Campbell 2009 Housing Element Tech Report - FINALAppendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-1
APPENDIX A1
Housing Element Technical Report,
CITY OF CAMPBELL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................A1-3
2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT .....................................................................A1-4
A. Demographic Profile ................................................................................................. A1-4
B. Household Characteristics ........................................................................................ A1-9
C. Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................. A1-18
D. Regional Housing Needs ........................................................................................... A1-28
3. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ...............................................................................A1-32
A. Market Constraints ................................................................................................... A1-32
B. Governmental Constraints ....................................................................................... A1-34
C. Environmental Constraints ....................................................................................... A1-54
4. HOUSING ACCOMPLISHMENTS .....................................................................A1-56
A. Evaluation of Accomplishments under Adopted Housing Element ......................... A1-56
A1-2 Campbell General Plan
CITY OF CAMPBELL
HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chart Page
2-1 Regional Population Growth Trends ........................................................................ A1-4
2-2 Age Distribution ....................................................................................................... A1-5
2-3 Racial and Ethnic Composition ................................................................................ A1-6
2-4 Educational Level……………………………………………………………… ................................... A1-7
2-5 Employment Profile ................................................................................................. A1-7
2-6 Major Employers in Campbell .................................................................................. A1-8
2-7 Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio 2005 .................................................................. A1-8
2-8 Household Characteristics ....................................................................................... A1-9
2-9 State Income Categories .......................................................................................... A1-10
2-10 Mean Household Income 2005 ................................................................................ A1-10
2-11 Household Income Levels ........................................................................................ A1-11
2-12 Income by Owner / Renter Tenure .......................................................................... A1-11
2-13 Special Needs Groups .............................................................................................. A1-12
2-14 Homeless Facilities/Providers in Nearby Areas ....................................................... A1-16
2-15 Regional Housing Growth Trends ............................................................................ A1-18
2-16 Housing Type............................................................................................................ A1-19
2-17 Housing Tenure ........................................................................................................ A1-19
2-18 Year Housing Built .................................................................................................... A1-20
2-19 Home and Condominium Sales Prices, October 2007-September 2008 ................. A1-21
2-20 Survey of Vacant Rental Units, October 2008 ......................................................... A1-22
2-21 2008 Maximum Affordable Housing Cost, Santa Clara County ............................... A1-23
2-22 2008 Maximum Affordable Rents, Santa Clara County ........................................... A1-24
2-23 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing ...................................................................... A1-25
2-24 Rental Subsidies Required ....................................................................................... A1-27
2-25 Overcrowded Households 2000............................................................................... A1-29
2-26 Housing Overpayment ............................................................................................. A1-29
2-27 Severe Housing Cost Burden by Type and Tenure ................................................... A1-30
2-28 Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2007-2014 ....................................................... A1-31
3-1 Home Purchase and Improvement Loans 2007 ....................................................... A1-33
3-2 Land Use Categories Permitting Residential Use ..................................................... A1-34
3-3 Residential Development Standards ........................................................................ A1-35
3-4 Parking Requirements .............................................................................................. A1-36
3-5 Housing Types Permitted by Zone ........................................................................... A1-40
3-6 Average Time Frames for Development Applications ............................................. A1-50
3-7 Planning and Development Fees ............................................................................. A1-51
3-8 City and Non-City Fees for Single-family and Multi-family Residences ................... A1-52
4-1 Review of Housing Accomplishments under 2001 Housing Element ...................... A1-57
4-2 Summary of Quantified Objectives .......................................................................... A1-61
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-3
1. INTRODUCTION
This Housing Element Technical Report provides the detailed background information used in
developing the Element’s policies and programs for the 2009-2014 planning period. Providing the
technical information in a separate report allows the City to focus the Element itself on housing
strategies and solutions. This Technical Report consists of the following sections:
• Housing Needs Assessment (Section 2), which describes and analyzes Campbell’s
population, household, and housing characteristics and trends;
• Housing Constraints (Section 3), which assesses potential market, governmental, and
other constraints to the development and affordability of housing; and
• Housing Accomplishments (Section 4), which evaluates the City’s progress in
implementing the housing programs established in the 2001 Housing Element.
