
943

0.91 N
S
W E

0.81 0.83

0.83 0.94
(76) (141)
(782)
(759)
(1,595)
(748)
(396) (1,285) 225
0 6
409
74 161
296
28 0
0 15
0512 43144 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE UNION AVE

UNION AVE
1 4
9 0 N
S
W E
4 0
4 5
1 0
0 0
0 010
0 1
3 0
101
0 0
2 1
0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 60 4 0 0 4 0 1 17 0 17 32 180 0 1 3 1 13 1 30 1 1,239 7:15 AM 0 83 15 0 0 3 0 3 34 0 11 52 270 0 1 2 1 21 1 42 5 1,462 7:30 AM 0 131 6 0 1 3 0 3 29 0 9 60 317 0 1 4 2 23 0 47 5 1,623 7:45 AM 0 162 9 0 2 7 0 4 49 0 20 125 472 0 1 2 0 42 3 46 3 1,715 8:00 AM 0 109 14 0 0 3 0 4 78 0 11 102 403 0 0 3 1 43 0 31 8 1,652 8:15 AM 0 116 8 0 1 2 0 8 83 0 24 100 431 0 1 1 0 44 2 40 3 8:30 AM 0 125 12 0 2 3 0 12 86 0 19 82 409 0 2 3 0 32 1 27 8 8:45 AM 0 124 15 0 2 5 0 14 83 0 15 94 409 0 4 7 1 22 1 29 5 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3
Lights 505 43 141 5 15 22 0 0 0 0 28 291 158 72 404 6 1,690 Mediums 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 4 0 22
Total 0 0 0 0 28 296 161 74 409 6 512 43 144 5 15 22 1,715 Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 332 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE RAILWAY AVE CIVIC CENTER DR (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 RAILWAY AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE PM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM
0 501
590
1,144
55 912
345
147

0.96 N
S
W E

0.00 0.96

0.98 0.93
() (943)
(1,152)
(2,129)
(302)
(664)
(100) (1,658)
000
401
142
47 8
317
20 0
0 0
0580827 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE RAILWAY AVE

CIVIC CENTER DR
1 7
34 1 N
S
W E
2 5
12 22
1 0
1 0
0 000
1 5
3 0
201
6 0
1 0
0 N
S
W E
0 0
1 5
1 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 3 103 0 7 26 392 1 1 4 1 2 97 144 0 1,632 4:15 PM 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 3 73 0 10 36 399 0 2 1 0 0 91 173 0 1,689 4:30 PM 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 3 51 0 13 43 388 0 5 5 0 0 94 167 0 1,771 4:45 PM 0 2 17 0 0 0 0 5 69 0 11 32 453 0 1 13 0 3 103 211 0 1,847 5:00 PM 0 2 20 0 0 0 0 6 78 0 16 38 449 0 2 10 0 1 88 200 0 1,842 5:15 PM 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 5 87 0 10 39 481 1 2 6 1 2 106 211 0 5:30 PM 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 4 83 0 10 33 464 0 2 5 0 2 104 205 0 5:45 PM 0 6 21 0 0 0 0 2 79 0 13 41 448 0 4 9 0 0 91 195 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 5 80 823 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 315 8 47 142 395 1,835 Mediums 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 12
Total 0 0 0 0 20 317 8 47 142 401 5 80 827 0 0 0 1,847
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 333 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE FOOTE AVE FOOTE AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 FOOTE AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE PM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM
32 30
576
1,147
0 0
1,153
584

0.96 N
S
W E

0.86 0.95

0.00 0.97
(63) (57)
(1,127)
(2,119)
(1,143)
(2,129)
() () 18014
11 565
0 0
1,133
19 0
1 0
0000 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE

FOOTE AVE

FOOTE AVE
43 0
42 0 N
S
W E
0 0
25 17
27 16
0 0
5 001
0 0
10 0
000
1 0
6 0
0 N
S
W E
5 0
0 1
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 245 0 0 129 383 0 0 5 6 0 2 0 3 1,558 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 239 0 0 123 379 0 0 0 7 0 3 0 6 1,616 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 213 0 0 148 380 0 0 8 11 0 6 0 6 1,695 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 264 0 0 139 416 0 0 8 6 0 1 0 5 1,753 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 5 285 0 0 138 441 0 0 10 9 0 2 0 5 1,761 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 293 0 0 151 458 0 0 6 9 0 5 0 3 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 283 0 0 139 438 0 0 7 13 0 2 0 5 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 272 0 0 137 424 0 0 19 12 0 2 0 5 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 0 14 0 18 1 0 0 0 19 1,127 0 0 560 11 1,750
Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 5 0 11
Total 1 0 0 0 19 1,133 0 0 565 11 0 0 0 14 0 18 1,761
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 334 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE DILLON AVE DILLON AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 DILLON AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE PM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:30 PM - 05:45 PM
12 9
667
1,225
90 88
1,146
589

0.95 N
S
W E

0.58 0.95

0.67 0.96
(20) (27)
(1,289)
(2,238)
(1,143)
(2,119)
(158) (138)
750
7 576
84 6
1,138
2 0
0 0
06082 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE DILLON AVE

DILLON AVE
43 0
36 1 N
S
W E
0 0
11 25
27 16
0 1
8 000
0 0
7 0
000
10 0
3 1
0 N
S
W E
4 4
3 7
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 240 0 21 129 409 0 0 5 9 1 1 10 2 1,663 4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 246 0 11 124 397 0 0 2 9 0 2 9 2 1,735 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 212 0 23 153 407 0 0 5 8 1 2 12 2 1,816 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 264 0 24 136 450 0 0 10 7 2 1 16 5 1,913 5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 294 0 14 143 481 1 0 12 12 1 3 20 0 1,903 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 282 0 21 153 478 0 0 7 11 1 3 15 1 5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 298 0 25 144 504 0 0 7 13 2 0 31 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 0 11 137 440 0 0 21 11 0 8 15 1 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 6 0 82 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 1,133 6 84 570 7 1,902
Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 11
Total 0 0 0 0 2 1,138 6 84 576 7 6 0 82 5 0 7 1,913
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 335 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE PAGE ST PAGE ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 PAGE ST & E CAMPBELL AVE PM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
53 56
656
1,220
0 0
1,225
658

0.96 N
S
W E

0.83 0.97

0.00 0.95
(94) (100)
(1,273)
(2,203)
(1,282)
(2,218)
() () 20033
18 638
0 0
1,187
38 0
0 0
0000 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE

PAGE ST

PAGE ST
41 0
47 0 N
S
W E
0 0
23 24
26 15
0 0
6 100
0 0
11 0
000
1 0
8 0
0 N
S
W E
5 1
0 1
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 11 221 1 0 146 394 0 0 4 6 0 3 0 5 1,651 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 253 0 0 130 401 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 4 1,761 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 227 0 0 167 417 0 0 7 8 0 3 0 7 1,840 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 7 259 0 0 162 439 0 0 11 6 0 2 0 3 1,921 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 312 0 0 157 504 0 0 9 11 0 7 0 4 1,934 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 8 285 0 0 168 480 0 0 10 8 0 4 0 6 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 316 0 0 161 498 0 0 10 14 0 5 0 6 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 274 0 0 152 452 0 0 18 8 0 2 0 4 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 0 33 0 19 0 0 0 0 37 1,182 0 0 633 18 1,922
Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 5 0 12
Total 0 0 0 0 38 1,187 0 0 638 18 0 0 0 33 0 20 1,934
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 336 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE GILMAN AVE GILMAN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 GILMAN AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE PM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:30 PM - 05:45 PM
0 0
687
1,414
91 233
1,232
647

0.97 N
S
W E

0.00 0.93

0.88 0.96
() ()
(1,351)
(2,520)
(1,256)
(2,224)
(177) (378)
000
0 620
67 24
1,208
0 0
0 0
0270206 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE GILMAN AVE

GILMAN AVE
42 23
46 0 N
S
W E 13 10
26 20
26 16
0 0
5 000
8 0
6 0
100
4 0
7 3
0 N
S
W E
4 1
2 2
2 60 0
0 1
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 228 0 13 146 423 0 8 2 4 6 0 28 0 1,801 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 0 12 137 443 0 8 1 8 4 0 36 0 1,931 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 232 0 22 167 454 0 5 6 8 2 0 31 0 2,026 4:45 PM 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 0 20 147 481 0 10 12 5 7 0 38 0 2,128 5:00 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 0 18 148 553 0 6 8 10 6 0 57 0 2,152 5:15 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 15 167 538 0 3 11 7 4 0 51 0 5:30 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 0 14 158 556 0 7 10 16 3 0 53 0 5:45 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 20 147 505 0 7 17 9 11 0 45 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 27 0 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,203 24 67 615 0 2,142 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 10
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1,208 24 67 620 0 27 0 206 0 0 0 2,152
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 337 of 776

E CAMPBELL AVE E CAMPBELL AVE UNION AVE UNION AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 6 UNION AVE & E CAMPBELL AVE PM
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
213 174
490
832
812 433
1,382
700

0.96 N
S
W E

0.86 0.85

0.91 0.93
(391) (280)
(945)
(1,534)
(1,358)
(2,484)
(1,465) (817) 103018
6 351
133
587
687
108
0 0 92
0246 60127 E CAMPBELL AVE

E CAMPBELL AVE UNION AVE

UNION AVE
19 52
39 0 N
S
W E 29 23
17 22
10 9
0 0
1 120
3 0
2 0
021
2 0
6 2
1 N
S
W E
1 0
2 0
0 31 0
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 55 12 0 6 17 0 11 142 1 18 80 506 0 5 3 4 113 3 27 21 2,119 4:15 PM 0 49 12 0 4 20 0 12 127 0 28 77 499 0 4 4 2 122 0 29 19 2,268 4:30 PM 0 64 7 0 5 24 0 19 138 0 32 100 553 0 9 6 0 111 0 32 21 2,423 4:45 PM 0 58 8 0 1 13 0 22 159 0 29 87 561 0 13 5 1 126 0 31 27 2,516 5:00 PM 0 69 16 0 6 27 0 29 168 0 29 81 655 0 10 5 4 161 1 39 29 2,518 5:15 PM 0 58 19 0 2 30 0 27 150 0 51 96 654 0 15 15 2 159 2 31 29 5:30 PM 0 76 12 0 5 14 0 24 202 0 27 79 646 0 9 4 4 147 1 33 26 5:45 PM 0 43 13 0 5 21 0 28 167 0 26 95 563 0 18 15 9 120 2 24 19 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lights 246 60 126 18 92 103 0 0 0 0 108 683 586 131 345 6 2,504 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 6 0 13
Total 0 0 0 0 108 687 587 133 351 6 246 60 127 18 92 103 2,518 Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 338 of 776
Appendix B
Traffic Volumes
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 339 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Volumes
AM
1/15/2026
1 1
Intersection Name: Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue Peak Hour: AM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 658 104 30 792 268 76 6 350 1 127 5 133 1,275 Cumulative Conditions 0 0 0 0 752 104 30 886 692 249 220 1,161 2 154 67 223 2,270 2 29
Intersection Name: Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: AM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 15 0 4 19 2 777 0 779 0 0 0 0 0 384 13 397 1,195 Cumulative Conditions 15 0 4 19 2 820 0 822 0 0 0 0 0 835 13 848 1,689 3 7
Intersection Name: Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: AM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 2 1 1 4 16 809 147 972 42 0 3 45 3 348 4 355 1,376 Cumulative Conditions 2 1 1 4 16 841 203 1,060 46 0 14 60 4 798 4 806 1,930 4 2
Intersection Name: Page Street and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: AM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 25 0 25 50 15 926 0 941 0 0 0 0 0 370 17 387 1,378 Cumulative Conditions 72 0 83 155 55 966 0 1,021 0 0 0 0 0 783 58 841 2,017 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 340 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Volumes
AM
1/15/2026
5 3
Intersection Name: Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: AM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 927 45 972 95 0 27 122 16 379 0 395 1,489 Cumulative Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 967 310 1,277 222 0 27 249 17 849 0 866 2,392 6 4
Intersection Name: Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: AM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 22 15 5 42 6 409 74 489 144 43 512 699 161 296 28 485 1,715 Cumulative Conditions 68 18 5 91 6 726 74 806 197 47 525 769 241 636 203 1,080 2,746 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 341 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Volumes
PM
1/15/2026
1 1
Intersection Name: Railway Avenue/Civic Center Drive and Campbell Avenue Peak Hour: PM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 401 142 47 590 827 80 5 912 8 317 20 345 1,847 Cumulative Conditions 0 0 0 0 745 168 47 960 918 183 86 1,187 60 342 163 565 2,712 2 29
Intersection Name: Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: PM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 18 0 14 32 11 565 0 576 0 0 0 0 0 1,133 20 1,153 1,761 Cumulative Conditions 18 0 14 32 11 920 0 931 0 0 0 0 0 1,249 20 1,269 2,232 3 7
Intersection Name: Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: PM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 7 0 5 12 7 576 84 667 82 0 6 88 6 1,138 2 1,146 1,913 Cumulative Conditions 7 0 5 12 7 921 92 1,020 128 0 16 144 6 1,254 2 1,262 2,438 4 2
Intersection Name: Page Street and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: PM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 20 0 33 53 18 638 0 656 0 0 0 0 0 1,187 38 1,225 1,934 Cumulative Conditions 72 0 91 163 53 939 0 992 0 0 0 0 0 1,295 93 1,388 2,543 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 342 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line Volumes
PM
1/15/2026
5 3
Intersection Name: Gilman Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: PM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 620 67 687 206 0 27 233 24 1,208 0 1,232 2,152 Cumulative Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 921 186 1,107 541 0 29 570 24 1,374 0 1,398 3,075 6 4
Intersection Name: Union Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Peak Hour: PM
Jurisdiction: 0
Count Date 10/16/25
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Int.