This Technical Report is prepared using various sources of information. Data from the 1990 and
2000 Census on population and housing is used primarily for evaluating change over the period, and
compares it to the corresponding data from the County. Several data sources are used to update the
2000 Census including:
• Population data is updated by the State Department of Finance, and school enrollment
data from State Department of Education;
• Housing market information, such as home sales and rents, is updated through
newspaper and internet rent surveys and DataQuick sales transactions;
• Public and non-profit agencies are consulted for data on special needs groups, the
services available to them, and gaps in the system;
• Lending patterns for home purchase and home improvement loans are provided
through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) database;
• Major Employers are provided by the City of Campbell Finance Department;
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2007 and ABAG’s Regional
Housing Needs Determination (May 15, 2008) provides demographic projections and
information on future housing needs;
• Comparative data for income levels of various groups is provided by the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy, 2000; and
• Information on Campbell’s development standards are derived from the City’s Zoning
Ordinance.
A1-4 Campbell General Plan
2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element discusses the characteristics of the City’s population and
housing stock as a means of better understanding the nature and extent of unmet housing needs.
The Housing Needs Assessment is comprised of the following components: A) Demographic Profile;
B) Household Profile; C) Housing Stock Characteristics; and D) Regional Housing Needs.
A. Demographic Profile
The type and amount of housing needed in a community are largely determined by population
growth and various demographic variables. Factors such as age, race/ethnicity, occupation, and
income level combine to influence the type of housing needed and the ability to afford housing. This
section addresses population, age, race/ethnicity and employment of Campbell’s residents.
1. Population Trends
Chart 2-1 presents population growth trends in Campbell from 1990-2008, and compares this
growth to neighboring jurisdictions and the entire County of Santa Clara. In the years from 1990-
2000, Campbell’s population increased by a modest six percent, a level of growth similar to the
nearby cities of Los Gatos and Saratoga, although only half that of the County as a whole. Similarly,
from 2000-2008, the City increased in population by a mere five percent, whereas the County grew
by nearly twice this amount.
Chart 2-1: Regional Population Growth Trends
Jurisdiction 1990 2000 2008 Percent Change
1990- 2000 2000-2008
Campbell 36,048 38,138 40,161 6% 5%
Los Gatos 27,357 28,592 30,296 5% 6%
San Jose 782,248 894,943 989,496 14% 11%
Santa Clara 93,613 102,361 115,503 9% 13%
Saratoga 28,061 29,843 31,592 6% 6%
Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,837,075 12% 9%
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census;
State Department of Finance 2008 - Population and Housing Estimates.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) produces population estimates as part of its
program of projecting future growth in the Bay Area. The latest projections series, Projections 2007,
documents Campbell’s 2005 population at 38,300, and projects a constant five percent increase in
population in each of the 2005-2015 and 2015-2025 periods, resulting in an estimated 2025
population of 42,000. Countywide population projections continue to evidence a higher rate of
growth than Campbell, with a 12 percent increase projected during 2005-2015, and 10 percent
increase during 2015-2025. Two-thirds of the county’s population growth during these periods is
expected to occur within San Jose and its Sphere of Influence.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-5
2. Age Characteristics
A community’s housing needs are determined in part by the age characteristics of residents. Each
age group has distinct lifestyles, family type and size, income levels, and housing preferences. As
people move through each stage, their housing need and preferences also change. As a result,
evaluating the age characteristics of a community is important in addressing housing needs of
residents.
Chart 2-2 below summarizes the age characteristics of Campbell residents in 1990 and 2000, and
compares this with the County as a whole. Like many communities nationwide, Campbell’s
population is aging. The City’s median age was 32.5 in 1990, and had increased to 35.2 years by
2000, in contrast to a median age of 34.0 County-wide. During the 1990s, the number of middle age
adults (45 to 64) increased by 29 percent, compared to the City’s overall population growth of six
percent. These residents are usually at the peak of their earning power and are more likely to be
homeowners. The young adult population (25 to 44) remains the largest segment (40%) of the City’s
population, largely be attributable to the County’s high tech workforce, and the variety of rental and
ownership opportunities in Campbell attractive to this age group.
A noticeable increase was evident among the senior population, which grew by 10% between 1990
and 2000, and nearly 50% in the prior decade. Many seniors are homeowners and typically live in
single-family homes, but may begin to consider trading down their larger homes for smaller
dwellings as their children leave home. To remain in their homes, some seniors may also participate
in home sharing programs.
Chart 2-2: Age Distribution
Age Groups 1990 2000 Santa Clara County % (2000) Persons Percent Persons Percent
Preschool (Ages 0-4) 2,584 7% 2,491 7% 7%
School Age (5-17) 4,507 13% 5,728 15% 18%
College Age (18-24) 3,799 11% 2,910 8% 9%
Young Adults (25-44) 15,596 43% 15,346 40% 35%
Middle Age (45-64) 6,194 17% 7,960 21% 21%
Senior Adults (65+) 3,368 9% 3,703 10% 10%
TOTAL 36,048 100% 38,138 100% 100%
Median Age 32.5 35.2 34.0
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census.
Several trends could become apparent over the coming decade. Senior citizens can be expected to
continue to comprise a growing segment of Campbell’s population as the city’s middle age “baby
boomers” (45 to 64) age in place. Also, if the school age population in 2000 continues to live in
Campbell, the college age (18 to 24) population will grow gradually. Given these trends, there is a
continued need to expand housing opportunities for seniors and younger adults in Campbell.
A1-6 Campbell General Plan
3. Race and Ethnicity
The Bay Area has been gradually changing in the racial and ethnic composition of its population.
These changes have implications for housing needs to the extent that different groups may have
different household characteristics, income levels, and cultural background that affect their need
and preferences for housing.
Campbell, like many Bay Area communities, has also experienced gradual changes in the racial and
ethnic composition of its population. While whites continue to comprise the largest race/ethnic
group in Campbell at 66 percent, their share of the population has decreased steadily over the past
two decades, while the other primary race/ethnic groups grew noticeably both in size and
proportion.
Among the four major race/ethnic groups, the largest percentage increase in population between
1990 and 2000 was attributable to Asians (63%), followed by Blacks (38%) and Hispanics (32%). As
shown in Chart 2-3, the Asian share of the population increased from nine percent in 1990 to 14
percent in 2000. The Hispanic share grew from 11 percent to 13 percent, while the proportion of
Blacks remained steady at two percent. The number of residents in the “Other Race” category grew
dramatically in large part because unlike prior Census efforts, the 2000 Census allowed respondents
to identify themselves as members of more than one racial group.1
Chart 2-3: Racial and Ethnic Composition
Race/Ethnicity 1990 2000 Santa Clara County
% (2000) Persons Percent Persons Percent
White 28,029 78% 25,168 66% 44%
Hispanic 3,839 11% 5,083 13% 24%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3,281 9% 5,430 14% 26%
Black 677 2% 932 2% 3%
Other Race 222 1% 1,525 4% 3%
TOTAL 36,048 100% 38,138 100% 100%
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census.
The student population in Campbell has diversified as well. An examination of recent enrollment
data for local schools in the Campbell Union Elementary and High School Districts indicates that
minorities comprise a growing and significant portion of the student population.2 In academic year
2007/08, a total of 47 percent of the student population were Asians (11%), Hispanics (32%), and
Blacks (4%).
1 For 2000, the “Other Race” category includes American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons who identified
themselves as “Some other race” and “Two or more races.”
2 Data was compiled from the Education Data Partnership website (http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/)
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-7
4. Employment Market
Education and employment also have an important impact upon housing needs to the extent that
different jobs and income levels determine the type and size of housing a household can afford. The
State Employment Development Department estimates that as of December 2008, 22,800 Campbell
residents are in the labor force, with 6.6 percent unemployment, compared to a Countywide
unemployment rate of 7.7 percent and Statewide rate of 9.1 percent. California’s unemployment
has risen 3.2 percentage points from one year ago, compared to a 2.8 percent point increase in
Santa Clara County and 2.4 percentage point increase in Campbell, reflective of the current
economic recession.
The educational level of Campbell
residents is higher than that of the
County as a whole (Chart 2-4). For
instance, the percentage of
residents over age 18 without a high
school diploma is 11 percent in the
City, compared to 18 percent
Countywide. Similarly, Campbell has
a higher percentage of residents
with some college education. The
percentage of residents with a
college degree is also slightly higher
in Campbell than in the County.