Scenario: RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total RT TH LT Total Total Existing Conditions 103 92 18 213 6 351 133 490 127 60 246 433 587 687 108 1,382 2,518 Cumulative Conditions 258 96 18 372 6 630 167 803 127 63 296 486 600 1,063 220 1,883 3,544 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 343 of 776
Appendix C
Level of Service Calculations
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 344 of 776
Queues
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025 ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 412 396 84 273
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.57 0.78 0.37 0.13
Control Delay (s/veh) 37.8 24.3 36.4 40.8 4.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 37.8 24.3 36.4 40.8 4.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 138 153 40 15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 142 395 #513 93 48
Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 97 365
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 532 748 523 554 2472
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.55 0.76 0.15 0.11
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 345 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025 ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 127 1 30 104 658 6 76 268 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 5 127 1 30 104 658 6 76 268 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1857 1586 1108 1856 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1857 1586 1108 1856 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 130 1 31 106 671 6 78 273 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 136 0 0 412 396 0 84 273 0 0 0
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 39.2 39.2 10.5 62.2
Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 39.2 39.2 10.5 49.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.58
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 308 728 508 228 1621
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.26 c0.36 c0.05 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.57 0.78 0.37 0.17
Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 16.9 19.5 34.4 8.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.6 6.8 0.4 0.0
Delay (s) 32.4 17.5 26.3 34.8 8.3
Level of Service C B C C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.4 21.8 14.5 0.0
Approach LOS C C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.4 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 346 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 370 926 15 25 25
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 370 926 15 25 25
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 389 975 16 26 26
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 500 159
pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.88
vC, conflicting volume 991 1214 496
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 716 969 152
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 88 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 775 216 762
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 18 195 195 650 341 52
Volume Left 18 0 0 0 0 26
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 16 26
cSH 775 1700 1700 1700 1700 336
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.20 0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 14
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.4 0.0 17.7
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 347 of 776
Queues
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 416 47 976 28 100
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.14 0.37 0.08 0.26
Control Delay (s/veh) 5.1 15.3 3.8 14.9 6.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 5.1 15.3 3.8 14.9 6.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 7 45 4 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 35 78 24 32
Internal Link Dist (ft) 79 69 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 55
Base Capacity (vph) 2931 458 3421 566 574
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.10 0.29 0.05 0.17
Intersection Summary
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 348 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 379 16 45 927 27 95
Future Volume (vph) 379 16 45 927 27 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3518 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3518 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 399 17 47 976 28 100
RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 0 91
Lane Group Flow (vph) 412 0 47 976 28 9
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.6 1.1 27.2 3.6 3.6
Effective Green, g (s) 21.6 1.1 27.2 3.6 3.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.03 0.68 0.09 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1909 48 2418 160 143
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.03 c0.28 c0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.98 0.40 0.18 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 4.7 19.3 2.8 16.7 16.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 120.4 0.0 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 4.7 139.8 2.8 16.9 16.6
Level of Service A F A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.7 9.1 16.7
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 349 of 776
Queues
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 312 169 78 437 377 359 21 23
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.38 0.13 0.33 0.44 0.58 0.55 0.09 0.08
Control Delay (s/veh) 37.9 25.8 1.2 36.3 22.3 21.4 18.7 37.5 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 37.9 25.8 1.2 36.3 22.3 21.4 18.7 37.5 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 62 0 31 68 134 109 8 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 46 125 18 91 163 280 242 36 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 976 1049 545 204
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 220 140 240
Base Capacity (vph) 221 1991 1379 368 2192 1174 1145 248 313 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.21 0.20 0.32 0.31 0.08 0.07 Intersection Summary
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 350 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 28 296 161 74 409 6 512 43 144 5 15 22 Future Volume (vph) 28 296 161 74 409 6 512 43 144 5 15 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3532 1681 1621 1841 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3532 1681 1621 1841 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 312 169 78 431 6 539 45 152 5 16 23
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 0 1 0 0 27 0 0 0 22
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 312 102 78 436 0 377 332 0 0 21 1 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.7 14.5 37.8 4.1 16.9 23.3 23.3 2.8 2.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.7 14.5 37.8 4.1 16.9 23.3 23.3 2.8 2.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.23 0.60 0.07 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 47 818 954 115 952 624 602 82 70
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.09 0.04 c0.04 c0.12 c0.22 0.20 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.38 0.11 0.68 0.46 0.60 0.55 0.26 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 30.2 20.3 5.3 28.7 19.1 16.0 15.6 28.9 28.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.7 0.3 0.0 11.8 0.4 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.0 Delay (s) 45.9 20.6 5.3 40.4 19.4 17.6 16.7 29.5 28.7
Level of Service D C A D B B B C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.0 22.6 17.2 29.1
Approach LOS B C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 62.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 351 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Dillon Ave./Driveway & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 348 3 147 809 16 3 0 42 1 1 2
Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 348 3 147 809 16 3 0 42 1 1 2
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 387 3 163 899 18 3 0 47 1 1 2
Pedestrians 21
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5
Percent Blockage 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 305 354
pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
vC, conflicting volume 917 411 1196 1661 216 1483 1653 459 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 765 411 1064 1563 216 1372 1555 273
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 85 98 100 94 99 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 787 1121 140 86 773 80 87 676
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 198 197 163 599 318 50 4
Volume Left 4 0 163 0 0 3 1
Volume Right 0 3 0 0 18 47 2
cSH 787 1700 1121 1700 1700 607 149
Volume to Capacity 0.00* 0.12 0.15 0.35 0.19 0.08 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 13 0 0 7 2
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.2 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 11.5 29.9
Lane LOS A A B D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.1 1.3 11.5 29.9
Approach LOS B D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 352 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29: E.Campbell Ave. & Foote Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 384 777 2 4 15
Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 384 777 2 4 15
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 417 845 2 4 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 177 482
pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99
vC, conflicting volume 847 1083 424
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 824 1062 396
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 98 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 793 212 597
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 153 278 563 284 20
Volume Left 14 0 0 0 4
Volume Right 0 0 0 2 16
cSH 793 1700 1700 1700 438
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.16 0.33 0.17 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 4
Control Delay (s/veh) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.4 0.0 13.6
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 353 of 776
Queues
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025 ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 359 322 293 88 861
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.74 1.00 0.27 0.50
Control Delay (s/veh) 38.5 39.0 85.7 27.7 9.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 38.5 39.0 85.7 27.7 9.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 139 128 128 33 100
Queue Length 95th (ft) 283 #373 #400 76 192
Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 97 365
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 693 437 292 681 2272
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 191
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.74 1.00 0.13 0.41
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 354 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025 ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 317 8 47 142 401 5 80 827 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 20 317 8 47 142 401 5 80 827 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.94 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1852 1654 1108 1857 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1852 1654 1108 1857 2787
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) 21 330 8 49 148 418 5 83 861 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 359 0 0 322 293 0 88 861 0 0 0
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 18.5 18.5 12.1 43.1
Effective Green, g (s) 17.2 18.5 18.5 12.1 30.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.44
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 459 441 295 324 1230
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.19 c0.26 0.05 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.73 0.99 0.27 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 24.3 23.1 25.3 24.8 15.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 5.3 50.2 0.2 1.5
Delay (s) 32.1 28.4 75.6 24.9 17.1
Level of Service C C E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.1 50.9 17.9 0.0
Approach LOS C D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 31.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.3 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 355 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 1187 638 18 33 20
Future Volume (Veh/h) 38 1187 638 18 33 20
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 40 1249 672 19 35 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 500 159
pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 0.94 0.94
vC, conflicting volume 691 1386 346
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 546 1285 179
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 96 75 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 959 141 784
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 40 625 625 448 243 56
Volume Left 40 0 0 0 0 35
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 19 21
cSH 959 1700 1700 1700 1700 204
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.14 0.28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 27
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.3 0.0 29.3
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 356 of 776
Queues
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1297 71 653 28 217
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.36 0.26 0.12 0.58
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 34.9 3.3 27.9 13.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 9.6 34.9 3.3 27.9 13.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 152 25 26 10 9
Queue Length 95th (ft) 266 72 64 33 69
Internal Link Dist (ft) 79 69 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 55
Base Capacity (vph) 2674 204 3086 394 501
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.35 0.21 0.07 0.43
Intersection Summary
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 357 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1208 24 67 620 27 206
Future Volume (vph) 1208 24 67 620 27 206
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3529 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3529 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 1272 25 71 653 28 217
RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 0 0 0 167
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1295 0 71 653 28 50
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 3.4 43.9 7.7 7.7
Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 3.4 43.9 7.7 7.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.72 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2096 99 2563 224 201
v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.04 0.18 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm c0.03
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.72 0.25 0.13 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 28.1 2.8 23.5 23.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 18.5 0.0 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 8.3 46.6 2.8 23.6 24.1
Level of Service A D A C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.3 7.1 24.0
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 358 of 776
Queues
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 723 618 140 375 233 223 116 108 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.71 0.57 0.61 0.32 0.56 0.50 0.56 0.39
Control Delay (s/veh) 52.1 33.3 6.5 51.8 24.9 35.9 24.9 51.5 13.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 52.1 33.3 6.5 51.8 24.9 35.9 24.9 51.5 13.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 185 64 73 83 116 74 61 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 139 306 178 163 147 234 177 138 51 Internal Link Dist (ft) 976 1049 545 204
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 220 140 240
Base Capacity (vph) 283 1455 1227 327 1541 610 624 320 364 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.24 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.30 Intersection Summary
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 359 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 108 687 587 133 351 6 246 60 127 18 92 103 Future Volume (vph) 108 687 587 133 351 6 246 60 127 18 92 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3531 1681 1601 1848 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3531 1681 1601 1848 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 723 618 140 369 6 259 63 134 19 97 108 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 158 0 1 0 0 50 0 0 0 96
Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 723 460 140 374 0 233 173 0 0 116 12 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 25.9 47.4 11.1 28.9 21.5 21.5 9.8 9.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 25.9 47.4 11.1 28.9 21.5 21.5 9.8 9.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.55 0.13 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 1062 869 227 1182 418 398 209 179 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.20 0.13 c0.08 c0.11 c0.14 0.11 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.68 0.53 0.62 0.32 0.56 0.43 0.56 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 26.6 12.4 35.6 21.3 28.3 27.3 36.2 34.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.0 1.8 0.6 3.5 0.2 1.6 0.8 1.8 0.1 Delay (s) 46.9 28.4 12.9 39.1 21.5 29.9 28.0 38.0 34.2
Level of Service D C B D C C C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.3 26.3 29.0 36.2
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 360 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Dillon Ave./Driveway & E.Campbell Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 1138 6 84 576 7 6 0 82 5 0 7
Future Volume (Veh/h) 2 1138 6 84 576 7 6 0 82 5 0 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1198 6 88 606 7 6 0 86 5 0 7
Pedestrians 21
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5
Percent Blockage 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 305 354
pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC, conflicting volume 613 1225 1712 2015 623 1475 2015 307 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 551 1225 1679 1990 623 1435 1989 237 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 84 88 100 80 92 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 989 554 51 48 420 63 48 745
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 601 605 88 404 209 92 12
Volume Left 2 0 88 0 0 6 5
Volume Right 0 6 0 0 7 86 7
cSH 989 1700 554 1700 1700 285 135
Volume to Capacity 0.00* 0.36 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.32 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 14 0 0 34 7
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.1 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 23.6 34.2
Lane LOS A B C D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 1.6 23.6 34.2
Approach LOS C D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 361 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29: E.Campbell Ave. & Foote Ave. 12/01/2025
ExistingPM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:56 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 1133 565 11 14 18
Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 1133 565 11 14 18
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 1232 614 12 15 20
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 177 482
pX, platoon unblocked 1.00 1.00 1.00
vC, conflicting volume 626 1280 313
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 620 1275 306
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 90 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 954 155 688
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 433 821 409 217 35
Volume Left 22 0 0 0 15
Volume Right 0 0 0 12 20
cSH 954 1700 1700 1700 278
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.48 0.24 0.13 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 11
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.2 0.0 19.8
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 362 of 776
Queues
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 227 459 445 478 706
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.70 0.96 0.96 0.32
Control Delay (s/veh) 79.6 40.3 73.4 80.3 5.0
Queue Delay 0.0 6.1 6.6 42.3 0.6
Total Delay (s/veh) 79.6 46.3 80.0 122.6 5.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 201 370 425 442 102
Queue Length 95th (ft) #303 515 #673 #672 129
Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 97 365
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 322 658 462 499 2183
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 147 15 84 1010
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.15 0.60
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 363 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 154 2 30 104 752 220 249 692 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 67 154 2 30 104 752 220 249 692 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1833 1578 1108 1820 2787
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1833 1578 1108 1820 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 157 2 31 106 767 224 254 706 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 227 0 0 459 445 0 478 706 0 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.6 57.1 57.1 37.5 107.1
Effective Green, g (s) 20.6 57.1 57.1 37.5 94.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.27 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 659 462 499 1928
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.29 c0.40 c0.26 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.70 0.96 0.96 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 56.3 32.7 38.8 48.8 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 16.9 2.6 32.2 29.3 0.0
Delay (s) 73.1 35.3 70.9 78.1 8.7
Level of Service E D E E A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 73.1 52.8 36.8 0.0
Approach LOS E D D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 46.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.7 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 364 of 776
Queues
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 824 1075 163
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.63 0.52 0.51
Control Delay (s/veh) 33.1 17.6 2.9 19.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 33.1 17.6 2.9 19.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 116 21 31
Queue Length 95th (ft) 56 192 27 79
Internal Link Dist (ft) 115 79 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 60
Base Capacity (vph) 161 1391 2059 590
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.59 0.52 0.28
Intersection Summary
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 365 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 783 966 55 83 72
Future Volume (vph) 58 783 966 55 83 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3511 1700
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3511 1700
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 61 824 1017 58 87 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 5 0 55 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 824 1070 0 108 0
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 6 3
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.9 22.7 33.0 8.8
Effective Green, g (s) 2.9 22.7 33.0 8.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.39 0.57 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 88 1380 1990 257
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.23 c0.30 c0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.60 0.54 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 14.1 7.8 22.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 21.0 0.5 0.3 1.1
Delay (s) 48.2 14.6 2.1 23.5
Level of Service D B A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.9 2.1 23.5
Approach LOS B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 366 of 776
Queues
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 912 326 1018 28 234
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.79 0.49 0.10 0.53
Control Delay (s/veh) 6.6 39.0 9.5 21.1 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 6.6 39.0 9.5 21.1 8.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 108 113 9 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 #254 192 27 50
Internal Link Dist (ft) 79 69 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 55
Base Capacity (vph) 1389 414 2070 569 667
Starvation Cap Reductn 1 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.79 0.49 0.05 0.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 367 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 849 17 310 967 27 222
Future Volume (vph) 849 17 310 967 27 222
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3529 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3529 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 894 18 326 1018 28 234
RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 0 0 0 199
Lane Group Flow (vph) 910 0 326 1018 28 35
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.7 13.2 33.0 8.8 8.8
Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 13.2 33.0 8.8 8.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.23 0.57 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1376 401 2006 267 239
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.18 0.29 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.81 0.51 0.10 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 21.3 7.7 21.3 21.4
Progression Factor 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 11.9 0.2 0.2 0.3
Delay (s) 4.5 33.2 7.9 21.5 21.7
Level of Service A C A C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.5 14.0 21.7
Approach LOS A B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 368 of 776
Queues
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 214 669 254 78 770 415 394 24 72
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.57 0.21 0.46 0.80 0.77 0.70 0.16 0.29
Control Delay (s/veh) 101.0 27.0 1.1 44.9 34.4 35.3 26.9 39.8 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 101.0 27.0 1.1 44.9 34.4 35.3 26.9 39.8 3.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~138 168 0 41 204 205 154 13 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #275 233 22 84 #275 320 262 36 6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 976 1049 545 204
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 220 140 240
Base Capacity (vph) 216 1179 1254 216 1103 660 672 150 252 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.57 0.20 0.36 0.70 0.63 0.59 0.16 0.29 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 369 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 203 636 241 74 726 6 525 47 197 5 18 68 Future Volume (vph) 203 636 241 74 726 6 525 47 197 5 18 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1681 1602 1844 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1681 1602 1844 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 214 669 254 78 764 6 553 49 207 5 19 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 92 0 1 0 0 49 0 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 214 669 162 78 769 0 415 345 0 0 24 4 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 25.6 50.2 6.0 22.2 24.6 24.6 4.4 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.4 25.6 50.2 6.0 22.2 24.6 24.6 4.4 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.64 0.08 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 211 1152 1011 135 998 526 501 103 88 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.19 0.05 0.04 c0.22 c0.25 0.22 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.01 0.58 0.16 0.58 0.77 0.79 0.69 0.23 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 34.6 22.0 5.7 35.1 25.9 24.6 23.7 35.5 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 65.7 0.8 0.1 3.7 3.7 7.7 3.9 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 100.3 22.8 5.8 38.8 29.6 32.3 27.6 35.9 35.2
Level of Service F C A D C C C D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.6 30.4 30.0 35.4
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 31.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 370 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Dillon Ave./Driveway & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 798 4 203 841 16 14 0 46 1 1 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 798 4 203 841 16 14 0 46 1 1 2
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 887 4 226 934 18 16 0 51 1 1 2 Pedestrians 21
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5
Percent Blockage 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 305 195
pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
vC, conflicting volume 952 912 1840 2322 467 1898 2315 476 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 544 912 1608 2187 467 1678 2178 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 69 61 100 90 97 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 852 728 41 25 532 35 26 904
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 448 448 226 623 329 67 4
Volume Left 4 0 226 0 0 16 1
Volume Right 0 4 0 0 18 51 2
cSH 852 1700 728 1700 1700 139 57
Volume to Capacity 0.00* 0.26 0.31 0.37 0.19 0.48 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 33 0 0 56 5
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.1 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 53.1 72.7
Lane LOS A B F F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.1 2.3 53.1 72.7
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 371 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29: E.Campbell Ave. & Foote Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:57 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 835 820 2 4 15
Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 835 820 2 4 15
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 908 891 2 4 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 177 323
pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.86 0.86
vC, conflicting volume 893 1374 447
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 560 1117 43
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 98 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 870 171 879
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 317 605 594 299 20
Volume Left 14 0 0 0 4
Volume Right 0 0 0 2 16
cSH 870 1700 1700 1700 481
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.36 0.35 0.18 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 3
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.2 0.0 12.8
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 372 of 776
Queues
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 589 519 481 281 956
v/c Ratio 1.11 0.83 1.12 0.90 0.53
Control Delay (s/veh) 118.5 53.2 122.1 90.1 15.3
Queue Delay 0.0 37.3 0.2 0.0 2.4
Total Delay (s/veh) 118.5 90.5 122.3 90.1 17.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~644 471 ~560 267 265
Queue Length 95th (ft) #883 #678 #797 #434 325
Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 97 365
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 532 624 428 317 1803
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 136 9 0 687
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.11 1.06 1.15 0.89 0.86
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 373 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 163 342 60 47 168 745 86 183 918 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 163 342 60 47 168 745 86 183 918 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.99 0.91 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1810 1611 1108 1833 2787
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 1611 1108 1833 2787
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) 170 356 63 49 175 776 90 191 956 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 589 0 0 519 481 0 281 956 0 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.5 56.0 56.0 24.5 93.0
Effective Green, g (s) 42.5 56.0 56.0 24.5 80.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.17 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 532 624 429 310 1552
v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.32 c0.43 c0.15 0.34
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.11 0.83 1.12 0.91 0.62
Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 40.0 44.3 58.9 21.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 71.7 8.9 80.8 27.8 0.5
Delay (s) 122.7 48.9 125.0 86.7 22.1
Level of Service F D F F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 122.7 85.5 36.8 0.0
Approach LOS F F D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 71.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 144.5 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 374 of 776
Queues
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 1363 1044 172
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.86 0.60 0.37
Control Delay (s/veh) 42.5 26.7 4.5 19.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 42.5 27.4 4.5 19.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 315 27 50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 #418 33 105
Internal Link Dist (ft) 115 79 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 60
Base Capacity (vph) 222 1589 1735 479
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 54 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 39 0 2
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.89 0.60 0.36
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 375 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 93 1295 939 53 91 72
Future Volume (vph) 93 1295 939 53 91 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3511 1704
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3511 1704
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 98 1363 988 56 96 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 5 0 36 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 1363 1039 0 136 0
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 6 3
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 36.6 39.2 20.2
Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 36.6 39.2 20.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.49 0.25
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 165 1611 1711 428
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.39 c0.30 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.85 0.61 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 19.4 15.0 24.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 4.1 0.5 0.4
Delay (s) 40.6 23.5 3.5 24.9
Level of Service D C A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.7 3.5 24.9
Approach LOS C A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 376 of 776
Queues
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1471 196 969 31 569
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.88 0.56 0.07 0.97
Control Delay (s/veh) 13.0 71.7 16.8 23.0 48.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 13.0 71.7 16.8 23.0 48.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 100 187 12 172
Queue Length 95th (ft) #492 #218 251 33 #385
Internal Link Dist (ft) 79 69 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 55
Base Capacity (vph) 1586 224 1744 460 596
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.88 0.56 0.07 0.95
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 377 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1374 24 186 921 29 541
Future Volume (vph) 1374 24 186 921 29 541
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3530 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3530 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 1446 25 196 969 31 569
RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 0 0 0 186
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1469 0 196 969 31 383
Turn Type NA Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.6 10.1 39.2 20.2 20.2
Effective Green, g (s) 36.6 10.1 39.2 20.2 20.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.13 0.49 0.25 0.25
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1606 222 1725 444 397
v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 c0.11 c0.27 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm c0.24
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.88 0.56 0.07 0.96
Uniform Delay, d1 20.4 34.6 14.5 22.9 29.7
Progression Factor 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 31.1 0.4 0.1 35.5
Delay (s) 9.4 65.6 15.0 23.0 65.2
Level of Service A E B C E
Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.4 23.5 63.0
Approach LOS A C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 378 of 776
Queues
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 1119 632 176 669 262 250 120 272 v/c Ratio 1.13 0.98 0.58 1.10 0.64 0.57 0.50 0.84 0.73
Control Delay (s/veh) 138.0 50.8 8.0 139.4 28.0 28.8 19.5 82.7 18.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 138.0 50.8 8.0 139.4 28.0 28.8 19.5 82.7 18.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~137 287 115 ~102 150 115 73 60 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #300 #486 194 #244 232 190 143 #169 #103 Internal Link Dist (ft) 976 1049 545 204
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 220 140 240
Base Capacity (vph) 206 1144 1234 160 1052 630 650 143 373 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.13 0.98 0.51 1.10 0.64 0.42 0.38 0.84 0.73 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 379 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 220 1063 600 167 630 6 296 63 127 18 96 258 Future Volume (vph) 220 1063 600 167 630 6 296 63 127 18 96 258 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3534 1681 1611 1848 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3534 1681 1611 1848 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 232 1119 632 176 663 6 312 66 134 19 101 272 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 1 0 0 54 0 0 0 251
Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 1119 588 176 668 0 262 196 0 0 120 21 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 25.3 46.8 7.0 23.2 21.5 21.5 6.0 6.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 25.3 46.8 7.0 23.2 21.5 21.5 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.60 0.09 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1150 952 159 1053 464 445 142 122 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.32 c0.17 0.10 0.19 0.16 0.12 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.01
v/c Ratio 1.12 0.97 0.62 1.11 0.63 0.56 0.44 0.85 0.17
Uniform Delay, d1 34.4 25.9 9.8 35.4 23.6 24.1 23.2 35.4 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 98.8 20.2 1.2 102.9 1.3 1.6 0.7 33.3 0.2 Delay (s) 133.1 46.1 11.0 138.3 24.9 25.7 23.9 68.8 33.8 Level of Service F D B F C C C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.1 48.5 24.8 44.5
Approach LOS D D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 43.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 380 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Dillon Ave./Driveway & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 1254 6 92 921 7 16 0 128 5 0 7 Future Volume (Veh/h) 2 1254 6 92 921 7 16 0 128 5 0 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1320 6 97 969 7 17 0 135 5 0 7 Pedestrians 21
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5
Percent Blockage 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 305 195
pX, platoon unblocked 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
vC, conflicting volume 976 1347 2034 2518 684 1966 2518 488 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 443 1347 1779 2391 684 1693 2390 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 80 49 100 65 81 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 881 497 33 21 383 26 21 858
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 662 666 97 646 330 152 12
Volume Left 2 0 97 0 0 17 5
Volume Right 0 6 0 0 7 135 7
cSH 881 1700 497 1700 1700 177 60
Volume to Capacity 0.00* 0.39 0.20 0.38 0.19 0.86 0.20
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 18 0 0 154 17
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.1 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 88.3 80.1
Lane LOS A B F F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 1.3 88.3 80.1
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 381 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29: E.Campbell Ave. & Foote Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 10:58 am 10/23/2025 Existing Conditions Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 1249 920 11 14 18
Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 1249 920 11 14 18
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 1358 1000 12 15 20
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 177 323
pX, platoon unblocked 0.80 0.80 0.80
vC, conflicting volume 1012 1729 506
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 504 1404 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 85 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 842 101 864
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 475 905 667 345 35
Volume Left 22 0 0 0 15
Volume Right 0 0 0 12 20
cSH 842 1700 1700 1700 204
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.53 0.39 0.20 0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 15
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.3 0.0 26.2
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 382 of 776
Queues
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 227 459 445 478 706
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.70 0.96 0.96 0.32
Control Delay (s/veh) 79.6 40.3 73.4 80.3 5.0
Queue Delay 0.0 6.1 6.6 42.3 0.6
Total Delay (s/veh) 79.6 46.3 80.0 122.6 5.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 201 370 425 442 102
Queue Length 95th (ft) #303 515 #673 #672 129
Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 97 365
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 322 658 462 499 2183
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 147 15 84 1010
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.15 0.60
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 383 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 154 2 30 104 752 220 249 692 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 67 154 2 30 104 752 220 249 692 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1833 1578 1108 1820 2787
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1833 1578 1108 1820 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 157 2 31 106 767 224 254 706 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 227 0 0 459 445 0 478 706 0 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.6 57.1 57.1 37.5 107.1
Effective Green, g (s) 20.6 57.1 57.1 37.5 94.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.27 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 659 462 499 1928
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.29 c0.40 c0.26 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.70 0.96 0.96 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 56.3 32.7 38.8 48.8 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 16.9 2.6 32.2 29.3 0.0
Delay (s) 73.1 35.3 70.9 78.1 8.7
Level of Service E D E E A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 73.1 52.8 36.8 0.0
Approach LOS E D D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 46.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.7 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 384 of 776
Queues
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 885 1075 163
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.41 0.60
Control Delay (s/veh) 10.4 1.5 33.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.8 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 10.4 2.3 33.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 122 23 60
Queue Length 95th (ft) 197 33 121
Internal Link Dist (ft) 115 79 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1832 2752 414
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1254 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.72 0.39
Intersection Summary
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 385 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 783 966 55 83 72
Future Volume (vph) 58 783 966 55 83 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 3511 1700
Flt Permitted 0.80 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 2844 3511 1700
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 61 824 1017 58 87 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 38 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 885 1071 0 125 0
Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 3
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 50.1 61.0 11.1
Effective Green, g (s) 50.1 61.0 11.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.75 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1756 2640 232
v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.41 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 3.6 32.6
Progression Factor 1.00 0.31 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 2.4
Delay (s) 8.7 1.2 35.0
Level of Service A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 8.7 1.2 35.0
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 386 of 776
Queues
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 912 1344 28 234
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.84 0.14 0.61
Control Delay (s/veh) 3.3 12.5 33.2 19.3
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 3.5 12.5 33.2 19.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 115 14 50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 #227 36 101
Internal Link Dist (ft) 79 69 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 55
Base Capacity (vph) 2273 1673 395 395
Starvation Cap Reductn 459 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.80 0.07 0.59
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 387 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 849 17 310 967 27 222
Future Volume (vph) 849 17 310 967 27 222
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3529 3497 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.56 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3529 1986 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 894 18 326 1018 28 234
RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 0 0 0 109
Lane Group Flow (vph) 910 0 0 1344 28 125
Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 1
Permitted Phases 6 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 50.1 61.0 11.1 17.5
Effective Green, g (s) 50.1 61.0 11.1 17.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.75 0.14 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2180 1613 242 429
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 c0.07 0.02 c0.02
v/s Ratio Perm c0.56 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.83 0.12 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 6.7 30.7 26.6
Progression Factor 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 2.7 10.5 30.9 27.0
Level of Service A B C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.7 10.5 27.4
Approach LOS A B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 388 of 776
Queues
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 214 669 254 78 770 415 394 24 72
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.57 0.21 0.46 0.80 0.77 0.70 0.16 0.29
Control Delay (s/veh) 101.0 27.0 1.1 44.9 34.4 35.3 26.9 39.8 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 101.0 27.0 1.1 44.9 34.4 35.3 26.9 39.8 3.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~138 168 0 41 204 205 154 13 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #275 233 22 84 #275 320 262 36 6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 976 1049 545 204
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 220 140 240
Base Capacity (vph) 216 1179 1254 216 1103 660 672 150 252 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.57 0.20 0.36 0.70 0.63 0.59 0.16 0.29 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 389 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 203 636 241 74 726 6 525 47 197 5 18 68 Future Volume (vph) 203 636 241 74 726 6 525 47 197 5 18 68 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1681 1602 1844 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1681 1602 1844 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 214 669 254 78 764 6 553 49 207 5 19 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 92 0 1 0 0 49 0 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 214 669 162 78 769 0 415 345 0 0 24 4 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 25.6 50.2 6.0 22.2 24.6 24.6 4.4 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.4 25.6 50.2 6.0 22.2 24.6 24.6 4.4 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.64 0.08 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 211 1152 1011 135 998 526 501 103 88 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.19 0.05 0.04 c0.22 c0.25 0.22 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.01 0.58 0.16 0.58 0.77 0.79 0.69 0.23 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 34.6 22.0 5.7 35.1 25.9 24.6 23.7 35.5 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 65.7 0.8 0.1 3.7 3.7 7.7 3.9 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 100.3 22.8 5.8 38.8 29.6 32.3 27.6 35.9 35.2
Level of Service F C A D C C C D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.6 30.4 30.0 35.4
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 31.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 390 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Dillon Ave./Driveway & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 798 4 203 841 16 14 0 46 1 1 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 798 4 203 841 16 14 0 46 1 1 2
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 887 4 226 934 18 16 0 51 1 1 2 Pedestrians 21
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5
Percent Blockage 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 305 195
pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
vC, conflicting volume 952 912 1840 2322 467 1898 2315 476 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 704 912 1699 2240 467 1764 2232 171
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 69 58 100 90 97 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 793 728 38 25 532 32 25 752
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 448 448 693 485 67 4
Volume Left 4 0 226 0 16 1
Volume Right 0 4 0 18 51 2
cSH 793 1700 728 1700 129 55
Volume to Capacity 0.00* 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.52 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 33 0 62 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.2 0.0 7.5 0.0 59.8 76.2
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.1 4.4 59.8 76.2
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 391 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29: E.Campbell Ave. & Foote Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativeAM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 835 820 2 4 15
Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 835 820 2 4 15
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 908 891 2 4 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 177 323
pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93
vC, conflicting volume 893 1374 447
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 736 1253 256
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 805 150 692
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 317 605 594 299 20
Volume Left 14 0 0 0 4
Volume Right 0 0 0 2 16
cSH 805 1700 1700 1700 402
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.36 0.35 0.18 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 4
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.2 0.0 14.4
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 392 of 776
Queues
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 589 519 481 281 956
v/c Ratio 1.11 0.83 1.12 0.90 0.53
Control Delay (s/veh) 118.5 53.2 122.1 90.1 15.3
Queue Delay 0.0 37.3 0.2 0.0 2.4
Total Delay (s/veh) 118.5 90.5 122.3 90.1 17.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~644 471 ~560 267 265
Queue Length 95th (ft) #883 #678 #797 #434 325
Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 97 365
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 532 624 428 317 1803
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 136 9 0 687
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.11 1.06 1.15 0.89 0.86
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 393 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Railway Ave./Civic Center Dr. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026 CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 163 342 60 47 168 745 86 183 918 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 163 342 60 47 168 745 86 183 918 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1400 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.99 0.91 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1810 1611 1108 1833 2787
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 1611 1108 1833 2787
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) 170 356 63 49 175 776 90 191 956 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 589 0 0 519 481 0 281 956 0 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.5 56.0 56.0 24.5 93.0
Effective Green, g (s) 42.5 56.0 56.0 24.5 80.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.17 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 12.5 12.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 532 624 429 310 1552
v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.32 c0.43 c0.15 0.34
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.11 0.83 1.12 0.91 0.62
Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 40.0 44.3 58.9 21.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 71.7 8.9 80.8 27.8 0.5
Delay (s) 122.7 48.9 125.0 86.7 22.1
Level of Service F D F F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 122.7 85.5 36.8 0.0
Approach LOS F F D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 71.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 144.5 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 394 of 776
Queues
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1461 1044 172
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.39 0.66
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.8 1.5 43.5
Queue Delay 10.5 0.8 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 39.4 2.3 43.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 390 25 80
Queue Length 95th (ft) #640 31 149
Internal Link Dist (ft) 115 79 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1596 2709 352
Starvation Cap Reductn 141 1236 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 22 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.00 0.71 0.49
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 395 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: E.Campbell Ave. & Page St. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 93 1295 939 53 91 72
Future Volume (vph) 93 1295 939 53 91 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 0.94
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 3511 1704
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 2699 3511 1704
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 98 1363 988 56 96 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1461 1041 0 142 0
Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 3
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 56.1 73.1 12.8
Effective Green, g (s) 56.1 73.1 12.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1595 2704 229
v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm c0.54
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.38 0.62
Uniform Delay, d1 17.3 3.6 38.7
Progression Factor 1.00 0.31 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.4 0.1 4.9
Delay (s) 25.7 1.2 43.7
Level of Service C A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.7 1.2 43.7
Approach LOS C A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 396 of 776
Queues
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1471 1165 31 569
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.74 0.13 1.10
Control Delay (s/veh) 4.6 7.7 36.6 99.0
Queue Delay 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 7.9 7.7 36.6 99.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 49 103 17 ~382
Queue Length 95th (ft) m73 172 43 #580
Internal Link Dist (ft) 79 69 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 55
Base Capacity (vph) 2087 1577 336 519
Starvation Cap Reductn 504 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.74 0.09 1.10
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 397 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Gilman Ave. & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1374 24 186 921 29 541
Future Volume (vph) 1374 24 186 921 29 541
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3530 3510 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.49 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3530 1743 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 1446 25 196 969 31 569
RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 0 24
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1470 0 0 1165 31 545
Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 1
Permitted Phases 6 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 56.1 73.1 12.8 25.3
Effective Green, g (s) 56.1 73.1 12.8 25.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.13 0.27
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2086 1575 238 497
v/s Ratio Prot 0.42 0.10 0.02 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.74 0.13 1.10
Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 5.8 36.1 34.8
Progression Factor 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.9 0.2 69.1
Delay (s) 3.8 7.7 36.4 103.9
Level of Service A A D F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 3.8 7.7 100.4
Approach LOS A A F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 398 of 776
Queues
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 1119 632 176 669 262 250 120 272 v/c Ratio 1.13 0.98 0.58 1.10 0.64 0.57 0.50 0.84 0.73
Control Delay (s/veh) 138.0 50.8 8.0 139.4 28.0 28.8 19.5 82.7 18.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 138.0 50.8 8.0 139.4 28.0 28.8 19.5 82.7 18.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~137 287 115 ~102 150 115 73 60 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #300 #486 194 #244 232 190 143 #169 #103 Internal Link Dist (ft) 976 1049 545 204
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 220 140 240
Base Capacity (vph) 206 1144 1234 160 1052 630 650 143 373 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.13 0.98 0.51 1.10 0.64 0.42 0.38 0.84 0.73 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 399 of 776
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Union Ave./Campisi Way & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 220 1063 600 167 630 6 296 63 127 18 96 258 Future Volume (vph) 220 1063 600 167 630 6 296 63 127 18 96 258 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3534 1681 1611 1848 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3534 1681 1611 1848 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 232 1119 632 176 663 6 312 66 134 19 101 272 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 1 0 0 54 0 0 0 251
Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 1119 588 176 668 0 262 196 0 0 120 21 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 3 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 25.3 46.8 7.0 23.2 21.5 21.5 6.0 6.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 25.3 46.8 7.0 23.2 21.5 21.5 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.60 0.09 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1150 952 159 1053 464 445 142 122 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.32 c0.17 0.10 0.19 0.16 0.12 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.01
v/c Ratio 1.12 0.97 0.62 1.11 0.63 0.56 0.44 0.85 0.17
Uniform Delay, d1 34.4 25.9 9.8 35.4 23.6 24.1 23.2 35.4 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 98.8 20.2 1.2 102.9 1.3 1.6 0.7 33.3 0.2 Delay (s) 133.1 46.1 11.0 138.3 24.9 25.7 23.9 68.8 33.8 Level of Service F D B F C C C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 45.1 48.5 24.8 44.5
Approach LOS D D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 43.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 400 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Dillon Ave./Driveway & E.Campbell Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 1254 6 92 921 7 16 0 128 5 0 7 Future Volume (Veh/h) 2 1254 6 92 921 7 16 0 128 5 0 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1320 6 97 969 7 17 0 135 5 0 7 Pedestrians 21
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5
Percent Blockage 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 305 195
pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
vC, conflicting volume 976 1347 2034 2518 684 1966 2518 488 vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 762 1347 1931 2467 684 1856 2466 222 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 80 42 100 65 78 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 765 497 29 21 383 22 21 707
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 662 666 582 492 152 12
Volume Left 2 0 97 0 17 5
Volume Right 0 6 0 7 135 7
cSH 765 1700 497 1700 163 51
Volume to Capacity 0.00* 0.39 0.20 0.29 0.93 0.23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 18 0 173 20
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.1 0.0 5.5 0.0 109.8 95.7
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 3.0 109.8 95.7
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 8.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 401 of 776
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
29: E.Campbell Ave. & Foote Ave. 02/23/2026
CumulativePM No Left-Turn Lanes East Campbell Avenue Plan Line 1:34 pm 11/06/2025 Existing Condition Synchro 12 Report s Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 1249 920 11 14 18
Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 1249 920 11 14 18
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 1358 1000 12 15 20
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 177 323
pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 0.91 0.91
vC, conflicting volume 1012 1729 506
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 827 1611 274
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 82 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 732 84 662
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 475 905 667 345 35
Volume Left 22 0 0 0 15
Volume Right 0 0 0 12 20
cSH 732 1700 1700 1700 168
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.53 0.39 0.20 0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 19
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.3 0.0 31.9
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
* Value less than 0.01.

Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 402 of 776
Appendix D
Signal Warrant Analysis
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 403 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line
2 . Foote Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Source: Figure 4C-3 of the Manual on Unifrom Traffic Control and Devices (MUTCD) from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). * 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Campbell Avenue 1176 1670 Minor Street - Highest Approach Foote Avenue 19 19
No No
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Campbell Avenue 1729 2200 Minor Street - Highest Approach Foote Avenue 32 32
No No
X
X
Approach
Lanes Existing Conditions AMCumulative Conditions AM
Warrant Met?
Approach
Lanes Existing Conditions PMCumulative Conditions PM
Warrant Met?
X
X
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500MINOR STREET - HIGHER-VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
MUTCD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT - WARRANT 3
(Urban Areas)
Existing Conditions AM
Cumulative Conditions AM
Existing Conditions PM
Cumulative Conditions PM
2 or more lanes (major) & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes (major) & 1 lane (minor)
or
1 lane (major) & 1 lane
2/23/2026
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 404 of 776
East Campbell Plan Line
3 . Dillon Avenue and Campbell Avenue
Source: Figure 4C-3 of the Manual on Unifrom Traffic Control and Devices (MUTCD) from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). * 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Campbell Avenue 1327 1866 Minor Street - Highest Approach Dillon Avenue 45 60
Maximum warrant threshold for minor street volume 182 100 Difference between warrant threshold & minor street volume -137 -40 No No
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Campbell Avenue 1813 2282 Minor Street - Highest Approach Dillon Avenue 88 144
No Yes
X
X
Approach
Lanes Existing Conditions AMCumulative Conditions AM
Warrant Met?
Approach
Lanes Existing Conditions PMCumulative Conditions PM
Warrant Met?
X
X
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500MINOR STREET - HIGHER-VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
MUTCD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT - WARRANT 3
(Urban Areas)
Existing Conditions AM
Cumulative Conditions AM
Existing Conditions PM
Cumulative Conditions PM
2 or more lanes (major) & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes (major) & 1 lane (minor)
or
1 lane (major) & 1 lane
2/23/2026
Item 9.2
Monday, August 03, 2026 405 of 776
City Council Report
DATE: August 3, 2026
TITLE: Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed adoption of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, or may be found Exempt from Environmental Review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308.

BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2024, the City Council approved a contract with Rincon Consultants to prepare a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) that aligns with Statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals and builds resiliency to the impacts of climate change. A CAAP Community Advisory Committee met at key points throughout the process to provide input and also to help amplify community outreach efforts. Four phases of public outreach took place over the course of the planning process to ensure the plan reflected the community’s input. Outreach was supported by three CBOs: Acterra, Breathe California, and Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action. Additionally, the plan was vetted through an internal working group of staff across the City.

On September 17, 2024, the City Council received an update on the project that included the results of the GHG inventory conducted and future emissions forecasts that discussed the sources of emissions and reductions needed in order to reach Statewide targets. On October 1, 2024, the City Council received a second update that included the results of the climate change vulnerability analysis and a discussion of emerging themes from the community engagement process. At the March 18, 2025, Council Meeting, Council provided direction to take a conservative approach to measures and actions, focused on supportive actions rather than punitive, while still trying to align with State targets.

Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 406 of 776

Between December 22, 2025, and January 30, 2026, the Draft CAAP was published for public comment. Staff returned to Council on May 19, 2026, with a Draft CAAP and summary of public comment.

DISCUSSION
At the May 19, 2026, public hearing, after receiving extensive public comment on the Draft CAAP, Council provided the following direction:
• Clarify that the CAAP does not itself adopt new policy or initiatives—rather, it is an aspirational document and a roadmap of strategies and actions to consider that, if implemented together, would help the City reach statewide emissions reductions targets.
• Clarify that the goal stated in Measure BLD-3 is a long-range aspirational goal and that the actions under this measure are supportive of voluntary home electrification, and do not mandate retrofits of existing buildings. • Provide biannual progress updates to Council and plan to update the emissions inventory every 3-5 years.
• Provide information about incentives and programs available to Campbell residents including SVCE rebates, and reference Bay Area Air District Rules 9-4 and 9-6.
• Address concerns about native plants.
• Consider City funding towards incentives for home electrification.

Language has been revised throughout the Plan in response to Council direction as follows:
• The CAAP is a roadmap and aspirational document. The Executive Summary (Page 2) clarifies that the CAAP is a roadmap to help reduce emissions and build resiliency and that the plan is intended to serve as a guiding document that identifies strategies and actions for consideration over time. Language in the Executive Summary states “The CAAP itself does not adopt new policies, mandates, or regulations. Any future policy proposals would require separate City Council consideration through a formal public hearing process, including opportunities for public outreach and community input. Similarly, any new programs or initiatives would need to be evaluated and approved through the City’s annual workplan development and budgeting process.” This is explicitly stated throughout the CAAP.
• Modifications to Measure BLD-3. This measure has been revised (Page 46) to state “Support the voluntary retrofitting of existing residential buildings to reduce natural gas usage by 18% and non-residential buildings to reduce natural gas usage by 15% by 2030 through the use of education and incentives. Work towards the goal of making all existing buildings zero-carbon and resilient to extreme heat and poor air quality by 2045.” This revised language helps clarify that the actions under this measure are intended to be supportive of voluntary electrification and provide opportunities for cost-effective strategies (i.e. encourage electrification, provide education, promote technical support and incentives, streamline permitting).

Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 407 of 776

• Review and Update Every 2-3 Years. The plan now states that progress reports will be provided every two years (Page 90), providing a regular update while still maintaining flexibility for staff resources.
• References to Incentives and Air District Rules. Information about SVCE’s technical support and incentives can be found on page 84 within the Section entitled “Personal Climate Action and Resilience Roadmaps.” Information about the Bay Area Air District’s zero NOx rules can be found on page 37 with a footnote to the existing section that provides a link to the Air District Rules to provide more information.
• Native Plants. To address concerns about native plants, we have revised the language to “native and climate appropriate plants.” (Action UE 1.4 on Page 51) Appropriate plants and landscaping will be context-depended. As these initiatives get implemented, staff will work with experts to determine the appropriate types of plants for landscaping or riparian corridors.
• City Funding for Electrification. The plan intentionally does not set aside funding for programs; however, BLD-3.2 calls for collaboration with SVCE to support building electrification. As part of this action, the City could choose to fund incentives in addition to those SVCE already provides.

NEXT STEPS
Following adoption, the CAAP will be implemented in phases as identified in the Implementation Plan found within Appendix E of the Plan, subject to the availability of resources as determined in the City’s annual process of adopting its budget and department workplans. Coordination on implementation will occur across city departments and through oversight of the Environmental Programs Specialist position in the Department of Public Works.

FISCAL IMPACT
The CAAP does not have a direct fiscal impact at this time. The plan serves as a framework to guide future actions. Any specific projects, staffing, or capital investments would be brought forward separately through the annual budgeting process.

PREPARED BY: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 408 of 776

Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report Adopt CAAP.docx
Attachments: City of Campbell Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan_FINAL_EDITS.pdf
City of Campbell CAAP_Final_Draft 10-compiled.pdf
Final Approval
Date:

July 29, 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 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 409 of 776
June 2026
City of Campbell
Climate
Action and
Adaptation Plan
Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 410 of 776

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Campbell’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) was developed to reduce the community’s contribution to climate change and strengthen local resilience. The completion of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication, expertise, and collaboration of many partners.

We extend our sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed their time, insights, and support throughout this process.

We also wish to thank the community members who participated in the CAAP’s development at various stages and provided invaluable input that helped shape this plan. Your perspectives and experiences were fundamental in guiding the thoughtful development of strategies to create a more sustainable and resilient Campbell.

Together, we will continue advancing the initiatives identified in the CAAP and building a safer, healthier, and more climate-resilient future for our community.

THIS CAAP REFLECTS A COORDINATED EFFORT BETWEEN:

Campbell City Council
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
Anne Bybee, Vice Mayor
Terry Hines
Sergio Lopez
Elliot Scozzola
Susan M. Landry (former)
Community Partners:

Acterra
Breathe California
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action (SVYCA)
Santa Clara Valley Water
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA)
Community Advisory Committee Members:

Ulka Agarwal
Dustin Markowksi
Sean Mendelson
Stephanie Morris
Yash Ranjith
Martin Rouch
Meghna Varma
Denise Witte
Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 411 of 776

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Staff
City Manager’s Office
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Nathan Donato-Weinstein, Economic Development Manager
Jose Zetino, Administrative Analyst (former)
Community Development Department
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Tiffany Hudson, Environmental Programs Specialist
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Bob Lennen, Building Official
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
Tracy Tam, Associate Planner (former)
Sobia Arshad, Plans Examiner (former)
Public Works Department
Amy Olay, Public Works Director
Ron Taormina, Public Works Superintendent
Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer
Peri Newby, Environmental Programs Specialist
(former)
Tyler Thomas, Streets Supervisor (former)
Police Department
Gary Berg, Police Chief
Letysia Moresco, Communication & Public
Engagement
Recreation & Community Services Department
Lauren Merriman, Recreation Services Manager
Iseth Rae, Recreation Supervisor
Finance Department
Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Norite Vong, Assistant Finance Director
Consultant Support
Blue Point Planning
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 412 of 776
TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary ........................................................................................GL-1 Land Acknowledgment....................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .................................................................................. 7

2. Community Engagement .............................................................. 14

3. Climate Vulnerability ................................................................... 21

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis ............................................. 27

5. Cost Effectiveness........................................................................ 35

6. Climate Resilience and Mitigation Strategies............................... 42

7. Personal Climate Action and Resilience Roadmaps........................80

8. Implementation and Monitoring ..................................................89

APPENDICES
Appendix A — Climate Change Legislation
Appendix B — Community Engagement Summary
Appendix C — Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Appendix D — Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report
Appendix E — Measures, Actions, and Implementation Plan Appendix F — Measure Substantial Evidence Report
Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 413 of 776

GLOSSARY
A
Active Transportation – A means of transportation that is powered by human energy, for example walking, biking, or rolling.

Adaptation – Adjustment or preparation of natural or human systems to a new or changing environment which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1279 – California Climate Crisis Act, which codified the GHG emissions reduction goals of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, by expanding the definition of carbon neutrality to reducing direct emissions 85 percent below 1990 levels and removing the remaining 15 percent of emissions though carbon sequestration and other technologies. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update, adopted in December 2022, provided the pathway for reaching the State’s AB 1279 goal.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2684 – Extreme Heat Planning, which requires local governments to update their safety elements to mitigate heat-related risks. Additionally, AB 2684 mandates regular reviews to integrate the latest data on extreme heat hazards, bolstering California's efforts to adapt to rising temperatures.

Atmosphere – The envelope of gases surrounding the Earth; the gases that make up the atmosphere primarily include nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent), as well as argon, helium, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor in trace amounts.

B
C
California Air Resources Board (CARB) – The lead agency for climate change programs that also oversees all air pollution control efforts in California to attain and maintain health-based air quality standards.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – A naturally occurring gas and a by-product of burning fossil fuels and biomass that contributes to the trapping of heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2
e) – A metric measure used to compare
the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their GWP.

Carbon-neutrality/Net-Zero Emissions – Balancing anthropomorphically generated emissions by removing GHGs from the atmosphere in a process known as carbon sequestration.

Climate – The average of weather patterns over a long period of time (usually 30 or more years).

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) – Community’s framework for improving our health and environment, limiting our global impact by reducing GHG emissions, and increasing our resilience in the face of climate change.

Climate Change – A change in the average conditions — such as temperature and rainfall — in a region over a long period of time.

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) – Identifies how exposed, sensitive, and adaptable a system or community is to climate hazards. It informs adaptation planning by highlighting high-risk areas and guiding resilience strategies.

Climate Hazard – A potential occurrence of climate related physical events or trends that may cause damage and loss.

Community Based Organization (CBO) – A public or private nonprofit organization that is representative of the community or specific segments of a community and provides educational or outreach services to the community.

D
Decarbonization – Replacing technologies and services that run on fossil fuels (ex. natural gas) with ones that run on zero-carbon sources of energy (for example electricity from renewable energy like solar or wind power), ideally from renewable sources.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
GL-1 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Glossary Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 414 of 776
E
Electric Vehicle (EV) – A vehicle that uses one or more electric motors or traction motors for propulsion.

Emissions – The release of a substance (usually a gas when referring to the subject of climate change) into the atmosphere.

Equity – Actively empowering vulnerable communities to thrive and reach their full environmental, economic, and social potential by transforming the behaviors, institutions and systems that are causing disproportionate harm. Decisions and processes that intentionally prioritize equity are inclusive across vulnerable communities, increase access to a broad suite of critical resources, and maximize opportunities in vulnerable communities.

F
Fossil Fuel – A general term for fuel formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth’s crust.

G
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) – A gas that absorbs infrared radiation, traps heat in the atmosphere and contributes to the greenhouse effect.

H
I
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability; a global network of more than 1,750 local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development – emissions estimates were calculated using ICLEI’s best available methodologies.

Impact – Impacts on natural and human systems – including lives, livelihoods, health, ecosystems, economies, societies, cultures, services, and infrastructure – resulting from the interaction between climate hazards and the vulnerabilities of affected systems or assets.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.

J
K
L
M
Methane (CH4) – A hydrocarbon that is a greenhouse gas produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.

Metric Tons (MT) – Common international measurement for the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions – one metric ton is equal to 2205 pounds or

1.1 short tons.

Microgrid – A group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that act as a single controllable entity in respect to the grid. A microgrid can operate in ‘island mode’ and disconnect from the grid or operate while connected to the grid.

Mitigation – An action or ongoing efforts to minimize, prevent, or eliminate negative impacts or effects.

N
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) – A powerful greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential; major sources of nitrous oxide include soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
GL-2 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Glossary Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 415 of 776
O
Organic Material – Materials typically derived from living organisms, including plants, animals, and their waste products.

P
Q
R
Renewable Energy – Energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed (ex. wind, biomass).

Resilience – Ability to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to hazardous events, trends, or disturbances related to climate.

S
Senate Bill (SB) 32 – SB 32 is the California Senate bill in 2016 that requires there be a reduction in GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill (SB) 100 – Renewable Portfolio Standard which requires investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 50 percent of total procurement by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, 90 percent by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2045. The increase in renewable energy resources reduces the GHG-intensity of electricity.

Senate Bill (SB) 379 – Requires local governments to incorporate climate adaptation and resilience strategies into their general plans, evaluating vulnerabilities to various climate impacts like wildfires and flooding.

Senate Bill (SB) 1383 – California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which sets statewide targets to reduce compostable materials in landfills by 75 percent by 2025, and to rescue at least 20 percent of edible food currently disposed for human consumption by 2025.

Sensitivities – The extent to which a species, natural system, community, asset, or related system is impacted by changing climate conditions.

T
U
V
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – The number of total miles traveled by motor vehicle that are generated over a population over a given timeframe (e.g., 1 year).

Vulnerable Populations/ Vulnerable Communities – Certain populations/ communities experience increased exposure or risk to climate change and often have less capacity and fewer resources to cope with, adapt to, or recover from climate impacts. Given this, assessing and mitigating impacts to these populations/ communities is a priority.

Vulnerability – The propensity or predisposition to be negatively affected.

W
Weather – The state of the atmosphere over a short period of time (usually an hour or day), describing if it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy, etc.

Y
Z
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
GL-3 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Glossary Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 416 of 776

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The City of Campbell acknowledges that the city is located on ancestral lands of great importance to Tamien Nation, a tribe recognized under California State Law, and that the people of Tamien Nation are important members of the Campbell community.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
1 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Land Acknowledgment Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 417 of 776

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Campbell’s Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan (CAAP) outlines a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance community
resilience in the face of climate change. Developed through extensive community engagement and aligned with
California’s climate legislation and Campbell’s 2040 General Plan, the CAAP provides a roadmap that works towards the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 while improving public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.

The CAAP aims to:
y Provide a long-term vision for climate action in Campbell. y Work towards GHG emissions in line with statewide targets. y Provide support for the Campbell community, rather
than mandates.
y Prepare for climate hazards like extreme heat, poor air quality, flooding, and drought.
y Support vulnerable populations and prioritize equity. y Emphasize feasibility and provide flexibility.

Campbell envisions a future powered by renewable energy, resilient infrastructure, and sustainable urban planning.

The plan emphasizes inclusivity, community ownership, and multi-benefit solutions that improve quality of life while addressing climate risks.

This plan is intended to serve as a guiding document that identifies strategies and actions for consideration over time.

The CAAP itself does not adopt new policies, mandates, or regulations. Any future policy proposals would require separate City Council consideration through a formal public hearing process, including opportunities for public outreach and community input. Similarly, any new programs or initiatives would need to be evaluated and approved through the City’s annual workplan development and budgeting process.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
2 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Executive Summary Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 418 of 776

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The CAAP was shaped by robust outreach efforts that informed the plan’s priorities, including tree planting in vulnerable areas, supporting building electrification through education and incentives, and expanded mobility options.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
3 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Community Engagement Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 419 of 776

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Campbell faces increasing extreme weather
events including extreme heat, stronger storms,
and poor air quality from regional wildfire.

Climate impacts in Campbell are summarized in the graphic below.

The 2022 GHG inventory identified transportation (57%) and building natural gas use (28%) as the largest emission sources. A consumptive-based inventory (which includes emissions generated outside of Campbell to make the things we buy) also highlighted emissions from food, goods, and travel.

Extreme Heat
Extreme heat can be dangerous for
everyone, but especially seniors, young
children, disadvantaged individuals, and
individuals with health conditions like
asthma or diabetes. Extreme heat can also
affect the stability and effectiveness of
certain medications, posing additional
health risks for vulnerable populations
during prolonged heat events. Extreme
heat can lead to more frequent use of air
conditioning, raising expenses and
potentially causing power outages,
which can in turn worsen health risks.

Additionally, wildlife and plants may
experience heat stress, affecting
ecosystem health in Campbell.

Riverine Flooding
Riverine flooding caused by extreme
precipitation events is a hazard along the Los
Gatos Creek, particularly affecting Timber Cove
Mobile Home Park, affordable housing units,
residential roads, Highway 17, and bridges.

Flooding can lead to increases in infectious
diseases like Lyme Disease and West Nile Virus,
and cause mold growth in buildings, which can
impact health.

Air Quality Degredation
Air quality declines from regional wildfires,
vehicle and lawn equipment emissions, and
wood burning can cause respiratory illnesses
and worsen existing health conditions,
especially for seniors, young children, and
disadvantaged individuals. People with
existing health conditions are at higher risk of
respiratory and heart problems. Poor air
quality can also harm ecosystems and make
parks and outdoor areas unsafe for the
community.

Drought
Drought can place a significant financial strain
on vulnerable populations, like disadvantaged
individuals, due to higher water rates and
difficulties in accessing clean water.