Chart 2-5 describes the types of occupations held by Campbell residents. As of 2000, three-quarters
of residents were employed in either managerial/professional occupations (50%), or
sales/technical/administrative occupations (25%). Relatively higher paying jobs are in both
categories, except for certain sales positions, translating into higher incomes for the residents
engaged in these activities. The number of residents employed in managerial/ professional positions
increased by 46 percent from 1990 to 2000. In contrast, there were noticeable declines in the
number of residents engaged in the occupational categories of production/ crafts/ repairs;
operators/ fabricators/ laborers; and farming/ forestry/ fishing.
ABAG estimates Campbell’s 2005 employment at 22,470. Health, Education and Recreational Service
industries comprise 30 percent of the City’s jobs, followed by Financial/ Professional (24%),
Chart 2-5: Employment Profile
Occupations of Residents 1990 2000
Persons Percent Persons Percent
Managerial/ Professional 7,485 34% 10,951 50%
Sales, Technical, Admin. 8,065 37% 5,417 25%
Service Occupations 2,070 10% 2,243 10%
Production/ Crafts/ Repair 2,408 11% 1,740 8%
Operators, Fabricators, Labor 1,657 8% 1,400 6%
Farming, Forestry, Fishing 131 1% 8 0%
Total 21,816 100% 21,759 100%
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census.
A1-8 Campbell General Plan
Chart 2-6: Major Employers in Campbell
Employer Number of
Employees
Qualcom Inc. 325
JDA Software Group 300
Fry’s Electronics 287
Home Depot 257
Whole Foods 235
Barracuda Networks Inc 210
Talk City Inc. 195
City of Campbell 161
Safeway 159
Mohler, Nixon & Williams Accountancy 150
Durham School Services LP 143
Elephant Bar 141
Pacific Netsoft, Inc. 138
Century 21 Alpha 129
Kohl's 117
Kaiser Permanente Medical Group 116
Adorno Construction, Inc. 114
Children's Recovery Center 100
Hunter Laboratories 100
Nova Salon Systems 100
Onstor, Inc. 100
Rock Bottom Brewery 100
Sanco Pipelines, Inc. 100
Universal Janitorial Maintenance 100
West Valley Construction 100
Source: City of Campbell, Finance Department, 2008.
Manufacturing/ Wholesale/ Transportation (17%)
and Retail (16%). Chart 2-6 identifies the major
employers in Campbell, and illustrates a mix of
medium-sized high tech, retail, and professional
firms. In 2007, ABAG projected Campbell’s
employment to grow to 23,900 by 2015, reflecting
a six percent increase during 2005-2015, well
below the 16 percent increase projected
Countywide. Although local job growth is
anticipated to be rather limited, an expansion in
regional employment will likely impact the
housing market in Campbell.
Campbell is one of Santa Clara County’s most
balanced communities in terms of jobs and
housing. Jobs/housing balance is defined as the
ratio of number of jobs to number of housing units
in a given area. Although the term “jobs/housing
balance” is still often used, the more precise
relationship is between jobs and the number of
employed residents (because some households
have no workers, while others have multiple
workers).
Jobs and housing are considered to be balanced
when there are an equal number of employed
residents and jobs within a given area, with a ratio
of approximately 1.0. Balancing jobs and housing
should result in a reduction in commuting, as well
as achieving a number of other related goals,
including reduced traffic congestion on major freeways and arterials, improved regional air quality
conditions, and an enhanced community economic base.
The balance between jobs and housing is an
important consideration in establishing
housing production and affordability goals.
Based on ABAG estimates for 2005,
Campbell has a jobs/employed residents
ratio of 1.2. As exhibited below in Chart 2-7,
Campbell has one of the most balanced
ratios in Santa Clara County.
Chart 2-7: Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio (2005)
City Jobs/ Employed Residents Ratio
Campbell 1.2
Cupertino 1.5
Los Gatos 1.4
Mountain View 1.6
San Jose 0.9
Santa Clara 2.1
Saratoga 0.6
Sunnyvale 1.2
Santa Clara County 1.2
Sources: ABAG Projections, 2007
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-9
B. Household Characteristics
Household type and size, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other
household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents. This section details
the various household characteristics affecting housing needs.
1. Household Type
According to the 2000 Census, Campbell is home to 15,920 households, of which 57 percent are
families. Families are comprised of married couple families with or without children as well as other
family types, such as female-headed households with children. Non-families, including singles, and
other households, make up 42 percent of households in Campbell. As was the case in 1990, singles
comprised roughly 30 percent of all households in the City.
Chart 2-8: Household Characteristics
Household Type
1990 2000
Households Percent Households Percent
Total Households 15,312 100% 15,920 100%
Families 8,849 58% 9,121 57%
With Children 3,857 (44%) 4,452 (49%)
Without Children 4,992 (56%) 4,669 (51%)
Singles 4,438 29% 4,846 30%
Other 2,025 13% 1,953 12%
Average Household Size 2.35 2.38
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census.
The composition of households in Campbell remained relatively unchanged between 1990 and 2000
(Chart 2-8). There are, however, two noteworthy trends. First, the number of families with children
increased by 15 percent, while the number of families without children dropped by six percent.
According to the Census, from 1990 to 2000, the average household size increased slightly from 2.35
to 2.38 persons per household. This slight increase since 1990 reflects the growth in the number of
families with children, an increase in ethnic groups with larger family sizes, and households
“doubling up” to save on housing costs.
A1-10 Campbell General Plan
2. Household Income
Household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunity, determining a
household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic necessities of life. Income levels can
vary considerably among households, based upon tenure, household type, location of residence,
and/or race/ethnicity, among other factors.
Income Definitions
The State and Federal government classify household income into several groupings based upon the
relationship to the County adjusted median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. The State of
California utilizes the income groups presented in Chart 2-9. However, federal housing programs
utilize slightly different income groupings and definitions, with the highest income category
generally ending at less than 95 percent AMI. For purposes of the Housing Element, the State
income definitions are used throughout, except for the data that have been compiled by the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is specifically noted.
Chart 2-9: State Income Categories
Income Category % County Area Median Income (AMI)
Extremely Low 0-30% AMI
Very Low 0-50% AMI
Low 51-80% AMI
Moderate 81-120% AMI
Above Moderate 120%+ AMI
Source: Section 5000093 of the California Health and Safety Code
Based on projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the year 2005, the
mean household income of Campbell residents was $83,800, compared to $101,000 in 2000. As
seen in Chart 2-10, household income in Campbell was comparable to that in San Jose and Santa
Clara, but well below that in Los Gatos. The 2005 Countywide mean household income was $97,900,
approximately 15 percent above that of Campbell.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-11
Chart 2-11: Household Income Levels
Income Level 1990 2000
Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI) 1,599 10% 1,636 10%
Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) 1,513 10% 1,559 10%
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 1,341 9% 1,629 10%
Moderate Income and above (>80% AMI) 10,859 71% 11,089 70%
Total 15,312 100% 15,913 100%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2000 (http://socds.huduser.org/chas/reports).
Chart 2-11 illustrates that the City of Campbell has remained relatively unchanged from 1990 to
2000 with their number of households and proportion of the four income categories. There has
been a slight increase with households earning low incomes (from 9% to 10%), and a consequent
decrease in those earning moderate incomes and above (from 71% to 70%). As indicated, in 2000,
70 percent of all households in the City earned moderate incomes and above (> 80% of the AMI),
with a relatively even distribution between extremely low, very low, and low income households.
Extremely low income households – those earning less than 30 percent of area median income –
face the most significant housing needs. Nearly half of Campbell’s 1,600 extremely low income
households are senior citizens. As seniors are typically on fixed incomes, an increase in rents can
have a considerable impact on extremely low income senior renters. Senior homeowners with
extremely low incomes also face significant needs related to maintaining their homes.