Additionally, drought affects ecosystems,
leading to stressed vegetation and increased
plant deaths. This can reduce the quality and
benefits of parks and natural spaces like the Los
Gatos Creek Trail, impacting the overall health
and well-being of the community.

CAMPBELL

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY

AND GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
Campbell faces increasing extreme weather
events including extreme heat, stronger
storms, and poor air quality from regional
wildfire. Climate impacts in Campbell are
summarized in the graphic below.

The 2022 GHG inventory identified
transportation (57%) and building natural gas
use (28%) as the largest emission sources. A
consumptive-based inventory (which includes
emissions generated outside of Campbell to
make the things we buy) also highlighted
emissions from food, goods, and travel.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
4 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Vulnerability and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 420 of 776

IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
This plan is intended to serve as a guiding document that identifies strategies and actions for consideration over time. The Campbell CAAP will be implemented through coordinated efforts with communitybased organizations and agencies in Campbell. Any policy proposals in this plan would require separate City Council consideration through a formal public hearing process, including opportunities for public outreach and community input. Similarly, any new programs or initiatives would need to be evaluated and approved through the City’s annual workplan development and budgeting process.

Monitoring and reporting are central to accountability. The City will produce annual progress reports and update its GHG inventory and the CAAP every 2-3 years, using performance metrics to prioritize cost-effective, high-impact actions. Through education, engagement, and partnerships, the City will empower residents, businesses, and organizations to participate in climate action, identify barriers, and foster long-term support for sustainability initiatives.

STRATEGIES AND MEASURES
The CAAP emphasizes cost-effective strategies with long-term benefits.

While some actions require upfront investment, many offer lifecycle savings and resilience dividends. The plan also positions Campbell to compete for state and federal funding, including climate bonds and grant programs.

The CAAP organizes actions into four systems:

1. Urban Ecosystems and Sustainable Foods – Tree planting, composting, water conservation.

2. Social and Governance – Resilience hubs, climate communication, equity-focused outreach.

3. Buildings – Electrification, retrofits, renewable energy adoption. 4 Transportation – EV adoption, transit improvements, active mobility infrastructure.

If implemented together, these measures are projected to reduce 57,677 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO₂e) by 2030 and 212,086 MT CO₂e by 2045. This is roughly the same as removing 12,400 and 45,600 gasoline-powered cars from the road for one year, respectively.

PERSONAL CLIMATE ACTION AND

RESILIENCE ROADMAPS
To empower residents, the CAAP includes Climate Action and Resilience Roadmaps tailored to individual actions. These one-page guides offer practical steps and resources for:
y Electrifying homes: Switching to efficient electric appliances, accessing rebates, and improving insulation.
y Driving electric: Choosing EVs, installing chargers, and using incentive programs.
y Staying safe during heat and smoke events: Tips for cooling homes, protecting air quality, and accessing community resources. y Eating sustainably: Reducing meat consumption, composting, and supporting local agriculture.

These roadmaps help residents understand their personal impact and contribute to citywide climate goals.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
5 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Strategies and Measures Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 421 of 776
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
6 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Implementation and Monitoring Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 422 of 776

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Campbell's Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan (CAAP) presents a detailed
approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and preparing for extreme weather
events to foster a healthier and more resilient
future. This is an evolving document that serves
as a guide to enhance Campbell’s ongoing
efforts to mitigate GHG emissions in line with the
2040 General Plan and the State’s targets set by
both SB 32 and AB 1279. It emphasizes practical,
measurable, and time-bound strategies, providing
a framework for implementation, monitoring, and
adjustment to best serve the community.

Even if emissions were brought to zero today,
Campbell would still face a changing climate.

Public health, infrastructure, and ecosystems
are experiencing impacts due to increased heat,
poor air quality, seasonal flooding, and prolonged
drought. These challenges will particularly impact
vulnerable populations and may lead to increased
health risks, financial strain, and damage to
buildings, roads, and natural habitats.

The CAAP was developed through local
research and community feedback, and it will
be implemented using the same collaborative
approach. During its development, special
attention was given to hearing from community
members most at risk from extreme weather
events throughout the community engagement
process. The strategies in this CAAP went through
multiple iterations with both City staff and the
CAAP Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to
ensure they are community-focused, practical, and
aligned with existing City priorities and efforts.

Implementation will require careful collaboration
across City staff and funding and resource allocation will be part of the City’s annual budgeting process. Throughout the implementation of this CAAP, the City of Campbell will continue to work towards a healthier and more resilient community.

By adopting this plan, the City of Campbell seeks to protect public health and the environment, foster a green economy, and improve the quality of life for residents and visitors amidst a changing climate, while also supporting business retention and attraction through collaboration with the business community and promoting practices that enhance long-term economic resilience. Through dedicated efforts to cut GHG emissions, adapt to extreme weather events, promote renewable energy, preserve habitats and biodiversity, and facilitate equitable access to sustainability benefits, Campbell positions itself as a leader in climate action and adaptation. 7 Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 423 of 776

CAAP VISION
The Campbell community envisions a
decarbonized future where fossil fuels
have been replaced by renewable energy,
advanced green technologies, and
sustainable urban planning practices.

Campbell is a place where infrastructure
is built with resiliency in mind, where
resources are managed wisely, and natural
ecosystems are preserved. Vulnerable
communities—such as young children,
older adults, disadvantaged individuals,
and individuals with health conditions—
are prioritized, helping them adapt and
thrive in a changing climate.

At the core of this CAAP is the
engagement of the entire Campbell
community, fostering inclusivity
throughout the process. The plan aims to
create multi-benefit solutions, for example,
green spaces that serve as both cooling
centers and community gathering areas.

The CAAP also encourages behavioral
changes. Adding bike lanes and improving
sidewalks can help promote more active
modes of transportation. It promotes
holistic thinking and education, leading
with community values to create
actionable initiatives.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
8 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | CAAP Vision Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 424 of 776

OVERVIEW OF CAMPBELL

1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024, and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.

2. Although the population estimate here is from 2025, the greenhouse gas inventory for the Campbell CAAP is based on 2022 data, which was the most recent available at the time of analysis. To maintain consistency, all population figures used in the greenhouse gas calculations reflect 2022 estimates, aligning with the inventory year.

3. U.S. Census Bureau. Race and Hispanic Origin, 2020 Decennial Census. https://data.census.gov.

4. U.S. Census Bureau. Language Spoken at Home, 2020 Decennial Census. https://data.census.gov.

5. U.S. Census Bureau. Age and Sex, 2023 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. https://data.census.gov.

6. U.S. Census Bureau. Selected Housing Characteristics, 2023 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. https://data.census.gov.

7. City of Campbell Finance Department. August 21, 2025.

8. The most recent comprehensive data available on race and ethnicity is from the 2020 Decennial Census, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

9. U.S. Census Bureau. Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2023 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), 2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov.

10. U.S. Census Bureau. Selected Economic Characteristics, 2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov.

11. U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, 2023 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. https://data.census.gov.

12. City of Campbell Finance Department. August 21, 2025.

13. The most recent comprehensive data available on race and ethnicity is from the 2020 Decennial Census, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Campbell, California, also referred to as “The Orchard City,” is a vibrant community located in the heart of Silicon Valley. Known for its small-town feel, Campbell offers a unique blend of historic charm and modern amenities. The downtown area is a walkable and bustling hub with a variety of shops, restaurants, and cafes, making it a popular destination for both residents and neighboring communities.

Campbell is situated in Santa Clara County, approximately 25 miles inland from the California coast. San Jose, Saratoga, and Los Gatos border the city. Covering an area of 6.35 square miles, the city features numerous neighborhood parks scattered throughout, offering peaceful spaces for residents, their families, and visitors to enjoy.

Campbell has a population of approximately 43,300 residents.1,2 The city’s demographics reflect a diverse community, with 51.1 percent identifying as White, 24.2 percent identifying as Asian, and 19.2 percent identifying as Hispanic or Latino.3 Of individuals aged 5 years old and over, 39.5 percent speak a language other than English at home.4 This diversity contributes to the rich cultural tapestry of the city, fostering a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere. 15.7 percent of the population in Campbell is 65 years old or over.5
There is a balanced mix of renters and homeowners, with 50.5 percent of housing units being owner-occupied.6 The median value of owneroccupied housing is $2.11 million, reflecting Campbell’s desirable location and quality of life.7,8 The median household income in Campbell is $147,128.9 An estimated 68.6 percent of individuals 16 years old and over are in the labor force.10 The poverty rate is relatively low, with 5.3 percent of the population being below the poverty line.11 Additionally, individuals living with disabilities make up 9.5 percent of the population and only

3.4 percent of residents under the age of 65 are without health insurance, indicating a generally well-insured community.12,13
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
9 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Overview of Campbell Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 425 of 776
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau 2023 American Community Survey

50.5% of the
housing in
Campbell is
owner-occupied.

Median
household
income is
$147,128.

Individuals
aged 65+ make
up approximately

15.7% of the
population.

5.3% of the
population
is below the
poverty line.

Individuals living with
disabilities make up
approximately 9.5%
of the population.

Of individuals
aged 5+,
approximately

39.5% speak a
language other
than English
at home.

An estimated

68.6% of
indivudals aged
16+ are in the
labor force.

3.4% of residents
under the age
of 65 are without
health insurance.

Figure 1 Population Demographics
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
10 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Overview of Campbell Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 426 of 776

THE GREENHOUSE GAS EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

14. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2024. The Causes of Climate Change, Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes.

Accessed April 2025.

15. UCAR. 2025. The Greenhouse Effect | Center for Science Education. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/greenhouse-effect. Accessed April 2025.

16. IPCC. 2018. Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/. Accessed April 2025.

17. NASA. 2024. Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Accessed April 2025.

18. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2017. Core questions: An introduction to ice cores. https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/climate-science/ core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/. Accessed January 2025.

19. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2022. The Effects of Climate Change. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/. Accessed April 2025.

20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report Climate Change 2023. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/. Accessed March 2025.

21. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2022. The Effects of Climate Change. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/. Accessed April 2025.

22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report Climate Change 2023. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/. Accessed March 2025.

The sun's energy drives Earth's climate. When solar radiation enters the atmosphere, some is reflected into space, while the rest is absorbed by the Earth's surface, warming it. The warmed surface then emits this heat back towards the atmosphere.14 While some of the heat escapes into space, GHGs trap a portion of it, creating a natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining temperatures that support life on Earth.15 However, rising levels of GHGs trap more heat near the Earth's surface, increasing global average temperatures and driving climate change.16
Human-caused climate change is well understood and widely accepted in the scientific community, with over 97 percent of climate scientists agreeing that the planet is warming and human activities are the primary cause.17 Scientists study historical atmospheric records by extracting ice cores—sometimes from depths over a mile.18 These ice layers contain particles like dust, ash, pollen, trace elements, and sea salts that were present in the atmosphere at different times.18 As the ice compresses over time, it traps tiny bubbles of the atmosphere, including GHGs like carbon dioxide and methane.18 These air pockets fossilize, providing samples of what the atmosphere was like when each layer formed.18 By analyzing them, scientists can measure past concentrations of GHGs.18 Collecting cores from various locations around the world allows researchers to study regional climate variations and distinguish these patterns from global climate trends.18
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), GHG levels are now higher than at any point in the past 400,000 years. This sharp rise is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes.19 As a result, global surface temperatures have increased more rapidly since 1970 than in any other 50-year span in at least the last 2,000 years.20
Rising global temperatures are intensifying wildfires, increasing the frequency of extreme heat events, altering precipitation patterns, affecting water supplies, raising sea levels, and changing ocean temperatures and chemistry.21 Climate change is already impacting both human and natural systems worldwide. Scientists have documented shrinking ice sheets, warming and acidifying oceans, reduced snow cover, and rising global temperatures and sea levels.22 These impacts pose significant risks and have led to widespread adverse effects on nature and people, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change.22 Although climate change is a global issue, the effects are experienced intensely at the local level, impacting various aspects of society such as health outcomes, availability of natural resources, infrastructure durability, emergency response capabilities, tourism, and the frequency and intensity of disasters.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
11 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | The Greenhouse Gas Effect and Climate Change Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 427 of 776

CALIFORNIA REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
In response to a changing climate, California has emerged as a global leader in climate action, setting numerous ambitious targets and strategies for reducing GHG emissions. Key legislation currently driving statewide GHG reductions includes Senate Bill (SB) 32, Assembly Bill (AB) 1279, SB 379, and AB 2684. Detailed descriptions of these regulations can be found in Appendix A – Climate Change Legislation.

State Bill 32 (2016)
SB 32 established a new statewide objective to cut GHG emissions by 40 percent below the levels recorded in 1990 by the year 2030. This goal builds on the 2020 target set by the Global Warming Solutions Act. In 2017, the California Air Resources Board updated the Scoping Plan, outlining a strategy to meet the 2030 emissions reduction target.

Assembly Bill 1279 – California Crisis Act (2022)
AB 1279 establishes bold climate objectives for California, requiring the state to attain carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. It also mandates a reduction in GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below the levels of 1990 by the same deadline. This legislation authorizes the California Air Resources Board to devise and execute methods for capturing and removing carbon dioxide, aiding the state's aim to achieve netnegative emissions after 2045.

State Bill 379 (2015) and Assembly Bill 2684 (2024)
SB 379 and AB 2684 both mandate that cities and counties revise their planning frameworks to tackle climate change-related hazards. SB 379 requires local governments to incorporate climate adaptation and resilience strategies into their general plans, evaluating vulnerabilities to various climate impacts like wildfires and flooding. AB 2684 enhances these requirements by specifically addressing extreme heat, obligating local governments to update their safety elements to mitigate heat-related risks. Additionally, AB 2684 mandates regular reviews to integrate the latest data on extreme heat hazards, bolstering California's efforts to adapt to rising temperatures.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
12 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | California Regulatory Framework Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 428 of 776
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
13 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | California Regulatory Framework Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 429 of 776

2. COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT
Engaging the community and stakeholders was a
critical part of developing the CAAP. Community
feedback gathered during this process laid the
foundation for a more equitable approach with
intentional efforts to include Campbell’s diverse
populations. This input helped shape the plan’s
vision and tailor the goals and strategies to the
community’s needs.

ENGAGEMENT APPROACH
The outreach approach was designed to
be inclusive and offered a diverse means of
participation. The activities planned were
intended to be:
∙ Educational and meaningful
∙ Consistent and transparent
∙ Accessible and engaging
∙ Relevant in focus and purpose
∙ Inclusive, both culturally and geographically
∙ Coordinated
Coordination with community-based organizations (CBOs), the CAC, and other stakeholders helped the City of Campbell reach beyond the traditionally engaged interested parties and gather input from a broader segment of the community. The following engagement goals were developed early in the process to guide the engagement and outreach efforts throughout the CAAP development process:
∙ Conduct a robust engagement and outreach process that meets people where they are, prioritizing equity and input from vulnerable populations, especially youth. ∙ Educate the community on climate hazards and climate change impacts and share how the CAAP will work to improve community resilience and address the underlying issues of climate change impacts and the interconnectedness of benefits. ∙ Engage a broad and diverse audience for the CAAP, reaching as many parts of the community as possible.
∙ Empower community ownership and increase support for future adaptation projects. ∙ Ensure outreach communications distinguish the CAAP purpose and focus, facilitating community buy in from the start while highlighting and achieving state requirements.
∙ Leverage work and outreach events with other City of Campbell departments and key regional and local partners to address resilience issues while avoiding duplicative efforts and reducing community involvement fatigue.
∙ Present data and science-based information with straightforward language and through storytelling techniques to ensure that materials are accessible, clear and engaging, and contribute to the community dialogue and decision-making process. 14 Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 430 of 776

ENGAGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
Key engagement efforts included collaboration
with CBOs, input from the CAC, two community
surveys, a vision boarding activity, community
conversations, and pop-up events throughout the
planning process. These efforts were designed
to ensure that the CAAP reflects the priorities,
concerns, and aspirations of Campbell residents.

Key engagement efforts are summarized in
Figure 2 and the sections below. Events were held
throughout the city to provide local opportunities
for participation, with some events specifically
aimed at engaging potentially vulnerability
populations in Campbell. Figure 3 shows total
survey responses by district, as well as locations
and number of events. In-person engagement
was paired with strong online engagement
through newsletters, email blasts, and social
media posts. Together, these efforts demonstrate
strong community support for the CAAP and help
ensure that the plan is grounded in local values
and needs. For additional information on CAAP
engagement, refer to Appendix B – Community
Engagement Summary.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
15 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Engagement Highlights Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 431 of 776
*Numbers provided are an estimate. Some residents may have been engaged in multiple events and therefore counted twice.

CAMPBELL
Mini-Grants
A total of $14,000 was
distributed to CommunityBased Organizations
through mini grants.

General Public Engagement
13 pop-up events led by City
staff and Community-Based
Organizations were held,
reaching over 5,000 residents.

Interdepartmental
and Agency Meetings
Measures and actions
were discussed at five
interdepartmental meetings
and a public hearing.

Online Engagement
Two online surveys were
circulated, receiving a
total of 833 responses.

Events with CommunityBased Organizations
Three Community-Based
Organizations participated
and utilized provided
engagement toolkits.

Figure 2 Engagement by the Numbers
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
16 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Engagement Highlights Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 432 of 776
Figure 3 CAAP Engagement by Location
Basemap provided by Esri and its licensors © 2025.

Additional data provided by SV 2.0 Project; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC); BCDC Community Vulnerability; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021; City of Campbell, 2025.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
17 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Engagement Highlights Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 433 of 776
Community-Based Organization Support
An important element of the Campbell CAAP
Community Engagement Strategy was
collaborating with and supporting CBOs. The
City of Campbell disbursed a total of $14,000
and provided engagement toolkits to three
CBOs: Acterra, Breathe California, and Silicon
Valley Youth Climate Action (SVYCA). An
estimated 3,700 residents were reached through
engagement led by these CBOs. These groups
completed the following engagement activities
in support of the CAAP:
∙ Youth training on climate action planning
best practices and civic engagement.
∙ Tabling at community events, like the
Campbell Farmer’s Market, to share
information and gather feedback.
∙ Social media outreach.
∙ Mini focus groups to gather more
in-depth feedback.