Income by Household Tenure
Table 2-12 shows the income level of Campbell residents by household tenure. A significantly higher
percentage of renter households (41%) were lower income (<80% AMI) compared to residents who
owned their homes (19%). The presence of approximately 2,200 extremely low and very low income
renter households is of particular significance as market rents in Campbell exceed the level of
affordability for these households. A high level of housing overpayment is verified by the 2000
census which identifies 83 percent of extremely low income and 88 percent of very low income
renters as spending greater than 30 percent of their income on housing. The high incidence of lower
income renter households is of particular significance as market rents in Campbell exceed the level
of affordability for lower income households, discussed in greater detail in the Housing Affordability
section later in Section C. The median income of Campbell’s renter households in 2000 was $51,371,
compared to $88,485 for homeowners.
Chart 2-12: Income by Owner / Renter Tenure
Income Level Renters Owners Total Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI) 1,228 15% 408 5% 10%
Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) 1,032 13% 527 7% 10%
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 1,087 13% 542 7% 10%
Moderate Income and above
(>80% AMI) 4,840 59% 6,249 81% 70%
Total 8,187 100% 7,726 100% 100%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2000 (http://socds.huduser.org/chas/reports).
A1-12 Campbell General Plan
3. Special Needs Groups
Certain groups have greater difficulty
in finding decent, affordable housing
due to their special needs and/or
circumstances. Special circumstances
may be related to one’s employment
and income, family characteristics,
disability, and household
characteristics among others. As a
result, certain segments of Campbell
residents may experience a higher
prevalence of lower-income,
overpayment, overcrowding or other
housing problems. State Housing
Element law identifies the following
“special needs” groups: senior
households, disabled persons, large
families, female-headed households,
families and persons in need of
emergency shelter, and farm workers.
Chart 2-13 summarizes the special
needs populations in Campbell. This
section provides a detailed discussion
of the housing needs of each
particular group as well as the major
programs and services available to
address their housing and supportive
services needs.
Senior Households
Senior households typically have special housing needs due to three primary concerns – income,
housing and health care costs, and physical disabilities. According to the 2000 Census, seniors (age
65 and older) comprise of 15 percent of the City’s households. Some of the special needs of seniors
are as follows:
• Disabilities: Of Campbell’s senior population, 38 percent (1,415 persons) have a work
disability and/or self-care or mobility limitation.
• Limited Income: Many seniors have limited income available for health and other expenses.
Because of their retired status, half of Campbell’s senior households earn extremely low to
very low-incomes (<50% AMI).
• Overpayment: Nearly half Campbell’s seniors spend greater than one-third of their incomes
on housing costs, considered “housing overpayment.” Overpayment is particularly prevalent
among senior renters, with two-thirds overpaying.
Chart 2-13: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Groups Persons Households Percent*
Seniors (65+) 3,765 10%
With a disability 1,415 (38%)
Senior Households** 2,510 16%
Renter 932 (37%)
Owner 1,578 (63%)
Seniors living alone 1,114 (44%)
Persons with Disability 5,450 15%
Large Households** 1,092 7%
Renter 520 (48%)
Owner 572 (52%)
Female-headed Households 1,602 10%
With related children 836 (52%)
Farmworkers*** 8 0%
Homeless**** 96
Total Persons / Household 37,848 15,920
Sources: 2000 Census (unless otherwise noted).
* Numbers in ( ) reflect the % of the special needs group, and not the %
of the City Population / Households. For example, of the City's large
households, 48% are renters and 52% are owners
** Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2000
*** Persons employed in Farming, Forestry or Fishing Occupations
**** 2007 Santa Clara County Homeless Census
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-13
Over 60 percent of elderly households in Campbell are homeowners. Because of physical and/or
other limitations, senior homeowners may have difficulty in performing regular home maintenance
or repair activities. Furthermore, the installation of grab bars and other assistance devices in the
home may be needed. Nearly 45 percent of the City’s senior households live alone. To encourage
shared housing and extend the ability of seniors to remain in their homes, the City has in the past
contracted with Project Match to offer a homesharing program for seniors. Unfortunately this
program is no longer provided, and Catholic Charities’ home sharing program focuses on single-
parent families.
Campbell is home to an estimated 930 senior renter households. While high market rents can be a
particular concern among this group, Campbell is fortunate to have numerous assisted rental
options for seniors. As shown later in Chart 2-23, Campbell has three large senior housing projects,
providing over 450 rental units and including 390 units affordable to lower income seniors. In
addition, Merrill Gardens, a national assisted living provider, received approval for 99 senior
apartments (19 very low income), 28 non-age restricted units, a 21 bed Alzheimer’s care facility, and
16,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space on Winchester Boulevard near a light rail station.