Community Advisory Committee
The CAC helped to shape the CAAP by providing
feedback throughout the planning process.

The CAC was the first line of community review
throughout the CAAP development process by
providing input on the CAAP primary vision,
helping to identify vulnerable populations,
identifying implementation strategies, and
refining the surveys and other engagement
events to help tailor the approach to the
Campbell community. This committee was
developed to be representative of the greater
Campbell community and included eight
community members. The CAC met four times
via online meetings and once in person.

Online Engagement
The first survey collected information about
the community’s experiences and interests
related to sustainability. The survey received
470 responses in English and Spanish.

These responses were used to develop a
set of preliminary priorities and draft high
impact actions.

The second community survey asked
community members to weigh in on potential
actions for reducing emissions and building
resilience and prioritize strategies. Results
incorporate feedback from 363 English and
Spanish speakers. The majority of survey
respondents own a home, have lived in Campbell
for over 10 years, speak English, and fall into the
40-64 age range. Most respondents have noticed
changes in weather patterns and feel the city
is somewhat prepared in case of a natural
disaster. The community is most concerned
with extreme heat, drought, wildfires, and
impacts to health and basic needs. Respondents
were familiar with climate resilience and
adaptation strategies and have implemented
some practices to make themselves and their
communities more resilient. When asked
about actions the City could take, respondents
strongly supported installing solar and battery
storage in new buildings, offering incentives and
educational resources to help residents switch
from gas to electric appliances, expanding
EV infrastructure, and improving stormwater
systems. High support was also shown for
planting more trees, enhancing walkability
and bikeability, and creating resilience hubs for
extreme weather events. When asked to rank
strategies, the most desired were making new
buildings more resilient, improving existing
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
18 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Engagement Highlights Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 434 of 776
buildings (particularly through electrification), and making neighborhoods more walkable and bike friendly. Increasing EV adoption and conserving water were also ranked highly.

Highlights from the surveys can be found in Figure 4.

Pop-Up Events and Conversations
To engage with the community effectively, thirteen pop-up events were held, reaching over 5,000 community members. At these events, City of Campbell staff or CBO partners hosted a booth to provide information about the CAAP process, solicit feedback, and promote the online surveys. These events were held at Farmers Markets, community festivals, and a Campbell Union High School District Career/ Volunteer Fair. The City of Campbell extends its sincere thanks to Acterra, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action (SVYCA), and Breathe California. These three CBOs played a vital role in connecting with residents and ensuring broad community participation in the planning process.

Two community conversation events were held to dive deeper into the priorities, concerns, and desires from the community. One of these events was a mini focus group hosted by Acterra held with low-income residents, the other a discussion with City of Campbell staff and seniors during a Kiwanis Club meeting. These conversations provided valuable opportunities for community members to share their perspectives in greater depth, allowing the project team to gain meaningful insights that helped shape the CAAP to better reflect local priorities and needs.

Integrating Community Feedback
Community feedback influenced various aspects of the CAAP development, as described below:
y Climate Vulnerability Mapping. Enhanced desktop mapping in Section 3 Climate Vulnerability, based on feedback from the CAC.
y Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. Section 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis includes a Consumptive-Based Inventory, developed based on CAC input.
y Individual Action Roadmaps. Section 7 Personal Climate Action and Resilience Roadmaps added based on input from the CAC and community survey feedback. y Resilience and Mitigation Strategies. Section 6 Climate Resilience and Mitigation Strategies refined based on CAC feedback and community survey input. Look for the ★ icon to identify community-informed measures.

Figure 4 Key Survey Findings
Respondents thought that the most important
climate benefits were improving air and water
quality, followed by improving disaster
preparedness, safety, and resilience.

Respondents showed strong support for improving energy
performance in existing buildings, with 75% favoring incentives to reduce the cost of switching to electric appliances.

Respondents showed strong support for increasing urban tree cover; planting more trees on City-owned propoerty received the highest approval (84%), with additional support for maintaining existing trees (77%) and requiring tree planting in new developments (75%). 73% of respondents have observed changes in
the weather patterns, environment, or climate.
71% of respondents expressed support for
installing EV chargers at public locations like
libraries and parks, and 73% approved of
making it easier for developers to add
charging infrastructure.

Over 80% of respondents favored creating
a year-round Resilience Hub in collaboration
with the County Library District to provide
refuge during extreme heat, poor air quality,
and flooding events.
$
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
19 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Engagement Highlights Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 435 of 776
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
20 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Engagement Highlights Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 436 of 776

CLIMATE HAZARDS

19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf.

Accessed March 2025.

20. County of Santa Clara Office of Sustainability. 2015. Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook. https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/migrated/150519_ExecSum_FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 2025.

21. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023. https://cal-adapt.org/. Accessed March 2025.

According to the IPCC, human-induced climate change is already intensifying weather globally.19 Like many parts of California, Campbell is experiencing some of these impacts and facing a range of climate-related hazards. The primary climate hazards identified in Campbell are extreme heat, air quality degradation due to wildfire, riverine flooding, and drought. An overview of Campbell’s exposure to these hazards can be found in Figure 5 below. These hazards pose risks to residents’ health and well-being, as well as to the community’s infrastructure and natural resources. Climate projections for each hazard are based on Silicon Valley 2.0, which utilizes data from Cal Adapt, as recommended by the California Adaptation Planning Guide.20,21 Led by Santa Clara County’s Office of Sustainability and funded by California’s Strategic Growth Council, Silicon Valley 2.0 is a regional initiative that helps local governments and agencies collaboratively plan for nearand long-term climate challenges.21

3. CLIMATE

VULNERABILITY
The two primary goals of the CAAP are to
reduce Campbell’s GHG emissions and to
prepare to adapt for the impacts of climate
change. Developing effective policies
and adaptation strategies to protect the
community’s health, safety, and economic
resilience requires a clear understanding of
local climate hazards and vulnerabilities. This
section evaluates Campbell’s vulnerability
and capacity to adapt. The methodology is
available in Appendix C – Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment.
21 Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 437 of 776
Figure 5 Climate Hazards in Campbell
Extreme Heat
An extreme heat day is when temperatures are higher than usual, specifically above 96°F for Campbell. An extreme heat event is when there are five or more of these hot days in a row. Santa Clara County has had six extreme heat events in the past, with the worst ones in 2000 and 2006. By the end of the century, Campbell could see a big increase in extreme heat days, going from four to 24 per year if emissions stay high.

Riverine Flooding
Riverine flooding occurs when rivers overflow their banks due to heavy rain. Critical facilities and areas in and around the city are at risk from major flooding events that happen once every 100 or 500 years. Flooding along Los Gatos Creek in Campbell are anticipated to get worse due to more intense and frequent heavy rain events.

Drought
A drought is a long period with little to no rain, leading to water shortages. In Campbell, droughts will become more common because of due to higher temperatures and less rainfall. By mid-century, we can expect extreme dry spells every six to eight years, and by the end of the century, they could happen every three to four years.

Air Quality Degradation
Higher temperatures, increased humidity, decreased airflow, and wildfires can all reduce air quality. Ozone levels rise with higher temperatures and strong sunlight. Climate change will lead to poorer air quality in Santa Clara County, with more extreme heat and wildfire events contributing to higher pollution levels. Even though Campbell is not directly affected by wildfires, wildfires in surrounding areas will impact its air quality.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
22 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Hazards Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 438 of 776

VULNERABLE

COMMUNITY MEMBERS
All members of the community are vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change; however, some
populations face significantly greater vulnerability
due to factors such as geographic exposure,
underlying health conditions, or limited access to
resources. By identifying these at-risk groups, the
City of Campbell can better prioritize interventions,
allocate resources efficiently, and implement
targeted strategies to reduce climate impacts.

The identification of vulnerable populations in
Campbell was informed by multiple regional
and local sources including Silicon Valley 2.0, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Equity
Priority Communities, and the San Francisco
Bay Conservation & Development Commission
community vulnerability map. The Campbell CAAP
CAC reviewed the draft climate vulnerability map
created using these data sources. The committee
confirmed initial findings and identified an
additional climate-vulnerable area along Los
Gatos Creek (Census Tract 5065.02), citing a
high concentration of affordable housing units
and the presence of unhoused individuals in
the area. Figure 6 below illustrates the climatevulnerable census tracts in Campbell used in the CAAP analysis.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
23 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Vulnerable Community Members Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 439 of 776
Figure 6 Climate Vulnerability in Campbell
Basemap provided by Esri and its licensors © 2025.

Additional data provided by SV 2.0 Project; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC); BCDC Community Vulnerability; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021; CPAD, 2023; Discussions with the CAAP Community Advisory Committee. 5066.06
5067.03
5065.01
5021.02
5065.03
5065.02
280
County Park
Campbell City Limits
Climate Vulnerable Areas
Park
Hamilton Ave
S Bascom
Ave
E Campbell Ave
Winchester Blvd
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
24 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Vulnerable Community Members Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 440 of 776

CLIMATE IMPACTS
Climate change will impact various aspects
of the Campbell community including
public health and safety, buildings and
properties, transportation, and ecosystems.

Campbell faces several public health and
safety challenges due to extreme heat, poor
air quality, riverine flooding, and drought.

Vulnerable populations, including seniors,
young children, disadvantaged individuals,
and those with health conditions, are at
higher risk of health issues and financial
burdens. Additionally, these environmental
factors can impact buildings, transportation
infrastructure, and ecosystems, leading to
increased maintenance costs, deteriorating
road conditions, as well as vegetation
and wildlife stress and mortality. Figure
7 summarizes the key climate impacts in
Campbell. For more information on these
impacts, refer to Appendix C – Climate
Change Vulnerability Assessment.

Figure 7 Climate Impacts in Campbell
Extreme Heat
Extreme heat can be dangerous for
everyone, but especially seniors, young
children, disadvantaged individuals, and
individuals with health conditions like
asthma or diabetes. Extreme heat can also
affect the stability and effectiveness of
certain medications, posing additional
health risks for vulnerable populations
during prolonged heat events. Extreme
heat can lead to more frequent use of air
conditioning, raising expenses and
potentially causing power outages,
which can in turn worsen health risks.

Additionally, wildlife and plants may
experience heat stress, affecting
ecosystem health in Campbell.

Riverine Flooding
Riverine flooding caused by extreme
precipitation events is a hazard along the Los
Gatos Creek, particularly affecting Timber Cove
Mobile Home Park, affordable housing units,
residential roads, Highway 17, and bridges.

Flooding can lead to increases in infectious
diseases like Lyme Disease and West Nile Virus,
and cause mold growth in buildings, which can
impact health.

Air Quality Degredation
Air quality declines from regional wildfires,
vehicle and lawn equipment emissions, and
wood burning can cause respiratory illnesses
and worsen existing health conditions,
especially for seniors, young children, and
disadvantaged individuals. People with
existing health conditions are at higher risk of
respiratory and heart problems. Poor air
quality can also harm ecosystems and make
parks and outdoor areas unsafe for the
community.

Drought
Drought can place a significant financial strain
on vulnerable populations, like disadvantaged
individuals, due to higher water rates and
difficulties in accessing clean water.

Additionally, drought affects ecosystems,
leading to stressed vegetation and increased
plant deaths. This can reduce the quality and
benefits of parks and natural spaces like the Los
Gatos Creek Trail, impacting the overall health
and well-being of the community.

CAMPBELL
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
25 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 441 of 776
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
26 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 442 of 776

4. GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

22. The community inventory also includes municipal emissions within each sector, so the municipal and community inventories are not additive.

A key aspect of climate planning is creating a
GHG emissions inventory for specific time periods,
such as a calendar year. This inventory measures
emissions from various sectors (e.g., energy,
transportation) and helps guide the development
of the CAAP by identifying the largest sources of
emissions. As part of the CAAP process, the City
of Campbell completed a 2022 GHG emissions
inventory for the community (2022 Community
Inventory), which includes emissions from
activities within the city's boundaries during 2022.

The City also completed an inventory for municipal
activities (2022 Municipal Inventory), which focuses
specifically on emissions from city-owned facilities
and municipal operations.22
While traditional GHG inventories focus on emissions within a community’s boundaries (where the City of Campbell has direct control), a consumptive-based model considers emissions from the entire lifecycle of activities within the community, including energy use and embedded emissions from goods, services, food, and travel, regardless of where those emissions occur. This CAAP also includes a Consumptive-Based Inventory. While this inventory overlaps the Community Inventory and Municipal Inventory in some areas, it provides a separate understanding emissions contributions. The Consumptive-Based Inventory is especially helpful for community members to understand how their purchases affect global GHG emissions.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
GHG inventories are created by pinpointing the sources and stores of GHGs within a specific geographic area (e.g., Campbell city limits) and gathering activity data for each sector. Different activities release different gases—methane, for example, traps 84-87 times more heat than carbon dioxide over two decades. Once the activity data has been gathered, an emissions factor is applied to convert all GHGs into one unit of measure:
carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2
e). GHG inventories are
often reported in metric
tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MT CO2
e). One
MT CO2
e is about the same
volume as a full-sized
school bus. That is roughly
the same as the emissions
produced by driving a
typical gasoline-powered
car for about 2,500 miles,
roughly the round-trip
between Campbell and
Seattle, Washington.

This is illustrated in
Figure 8. A summary
of the GHG Inventory is
included below, and the
methodology and full
results can be found in
Appendix D – Greenhouse
Gas Analysis Report.

CAMPBELL Campbell ONE METRIC TON

OF CARBON DIOXIDE
EQUIVALENT (MT CO2E)

IS ROUGHLY THE
SAME AS:

The volume of one school bus
OR
The emissions produced by driving
a typical gasoline-powered car for
about 2,500 miles, roughly the
round-trip between Campbell
and Seattle, Washington.

Figure 8 Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
27 Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 443 of 776
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
The 2022 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory provides the current GHG emissions estimates that follow the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Version 1.2 (Community Protocol) and current best practices for GHG accounting. The Community Protocol serves to guide the measurement and reporting of GHG emissions in a standardized way and is used by other jurisdictions to support their own inventory, forecast, and climate action planning efforts. The Community Protocol also includes steps to evaluate the relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy of data used in the GHG inventory. The Community Inventory sectors are defined as follows:
y On-road Transportation includes on-road passenger vehicle miles traveled (VMT), on-road commercial total VMT, on-road bus total VMT, on-road passenger electric vehicle miles traveled (EVMT), on-road commercial EVMT, and on-road bus EVMT.
y Off-road Equipment includes off-road diesel, off-road gasoline, and off-road natural gas vehicles and equipment.
y Building Natural Gas includes residential natural gas, commercial natural gas, and natural gas leakage.23
y Building Electricity includes residential electricity, commercial electricity, direct access electricity, and transmission and distribution (T&D) losses associated with electricity use.24,25
y Solid Waste includes landfill methane and process emissions. y Wastewater includes stationary combustion, process Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions, effluent discharge fugitive N2O, electricity use, electricity use T&D, NG Use, and NG leakage.
y Water includes imported and purchased water.

23. Natural gas leakage refers to the unintended release of methane from pipelines, appliances, or infrastructure. It is included because leaked methane is a potent greenhouse gas, contributing significantly to the overall climate impact of natural gas use in buildings.

24. Direct access electricity refers to electricity purchased directly from energy service providers rather than through a regulated utility. This option is typically available to large commercial or industrial customers and can affect how electricity use is tracked and reported.

25. Transmission and distribution (T&D) losses represent the energy lost as electricity travels through power lines and transformers from generation sources to end users. These losses are included to account for the full environmental impact of electricity consumption.

As illustrated in Figure 9, on-road transportation is the largest contributor of GHG emissions at 57 percent, followed by Building Natural Gas at 28 percent. Off-road Equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws), Building Electricity, and Solid Waste each contribute five percent of the Community GHG emissions, and both Water and Wastewater contribute less than one percent of the Community GHG Emissions.

Figure 9 Community Inventory Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector On-Road
Transportation

56.9%
Water
<0.1%
Wastewater
<1% Solid Waste
5%
Off-road Equipment
5%
Building
Natural Gas
28%
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
28 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 444 of 776
Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
The 2022 Municipal Inventory provides Campbell
with current GHG estimates that follow the Local
Government Operations Protocol and current best
practices for GHG accounting at the municipal level.

The Municipal Inventory sectors are defined as follows:
y Transportation includes on-road vehicle fleet diesel, on-road vehicle fleet gasoline, off-road vehicle fleet
diesel, and off-road vehicle fleet gasoline.
y Facility Natural Gas includes natural gas
combusted in buildings and facilities as well as the
associated natural gas leakage.
y Facility Electricity includes electricity use in
buildings and facilities, electricity for streetlights
and traffic signals, and T&D losses associated with
this electricity.
y Solid Waste includes landfill methane and process
emissions.
y Wastewater includes stationary combustion,
process N2O emissions, effluent discharge fugitive
N2O, electricity use, electricity use T&D, natural gas
use, and natural gas leakage.
y Water includes imported and purchased.

As seen in Figure 10, Transportation is the largest
contributor of Municipal GHG Emissions at 67 percent,
followed by Infrastructure Natural Gas at 23 percent,
Solid Waste at eight percent, and Infrastructure
Electricity at two percent. Both Water and Wastewater
contribute less than one percent of the Municipal GHG
Emissions.

Figure 10 Municipal 2022 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Solid Waste
8%
Facility Natural Gas
23%
Facility Electricity
2%
Transportation
67%
Wastewater
<1%
Water
<1%
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
29 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 445 of 776
Consumptive-Based Inventory
The Campbell Consumptive-Based Inventory considers
the emissions from the entire lifecycle of activities
within the community. This includes not only the energy used in homes, businesses, and vehicles, but also the
emissions from goods and services used in Campbell,
regardless of where they were manufactured. For this
reason, the Consumptive-Based Inventory is larger
and offers a more comprehensive view of Campbell’s
emissions. The Consumptive-Based Inventory was
calculated using the CoolClimate Calculator, developed
by the CoolClimate Network at the University of
California, Berkeley.26 This calculation incorporates
lifecycle analysis data for each product category,
economic data (including household purchases), and
survey results.

The Consumptive-Based Inventory Categories are
as follows:
y Travel takes into account the emissions from the
entire lifecycle of various transportation modes
utilized by Campbell residents, including personal
vehicles, buses, trains, and air travel.
y Home covers emissions from building a household
and the yearly use of electricity, natural gas,
and water.
y Food includes emissions from food production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. Food emissions are classified into categories such as meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables, cereals, and other products.
y Services emissions come from various sources, including household maintenance and repair, healthcare, information and communication, vehicle services, organizations, charities, and more.

26. CoolClimate Calculator. N.d. https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/calculator. Accessed May 2025. y Goods includes emissions from household items, including clothing, furniture, and other goods such as entertainment, personal care, stationery, reading materials, and medical supplies.

Figure 11 provides a summary of the consumptive emissions in Campbell.

Travel accounts for 44 percent of emissions, followed by Home at 28 percent, Food at 12 percent, Services at 8 percent, and Goods at 7 percent.

Figure 11 Average Campbell Household’s Annual Consumptive-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
30 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 446 of 776
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Forecast and Targets
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Forecast
A GHG emissions inventory establishes
a baseline for a specific year, but annual
GHG emissions fluctuate due to factors
like population growth, increases in
jobs, technological advancements,
and policy changes. A GHG emissions
forecast predicts future changes
in GHG emissions by considering
expected community growth and
transformations. By comparing the
GHG emissions forecast with reduction
targets, we can identify the gap
that needs to be addressed through
local GHG reduction policies. This
section provides an estimate of future
emissions for Campbell for the years
2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045 under two
scenarios: business-as-usual (BAU) and legislative-adjusted.

Business-As-Usual Forecast
This scenario projects future GHG emissions based on the continuation of 2022 consumption trends and anticipated changes in population, housing, employment, and transportation within Campbell. It does not account for any GHG reductions from state regulations.

Legislative-Adjusted Forecast
This scenario estimates how current state legislation will reduce GHG emissions compared to the BAU scenario. It reflects the state's efforts to help reduce local GHG emissions to meet state goals. This target considered the more accurate view of future GHG emission trends and highlights Campbell’s responsibility for reducing GHG emissions through local and regional initiatives. This adjusted forecast takes into account legislative programs related to transportation, waste, and energy that are expected to reduce GHG emissions in specific sectors throughout California.

These forecasts are summarized in Figure 12. By 2045, under BAU conditions, total GHG emissions are projected to hit 272,446 MT CO2 e, an increase of
62,799 MT CO2
e from 2022 levels. For comparison, 272,446 MT CO₂e is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions from 58,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. State legislation is expected to reduce emissions by 59,160 annually by 2045, about the same as removing 12,600 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles from the road each year.

Figure 12 Business-As-Usual and Adjusted Forecast Results Summary by Emission Sector (MT CO2e) City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
31 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 447 of 776
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets
Setting targets helps guide the City towards deep decarbonization in line with the scientific consensus. Thoughtful and long-term planning will allow the City to consider lifecycle financial impacts, avoid unnecessary costs, and find cost effective decarbonization strategies. For example, encouraging residents to transition directly from air conditioning to heat pumps, rather than installing AC now and replacing furnaces later, can reduce future financial burdens. While more detailed financial analysis will be needed, setting clear goals helps the City make smarter, more efficient investments over time. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides guidance on health, air quality monitoring, and environmental justice with the goal to protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and develop actions to fight climate change. CARB advises aiming to exceed SB 32's goal of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels and working towards carbon neutrality by 2045. Targets should be provisional until feasible GHG reduction measures are analyzed.

Achieving these targets requires significant changes in energy use, transportation, and living/building practices. Campbell's provisional targets are:
y Reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. y Progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045.

The GHG emissions reduction gap is the difference between the Legislative-Adjusted Forecast and these targets. Table 1 provides a summary of the GHG emission reduction targets in mass emissions, which refers to the total quantity of GHGs released into the atmosphere from various sources, expressed in MT CO2
e. As demonstrated in Figure 13,
Campbell will need to reduce 54,732 MT CO2
e by 2030, and 213,285 MT CO2e
by 2045 in order to meet State targets. To contextualize these reductions, 54,732 MT CO2
e is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions from 11,800 gasoline-powered cars, and 213,285 MT CO2
e is comparable to the annual
emissions from 46,000 gasoline-powered cars.

Table 1 GHG Emissions Reduction Targets and Gap Analysis Measured in MT CO2 e
Metric 2030 2035 2040 2045
Adjusted Forecast (State Legislation) 205,248 204,124 206,951 213,285 SB 32 Mass Emissions Pathway 150,516 100,344 50,172 0
Remaining Emissions Gap 54,732 103,780 156,779 213,285
Notes: MT CO2
e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 The SB 32 Mass Emissions Pathway is calculated by reducing 1990 mass emissions by 40% in 2030 and to 0 in 2045. This pathway is consistent with both SB 32 and a trajectory set forth to achieve AB 1279.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
32 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 448 of 776
Figure 13 GHG Emissions Forecast and Provisional Target Pathways (Mass Emissions) City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
33 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 449 of 776
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
34 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 450 of 776
Incremental Costs
When discussing costs, it is important to specify the difference between how much a strategy costs overall and what the incremental or marginal cost is. The incremental or marginal cost is the difference in cost between the new action and the old or standard action. For example, purchasing a new electric vehicle could cost $30,000, which could be considered a high cost. However, the marginal cost of purchasing an electric vehicle versus purchasing a new internal combustion vehicle may be only a few thousand dollars or less after rebates and incentives. This incremental cost can then be further offset by considering the lifecycle cost savings including lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs. It is important to consider what the incremental/marginal costs are for each strategy by keeping in mind what the alternative costs are. In many cases, the difference is negligible.

Financing and Funding Availability
One of the major financial tools available to make large investments in infrastructure, vehicles, or buildings is financing. Financing allows for the ability to leverage the time

5. COST

EFFECTIVENESS
The costs of climate action and adaptation
plans can vary widely depending on the specific
measures taken, how they are implemented,
and the funding strategies used. For example,
expenses can range from high-cost projects
like building bike lanes to more affordable, but
labor-intensive, efforts like City of Campbell staff
conducting outreach and educational campaigns.

Cost Considerations
For each strategy, the cost description focuses
on both internal costs (municipal-focused) and
external costs (community-focused) and provides
insight into the variability of these costs, including
the primary variables that determine cost
effectiveness. These considerations include:

Upfront versus Lifecycle Costs
When discussing how much a strategy or action
costs, it's important to differentiate between
the upfront costs versus the lifecycle costs of
purchasing, operating, maintaining, and ultimately
disposing of an item. For example, LED lightbulbs
may be more expensive upfront compared to an
incandescent bulb, but their lifecycle costs are
lower, providing a significant return on investment.
35 Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 451 of 776
value of money and put future expected money flows to
use today. For example, a solar array may cost $20,000
and result in an energy bill that is $200 less per month than before installation. The cost of the solar array could be considered high. However, a solar array can also be
financed with a loan, which might require a $150 monthly payment, resulting in a net monthly savings of $50. Under this scenario the solar array does not carry a high cost, rather it provides overall savings. The ability to finance can make seemingly high-cost investments low to no cost over time, though the City will need to balance the time and resources it takes to set up and service these loans over time and prioritize the most impactful strategies.

Understanding the ranges of cost savings and revenue
streams, and how those costs and revenues accrue
over time into a payback or return on investment
(ROI) calculation, are prudent factors to structuring
partnerships, engaging interested parties, and making
optimal financial decisions. For example, energy
efficiency retrofits can generate cost savings of more
than 30 percent for 15 to 20 years. If external partners are involved, such as with an energy savings performance
contract, cities may not need to provide any upfront
capital, but the project’s cost savings would accrue with a private third party and be lost by the City. For example, an electrification project to convert a city facility to an all-electric system may cost about $5 million but reduce long-term maintenance costs and significantly expand energy conservation efforts.

Projects like this can offer financial and environmental returns over time.

Cities must consider the estimated ROI, how project costs and revenues balance out over the useful life of the project, and whether they are willing to forego long-term cost savings or revenue generation capacity by partnering with a private third party.

In addition, cities are often able to fund significant infrastructure projects with grants or other funding sources. Large infrastructure projects like bike lanes or pedestrian bridges can be funded through state and federal grant monies. While matching funds or other costs can be incurred by the city, these funding strategies can significantly reduce the upfront costs of larger infrastructure projects.

What Are the Costs?
The CAAP strategies have been selected to minimize upfront costs and maximize long-term benefits including cost savings. Many measures aimed at reducing GHGs not only cut down on emissions but also offer long-term cost savings for both the City of Campbell and the community throughout the lifespan of the CAAP. Although some initiatives require higher initial investments, they often result in operational efficiencies, reduced energy consumption, and avoidance of future expenses. The primary strategies and their associated monetary costs and benefits are summarized here.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
36 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 452 of 776
Adaptation
Once the CAAP is adopted, it will align with California’s goals for reducing GHG emissions and funding strategies, thereby positioning Campbell to be competitive for state grant
funds. California’s recently passed Proposition 4 introduces a $10 billion climate bond dedicated to financing projects related to water, wildfire prevention, green energy, and other climate initiatives. Additionally, the CAAP emphasizes proactive, long-term investments, encouraging the City
of Campbell and community to spend a bit more now to
achieve greater savings in the future. For instance, investing in climate smart strategies like tree planting, solar panel installation, and battery back-up requires initial expenditures today to prepare Campbell for extreme heat events and
rising energy demands, which would otherwise necessitate costly emergency responses or infrastructure upgrades.

The World Resources Institute estimates a benefit cost ratio between 2:1 and 10:1 for such investments, meaning that for every dollar spent on resilience, $2 to $10 in benefits could be seen. The financial and social advantages of the CAAP, along with additional co-benefits to public health and the direct impact on reducing GHG emissions, mean that the benefits of CAAP implementation may outweigh the costs.

Building Electrification
The CAAP measures emphasize a transition to electric appliances when existing equipment is due for replacement or reaches the end of its useful life, as well as supporting the Campbell community to voluntarily phase out home appliances powered by natural gas. This approach not only minimizes waste and avoids additional manufacturing emissions but also allows for cost savings.

Beginning January 1, 2027, the Bay Area Air District will enforce new regulations targeting gas appliances, specifically water heaters and furnaces.27 These rules mandate that newly installed appliances must

27. https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/Rules-and-Compliance/Rule-Development/Building-Appliances meet zero-emission standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx). Given that these requirements will be implemented regardless of Campbell’s actions, it is crucial for the City of Campbell to proactively educate and prepare the community for this transition. By informing residents about the upcoming changes and encouraging early adoption of compliant appliances, as described in the paragraph above, Campbell can help mitigate potential disruptions and financial burdens associated with retrofitting existing systems.

Although the total upfront cost of a heat pump water heater is higher than that of a gas equivalent, the incremental costs, or the difference in cost between the two, are only slightly higher. These incremental costs City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
37 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 453 of 776
can be offset by leveraging available federal, state, and regional incentives, ultimately making the installation of a heat pump water heater more affordable than a gas water heater. Market data shows a steady increase in consumer adoption of heat pump technologies, driven by improved affordability and availability. In California, the market share for heat pump space heaters has grown from five percent in 2009 to 55 percent in 2023, while heat pump water heaters increased from six percent to 16 percent over the same period.28,29 By prioritizing such time-of-replacement measures, Campbell could position itself for sustainable growth, aligning financial savings with environmental resilience.

Electric Vehicles and Mobility
While upfront electric vehicle costs are generally higher than their internal combustion engine counterparts, these costs are dropping. Low-cost passenger EVs are increasingly available, and their costs are being further offset with State incentives for both vehicles and charging infrastructure. Over the long term, however, EVs can generate substantial savings. Research conducted by MIT found that EVs offer the lowest lifecycle costs while also providing the lowest GHG emissions.30 Furthermore, the health benefits to a community can be significant.

A study recently found that for every additional 20 EVs per 1,000 people there was a 3.2 percent drop in the rate of asthma-related emergency visits.31 Expanding alternative mobility can be some of the highest cost strategies undertaken in the CAAP. While building new infrastructure in California can be expensive and time consuming, the benefits can also be significant. A study completed by the National Institute of Health found that for every $1 invested in trails and bike infrastructure, the community received $2.90 in direct medical benefits. Additional savings can be found through increased economic activity.

Studies have found that reducing travel lanes and increasing bike and pedestrian safety increased retail employment by 4 percent compared to the control area.32

28. California Energy Commission. 2023. Top Global Building Appliance Manufacturers and Distributors Commit to Help California Achieve Six Million Heat Pump Goal. https://www.energy. ca.gov/news/2023-10/top-global-building-appliance-manufacturers-and-distributors-commit-help#:~:text=The%202022%20Energy%20Code%20established%20heat%20pumps%20 as,and%2016%20percent%20for%20heat%20pump%20water%20heaters. Accessed May 2025.

29. Opinion Dynamics. 2022. California Heat Pump Residential Market Characterization and Baseline Study. https://pda.energydataweb.com/#!/documents/2625/view. Accessed May 2025.

30. https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore

31. https://keck.usc.edu/news/study-links-adoption-of-electric-vehicles-with-less-air-pollution-and-improved-health/

32. https://trec.pdx.edu/news/study-finds-bike-lanes-can-provide-positive-economic-impact-cities City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
38 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 454 of 776
Urban Ecosystems
Tree planting and composting are two of the
most cost-effective and impactful strategies for
enhancing urban ecosystems and building climate
resilience. While these strategies require upfront
investment, their long-term environmental, health,
and economic benefits can far outweigh the
initial costs.

Tree planting costs can vary depending on species,
size, and location, but estimates typically range
from $300 to $400 per tree, including planting
and initial maintenance.33 Ongoing care—such
as watering, pruning, and pest management—
adds to the cost, but the return on investment is
substantial. According to the U.S. Forest Service’s
i-Tree analysis, every dollar invested in urban
forestry can yield up to $5.82 in benefits, including
reduced energy use, improved air quality,
stormwater management, and increased property
values.34 Tree-lined streets have been shown to
increase retail activity and improve mental health
outcomes. Trees also play a critical role in reducing
the urban heat island effect, which is especially
important as extreme heat events become more
frequent.

Composting programs also require initial setup
costs, such as purchasing bins, establishing
collection systems, and developing public education campaigns. However, these costs are often offset by reduced landfill tipping fees, lower GHG emissions, and improved soil health. Composting also supports local agriculture and tree health by returning nutrients to the soil, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.

33. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). N.d. Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program Guidelines. Accessed June 2025 at Available at:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/grants/urban-and-community-forestry-grants.

34.U.S. Forest Service. N.d. i-Tree Tools. Accessed June 2025 at https://www.itreetools.org.

By continuing to invest in tree planting and composting, Campbell can build a greener, more resilient community while advancing its GHG reduction goals. These strategies are not only cost-effective, but they are also foundational to a thriving urban ecosystem.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
39 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 455 of 776
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Predicting the exact financial impact of climate change on the world— and specifically on the City of Campbell and its community—is a complex challenge. Despite the difficulties in fully quantifying the costs of mitigation and adaptation, economists and scientists globally agree: the costs of inaction are already substantial and will continue to rise the longer we delay action.

Current figures are already alarming. Globally, it is estimated that without immediate action, catastrophic or extreme climate impacts are likely by 2050, with economic losses potentially reaching 19 percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 35 Climate change could cause up to $38 trillion in global financial damage each year by 2050. To put this into perspective: saving $1 billion at a rate of $100 per day would take over 27,000 years—saving one trillion would take more than 2.7 million years.

In the United States alone, the Global Change Research Program estimates that extreme weather events cost the country approximately $150 billion annually, or over $17 million per hour. These figures do not include loss of life, healthcare expenses, or damages to ecosystem services.

In October 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released a report titled The Impact of Climate Change on American Household Finances, revealing that 13 percent of Americans experienced economic hardship due to disasters or severe weather events in the previous year. Additionally, recent analyses indicate that for every 1°C increase in global temperatures, there could be a 12 percent loss in global GDP, with the most severe losses occurring within just six years of the temperature rise.

The consequences are not theoretical. In California, the recent Los Angeles fires are expected to result in $250 billion in damage. Even a modest 1 percent reduction in the likelihood of such an event could save Californians $2.5 billion.

35. Institute and Faculty of Actuaries & University of Exeter. (2025). Planetary Solvency – Finding Our Balance with Nature: Global Risk Management for Human Prosperity. Accessed June 2025 at: https://actuaries.org.uk/news/ ifoa-research-included-in-key-climate-risk-reports-for-global-finance-ministers/ City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
40 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 456 of 776
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
41 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 457 of 776
This section outlines strategies, measures, and specific actions the City of Campbell could take to achieve significant emissions reductions and boost resilience, helping Campbell reach its climate goals. While the plan is focused on how the City of Campbell could drive change in each system, the community's role is essential. A detailed guide for households and businesses is available in the Personal Climate Action and Resilience Roadmaps.

Through these collaborative efforts and ongoing commitment, a foundation for resilience will be established, making Campbell a sustainable and thriving community for everyone.

The measures and actions highlighted in the following sections are the highest priority actions in the CAAP. For the full list of measures and action and implementation plan, refer to Appendix E – Measures, Actions, and Implementation Plan.