The State Department of Social Services (2008) identifies 14 licensed care facilities for seniors in
Campbell, providing a total of 284 beds. The City has also provided financial support to three senior
group homes, providing affordable rents to 15 seniors in a supported living environment. Finally,
225 seniors in Campbell receive Section 8 rental assistance from the Santa Clara County Housing
Authority, although with 308 additional seniors on the waiting list, there remains an unmet need for
assistance.
Through the Campbell Senior Center, which caters to seniors over the age of 50, the City also
provides programs and services for seniors to facilitate social interaction and foster independence.
Services include information and referral; education classes, physical and leisure activities; social
activities; transportation assistance and lunches. The Senior Center is a nutrition site under the
Countywide Senior Nutrition Program, where congregate meals are made available to persons over
the age of 60. There are two Meals on Wheels Programs available, through the Council on Aging and
the Health Trust Programs, which provides hot or ready meals for homebound seniors who are
unable to cook or shop for themselves. The Adult Center services also include providing a case
manager who provides in-home, comprehensive social service assistance, to the City’s isolated, low-
income, at-risk elderly; employment/housing referrals and seasonal homeowners and renters
assistance.
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of
accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. The
City is home to residents with disabilities that prevent them from working, restrict their mobility, or
make it difficult to care for themselves. An additional segment of residents suffers from disabilities
that require living in an institutional setting. Disabilities are defined as mental, physical or health
conditions that last over six months. The Census tracks the following types of disabilities:
• Work disability: refers to a condition lasting over six months which restricts a person’s
choice of work and prevents them from working full-time;
• Mobility limitation: refers to a physical or mental condition lasting over six months which
makes it difficult to go outside the home alone; and
• Self-care limitation: refers to a physical or mental condition lasting over six months that
makes it difficult to take care of one’s personal needs.
A1-14 Campbell General Plan
A total of 5,450 persons with disabilities reside in Campbell, representing 15 percent of the City’s
population 16 years old and above. Approximately 39 percent of these residents are faced with
mobility/self care limitations, 31 percent have physical limitations, and the remaining 30 percent
have both sensory and mental disabilities. Of the City’s senior population, over one-third have one
or more types of disabilities.
The living arrangement of disabled persons depends on the severity of the disability. Many persons
live at home in an independent fashion or with other family members. To maintain independent
living, disabled persons may need assistance. This can include special housing design features for the
disabled, income support for those who are unable to work, and in-home supportive services for
persons with medical conditions among others. Accessible housing can also be provided via senior
housing developments. Campbell has adopted Reasonable Accommodation procedures to facilitate
zoning modifications for persons with disabilities, and makes rehabilitation funds available to
income qualified households for accessibility improvements. The City also funds Rebuilding Together
Silicon Valley to provide residential handicapped modifications.
The State of California Community Care Licensing Division identifies five adult residential facilities in
Campbell that provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18-59 who are unable to provide
for their own daily needs. These five facilities provide capacity for 31 adults, and include two adult
residential facilities and three adult residential facilities for persons with special health care needs.
The Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) provides a variety of services to persons with
disabilities in Santa Clara County. SVILC serves over 1,000 County residents annually. Services
offered include: information and referral, vocational training and placement, residential training,
legal and personal advocacy, peer and individual counseling, housing referrals, and personal
assistance referrals and placement. To help its clients locate affordable, accessible housing, SVILC
maintain a database of accessible and subsidized housing throughout Santa Clara County.
Rental assistance through the County Housing Authority also helps disabled persons afford housing
in Campbell. As of Fall 2008, 110 Campbell residents with disabilities received Section 8 assistance
through the Housing Authority, with over 400 disabled on the waiting list for assistance.
Transportation service for persons with disabilities is available through OUTREACH paratransit, a
non-profit agency, operating as the ADA paratransit broker for the Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA). OUTREACH is based on a reservation system with clients making reservations for trips one
day to 14 days in advance. Service is provided with taxies or accessible vans.