Strategy Framework
The climate action and adaptation strategies in this CAAP offer a comprehensive implementation path. Any policy proposals in this plan would require separate City Council consideration through a formal public hearing process, including opportunities for public outreach and community input. Similarly, any new programs or initiatives would need to be evaluated and approved through the City’s annual workplan development and budgeting process. As seen in Figure 14, below, measures and supporting actions are organized into four systems that, if implemented together, would help Campbell achieve its climate goals. The CAAP outlines actionable and achievable GHG emissions reduction policies aimed at meeting Campbell's 2030 target (40 percent below 1990 levels) and making significant progress towards the 2045 carbon neutrality goal. Effective climate action and adaptation planning must be grounded in principles that ensure long-term success. Six foundational Climate Policy Pillars guides Campbell’s approach: feasibility, education, equity, funding, partnerships, and structural change. These pillars served as a framework throughout the development of climate measures, helping to evaluate each initiative through a consistent and values-driven lens. Each action in the plan is aligned with one or more of these pillars, as detailed in Appendix E – Measures, Actions, and Implementation Plan.

Additionally, the strategies address climate vulnerabilities in Campbell and include adaptation measures and supporting actions to enhance the City of Campbell's and the Campbell community's resilience to climate impacts. The CAAP will be updated over time, with additional actions added as needed to advance the established measures.

These regular updates will ensure the CAAP remains effective in tackling new challenges, leveraging opportunities for innovation, and meeting updated local, state, or federal climate goals. Periodic updates also allow for the integration of lessons learned from past actions, enabling the adoption of more impactful and equitable strategies to further progress on the established measures.

6. CLIMATE

RESILIENCE AND

MITIGATION

STRATEGIES
Building a resilient and decarbonized community
requires rethinking the City's systems to
better serve the community. Preparing for
extreme weather events will require leadership
from Campbell's municipal operations and
community-wide actions. By reducing GHG
emissions, promoting sustainable practices,
and enhancing resilience to climate hazards,
the quality of life can be protected now and for
future generations. Every resident, business, and
organization has a crucial role in this collective
effort to safeguard the environment, prioritize
equity, and adapt Campbell to the challenges of
climate change.
42 Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 458 of 776
In total, the measures will reduce 57,677 MT CO2
e
by 2030 and 212,086 MT CO2
e by 2045. This is
roughly equivalent to removing 12,400 gasolinepowered cars from the road for one year by 2030 and taking 45,600 cars off the road for one year
by 2045. For further detail on the substantial
evidence and calculation methods of the GHG
emissions reduction, refer to Appendix F – Measure
Substantial Evidence Report. While all measures
benefit the community, they do not all result in
equal GHG emissions reductions. Some measures
are considered "supportive" and do not directly
lower emissions on their own; however, by aiding
the overall strategy, they may collectively enhance
the total emissions reductions achieved.

Campbell is already seeing the impacts of
climate change, and each measure prepares
the community for future challenges. Areas for
increased focus on resilience include:
y Extreme Heat
y Poor Air Quality
y Drought
y Riverine Flooding
The measures and actions have been developed
to be implemented over time to reduce emissions
and increase the City’s resilience in a thoughtful,
achievable, and stepwise process. Therefore, the
actions are anticipated to be completed in phases,
as outlined below:
y Phase 1: 2026 – 2027
y Phase 2: 2028 – 2030
y Phase 3: 2031 – 2033
y Ongoing
Figure 14 Systems Approach
Extreme
Heat
Poor Air
Quality
Drought Riverine
Flooding

A RESILIENT CAMPBELL
Building System Transportation System
Urban Ecosystems &
Sustainable Foods
Social &
Governance System
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
43 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 459 of 776
Table 2 shows each of the CAAP measures alongside their GHG reduction potential and resilience benefit.

Table 2 Campbell CAAP Measures
Measure ID Measure Text 2030 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
2045 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
Resilience Benefit
Urban Eco-Systems and Sustainable Foods
UE-1★ Support Valley Water and the County of Santa Clara in the implementation of nature-based solutions along the Los Gatos Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek to mitigate flooding and support the riparian ecosystem, while recognizing space constraints in urban areas and opportunities to increase setbacks where feasible.

Supportive Supportive
UE-2★★
Community
Priority Measure
Increase tree canopy to at least 17.1% from 17.0% by 2030 and 17.4% by 2045, with a focus on communities most vulnerable to extreme heat. 30 327
UE-3★ Achieve an 80% diversion of organic material by 2030 and reach 100% diversion by 2045 in compliance with SB 1383 (2016).
9,191 13,302 Not Applicable
UE-4 Reduce per capita water use by 10% by 2030 and 20% by 2045 through enhanced water conservation actions, using the 2022 baseline of 96 gallons per person per day.

Supportive Supportive
UE-5 Improve water quality and increase climate resilience to climate hazards by upgrading stormwater facilities, in compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requirements.

Supportive Supportive
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
44 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 460 of 776
Measure ID Measure Text 2030 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
2045 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
Resilience Benefit
UE-6 Demonstrate municipal leadership by increasing landfill diversion rates, adopting climate-smart food and purchasing practices, and improving water efficiency. These efforts should be part of a comprehensive update to City purchasing policies, which could include standards for recycled content in office supplies (e.g., minimum recycled content in paper products), prioritization of low-carbon vendors, and integration of sustainability criteria into procurement decisions.

Supportive Supportive
Social and Governance System
SG-1★★ Support the development of a Resilience Hub to offer refuge to vulnerable populations from extreme heat conditions, poor air quality, and flooding, while also serving as community resource center year-round.

Supportive Supportive
SG-2 Enhance the Campbell community’s awareness of climate hazards by educating residents and staff about existing emergency alert services (e.g., AlertSCC) and how to sign up for them. Provide staff with climate change communication training and deliver health alert and evacuation messages in English and Spanish, and in multiple forms (e.g., online, brochure, radio). All messaging protocols and hazard mitigation measures should align with Campbell’s Emergency Operations Plan and its annexes, which serve as the primary reference for emergency communications and procedures.

Supportive Supportive
SG-3★ Increase community resilience through internal capacity building, ongoing collaboration with community-based organizations, and continued community outreach and implementation related to the CAAP.

Supportive Supportive
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
45 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 461 of 776
Measure ID Measure Text 2030 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
2045 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
Resilience Benefit
Building System
BLD-1 Partner with Silicon Valley Clean Energy to provide carbon-free and renewable electricity to 100% of the community by 2030. 8,301 01
BLD-2★ Require new buildings to be safe, decarbonized, and resilient by 2025. 3,672 14,468 BLD-3★★ Support the voluntary retrofitting of existing residential buildings to reduce natural gas usage by 18% and non-residential buildings to reduce natural gas usage by 15% by 2030 through the use of education and incentives. Work towards the goal of making all existing buildings zero-carbon and resilient to extreme heat and poor air quality by 2045.
10,003 60,682
BLD-4 Work to decarbonize and make municipal buildings resilient to climate impacts by 2033, in particular extreme heat and poor air quality.

Supportive2 Supportive
Transportation System
TR-1★★ Decrease dependence on single-occupancy vehicles by incentivizing high-density transit-oriented development, increasing zoning diversity, and promoting vibrant pedestrian-friendly zones.

Collaboration with the business community, ensuring that changes support local economic vitality and reflect shared goals for accessibility, mobility, and livability.

Supportive Supportive
TR-2 Improve the transit system to be more convenient, accessible, and resilient to climate impacts, in order to increase mode share to 10% by 2030 and 15% by 2045.
4,248 7,219
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
46 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 462 of 776
Measure ID Measure Text 2030 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
2045 GHG
Emissions Reduction
Potential (MT CO2e)
Resilience Benefit
TR-3★ Boost the adoption of zero-emission passenger vehicles to 28% by 2030 and 100% by 2045 and commercial vehicles to 25% by 2030 and 100% by 2045.
18,819 99,558 Not Applicable
TR-4 Increase the percentage of people using active transportation (walking and biking) to 2.5% by 2030 and 10% in 2045 by enhancing the safety and availability of the transportation system to support walking and biking.
263 1,923 Not Applicable
TR-5 Transition to 15% zero-emission municipal fleet by 2030 and 100% by 2040, consistent with the Fleet Electrification Plan.

Supportive2 Supportive
TR-6 Decarbonize 25% of off-road equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws) operations by 2030 and 100% by 2045. 3,150 14,607
Note:
★: High community support based on feedback
★★: Highest community support based on feedback
Notes: MT CO2
e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Values may not add up to totals due to rounding. 1 SB 100 (2018) requires the State’s electricity sector to achieve 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon electricity by 2045. By that time, the electricity GHG emission factor will be 0 MT CO2
e per kilowatt-hour (kWh), resulting in no additional reductions beyond the State-mandated baseline. 2 Emissions reductions are not shown for municipal measures because emissions from municipal operations are already captured within the applicable community‑wide sector quantification. To avoid double counting, municipal actions are reported as supportive.

Extreme
Heat
Poor Air
Quality
Drought Riverine
Flooding
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
47 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Climate Impacts Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 463 of 776

URBAN ECO-SYSTEMS AND SUSTAINABLE FOODS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Benefits
Campbell’s parks and green spaces are not only sources of enjoyment for the community but also powerful mechanisms for capturing and storing carbon. The trees, plants, and soil throughout Campbell can pull out and sequester carbon dioxide from the air. By enhancing carbon sequestration through planting more trees and applying compost to soils, Campbell can increase sequestration levels to combat climate change. Additionally, Campbell will create a circular economy around organics like yard waste and food scraps by keeping them out of landfills, where they generate methane (a potent GHG), and instead generate compost to amend soil and increase carbon sequestration.

Resilience Benefits
Enhancing the urban ecosystem with climate appropriate trees and plants also provides significant resilience benefits. Measures and actions within this system will expand the urban forest, conserve and reuse water, and enhance natural ecosystems. Expanding Campbell’s tree canopy will provide shade, reduce temperatures, and improve air quality. Additionally, applying compost to soil will improve soil health by increasing nutrient availability and supporting microbial life, as well as increasing water retention. Maintaining open spaces will support biodiversity and provide recreational areas for the community.

California’s SB 1383 plays a pivotal role in increased statewide composting efforts. This legislation mandates that organic waste, including food scraps and yard trimmings, must be diverted from landfills by residential and commercial generators. By doing so, SB 1383 aims to reduce GHG emissions and promote the development of composting infrastructure.

In addition to state regulations, research has shown that green space has significant positive impacts on mental and physical health and wellbeing, highlighting the importance of parks, community gardens, and recreational areas that are accessible to all.

City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
48 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Urban Eco-Systems and Sustainable Foods Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 464 of 776
Community Priority Action
Informed by extensive community input gathered through CAAP Survey #2 and ongoing discussions, the CAC has identified the following priority action:

UE-2.1 Prioritize planting 40 trees annually in climate vulnerable areas, as defined in Campbell’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, with the lowest tree equity score, along safe routes to school, and near bus stops. Partner with a community-based organization to host a community planting event to promote community building and the Campell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

This action addresses the increasing threat of extreme heat events driven by climate change by enhancing urban canopy cover, which provides cooling and sequesters carbon dioxide. It also advances environmental equity by focusing resources on the neighborhoods most in need. Additionally, it strengthens the City of Campbell’s collaboration with CBOs, reinforcing shared ownership of climate resilience and CAAP implementation.

This initiative is designated as a high-priority action and will be implemented during the early stages of CAAP implementation, with funding and resource needs to be incorporated into the City’s annual budgeting process.

Metrics
GHG Reduction: 9,221 MT CO2e by 2030; 13,629 MT CO2e by 2045.

This is roughly equivalent to removing 2,000 gasoline-powered cars from the road for one year by 2030 and taking 2,900 cars off the road for one year by 2045.

Resilience Focus:

Extreme
Heat
Poor Air
Quality
Drought Riverine
Flooding
Air
ty
Drought Riverine
Flooding
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
49 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Urban Eco-Systems and Sustainable Foods Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 465 of 776
Action Climate Hazard Feedback from
Community/CAC
Phase
★UE-1 Support Valley Water and the County of Santa Clara in the implementation of nature-based solutions along the Los Gatos Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek to mitigate flooding and support the riparian ecosystem, while recognizing space constraints in urban areas and opportunities to increase setbacks where feasible.

UE-1.1 Support Valley Water in conducting any feasibility studies to address existing and potential future flood damage and/or erosion in high-risk areas. If there are flood-related issues to storm drains, the City will investigate and coordinate with Valley Water on any conditions that may intersect with creek bank stability within their jurisdiction. Incorporate native, appropriate, and sustainable plants and landscaping to strengthen flood protection while offering accessible recreational and educational opportunities for the community.

Consider the implementation of nature-based solutions, including setback levees, water quality improvements, and strategic retreat of vulnerable city assets, ensuring long-term resilience.

CAC Feedback
Meeting
#2, CBO
Engagement
Phase 1
UE-1.2 Pursue state or federal funding to adopt a phased, adaptive approach to flood risk management with clear triggers and thresholds for action.

In partnership with Valley Water, leveraging their existing monitoring efforts, implement a system to track extreme weather trends, such as 100-year storms, guiding proactive planning and community outreach in coordination with Campbell Police Department.

Not Applicable Phase 2
UE-1.3 Use the outcomes from the monitoring program (Action UE-1.2) to guide adaptive management, inform strategic relocation efforts, and keep the community informed about risks and adaptation strategies.

In partnership with Valley Water, and while exploring Valley Water grant opportunities, prioritize investments in resilient infrastructure or relocate assets that are repeatedly damaged and in climate vulnerable areas, as defined in Campbell's Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, to ensure long-term resilience and alignment with adaptive climate strategies.

Not Applicable Not Applicable Phase 2+ Ongoing
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
50 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Urban Eco-Systems and Sustainable Foods Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 466 of 776
Action Climate Hazard Feedback from
Community/CAC
Phase
UE-1.4 Support Valley Water in exploring upgrades to creek-side trails and bike paths as flood-resilient infrastructure, allowing them to function also as elevated flood barriers, where feasible. Incorporate native, climate appropriate, and sustainable plants and landscaping for flood protection and partner with community-based organizations to provide educational opportunities along trails. In coordination with Valley Water and consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, consider implementing nature-based solution restoration techniques — such as beaver dam analogs, live vegetation, and brush packing — where space, land rights, and flood flow capacity allow, to help slow stormwater and reduce runoff impacts near creek-adjacent areas.

CBO
Engagement
Phase 3
★★UE-2 Increase tree canopy from 17.0% to at least 17.1% by 2030 and 17.4% by 2045, with a focus on communities most vulnerable to extreme heat.

UE-2.1 –
Community
Priority Action
Prioritize planting 40 trees annually in climate vulnerable areas, as defined in Campbell’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, with the lowest tree equity score, along safe routes to school, and near bus stops. Partner with a community-based organization to host a community planting event to promote community building and the Campell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

CAC Feedback
Meeting #2
and #4, CBO
Engagement
Phase 1+ Ongoing
UE-2.2 Conduct a comprehensive analysis on success rates for trees planted over the past five years (planted 2019 – 2024). This analysis will consider factors such as species selection, soil conditions, and maintenance practices to determine the survival rate. The findings will inform future tree planting initiatives and promote sustainable urban forestry practices.

Not Applicable Phase 2
UE-2.3 Evaluate and update the “Official Street Tree List” for canopy potential and future climate conditions.

Not Applicable Phase 2
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
51 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Urban Eco-Systems and Sustainable Foods Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 467 of 776
Action Climate Hazard Feedback from
Community/CAC
Phase
UE-2.4 Pursue and obtain grant funding for tree planting and maintenance.

Identify and apply for Federal and State grants annually to meet the tree planting goal identified in Action UE-1.1 (e.g., USDA, California ReLeaf, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, Cal Fire’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, and the California Natural Resources Agency’s Urban Greening Program). Regularly monitor trees for potential risk due to tree branches falling.

Not Applicable Phase 2+ Ongoing
UE-2.5 Update and regularly maintain the City’s website to include a webpage for trees that provides information such as best practices for watering and fertilizing trees, guidelines for pruning and maintenance, information on local tree species, and resources for reporting tree damage or disease. Additionally, provide information on the benefits of a healthy tree canopy, including improved air quality, reduced urban heat island effects, and increased property values.

Not Applicable Phase 1+ Ongoing
UE-2.6 Pursue partnership with schools in the city to develop a plan to reduce the heat islands in and around schools, including along walking routes, with a focus on removing impervious surfaces, planting trees, and increasing shade structures. Prioritize schools located in climate vulnerable areas, as defined in Campbell’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.

CBO
Engagement
Phase 2+ Ongoing
City of Campbell - Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
52 City of Campbell Climate Action and Adaptation Plan | Urban Eco-Systems and Sustainable Foods Item 10.1
Monday, August 03, 2026 468 of 776
Action Climate Hazard Feedback from
Community/CAC
Phase
UE-2.7 Update the City’s tree removal policy to require the replacement of removed trees with species that are resilient to Campbell’s projected future climate conditions, including increased heat, drought, and extreme weather. For trees removed without a permit, apply a replacement penalty requiring new trees to be planted at a minimum of two times the standard replacement ratio for unlawfully removed trees from developed single-family residential properties, and four times the standard replacement ratio for all other properties. As part of this update, establish a fund, supported by permit fees or other sources, to subsidize the cost of replacement trees for low-income residents located in climate vulnerable areas, as defined in Campbell’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.

CAC Feedback Phase 2+ Ongoing
UE-2.8 Develop a community tree planting outreach and engagement initiative that combines incentives, education, and engagement to expand Campbell’s urban canopy. The program will share information on financial assistance or free trees to low-income residents (e.g., existing programs led by community-based organizations such as Our City Forest), prioritize climate-resilient species, and include educational workshops on tree care, planting techniques, and the environmental benefits of urban forestry. The City will partner with schools, neighborhood groups, and community-based organizations to host planting events and promote stewardship, with a focus on areas with low tree cover and high heat vulnerability.