Large Households
Large households are defined as having five or more members residing in the home. These
households constitute a special need group, because there is often a limited supply of adequately
sized, affordable housing units in a community. In order to save for other basic necessities of food,
clothing and medical care, it is common for lower-income large households to reside in smaller
units, which frequently results in overcrowding.
Campbell is home to 1,092 large households, 48 percent (520) of which are renter households; half
of Campbell’s large renter households earn lower incomes. Based on the CHAS (Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy) Databook prepared by HUD, 70 percent of Campbell’s large renter
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-15
households suffer from one or more housing problems, including housing overpayment,
overcrowding and/or substandard housing conditions.
The CHAS Databook identifies 1,298 rental units in Campbell with three or more bedrooms, in
general, the appropriate sized units for a large household with five or more members. In contrast,
the City has 520 large renter households, indicating that Campbell has an adequate supply of rental
units to house its large families. However, with 3-bedroom apartments commanding a median rent
of $2,200, the affordability of Campbell’s large rental units remains an issue.
Of the 411 Campbell households receiving Section 8 assistance from the County Housing Authority
(Fall 2008), 16 are large families. With Section 8 assistance, these families are able to afford two- to
three-bedroom units in the community.
Female-headed Households
Female-headed households with children often require special consideration and assistance as a
result of their greater need for affordable housing, accessible day care, health care, and other
supportive services. Because of their relatively lower incomes and higher living expenses, such
households usually have more limited opportunities for finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.
Campbell is home to 1,602 female-headed households, of which half have children under 18 years
old. Of those households with children, 101 (16%) lived in poverty. These households are a
particularly vulnerable group because they must balance the needs of their children with work
responsibilities.
Single parents in Campbell can participate in the Shared Housing Program offered through Catholic
Charities of Santa Clara County. Available Countywide, this program helps single parents with one or
two small children find affordable rooms to rent in private homes. Under the program, Catholic
Charities provides screening of clients, education about shared housing, and a “living together
agreement” that specifies rent, deposit, and policies of occupation. An average of four to five
Campbell households are assisted under this program annually.
Campbell also provides financial support to two non-profit agencies to offer shelter and counseling
services to victims of domestic violence.
Homeless Persons
In January 2007, the cities of Santa Clara County and the County jointly sponsored a two-day
homeless count to assess the homeless population. The 2007 Santa Clara County Homeless Census
and Survey involved two components: 1) a point-in-time count of street and sheltered homeless,
and 2) one-on-one interviews of over 1,000 homeless. The comprehensive, two-day homeless count
identified approximately 5,100 homeless people on the streets, and an additional 2,100 in
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and domestic violence shelters.
A1-16 Campbell General Plan
Key findings of the homeless count and supplementary interviews include:
• Approximately half of homeless survey respondents had been homeless for more than one
year, with 20 percent homeless for more than three years.
• Over one-third of the County’s homeless were living in vehicles and encampments.
• 30 percent of survey respondents indicated the primary cause of their homelessness was
due to the loss of a job, with 20 percent indicating alcohol or drug use was the primary
factor.
• While over 70 percent of the unsheltered homeless were men, five percent were families.
• Approximately 25 percent of respondents indicated they were experiencing a physical
disability. 25 percent indicated they were experiencing mental illness.
Within the City of Campbell, the 2007 Homeless Survey identified 96 homeless people, including 54
people in cars/RV’s/vans or encampments, 38 individuals in street locations, and four people in
families. No homeless were identified in shelters within the City. According to the Campbell Police
Department (2008), there are approximately 20-30 homeless persons in the City on any given day.
The majority of the homeless persons are single men who congregate and sleep in encampments at
the Los Gatos Creek Trail that passes through Campbell, while some congregate under the
overpasses of Highway-17. 75 percent of the homeless persons in Campbell are chronically
homeless.
There are three major types of facilities that provide shelter for homeless individuals and families:
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent housing. These types of facilities are
defined below:
• Emergency Shelter: provides overnight shelter and fulfills a client’s basic needs (i.e. food,
clothing, medical care) either on-site or through off-site services. The permitted length of
stay can vary from one day at a time to two months, depending upon whether the shelter is
short-term or long-term.
• Transitional Housing: a residence that provides housing for up to two years. Residents of
transitional housing are usually connected to rehabilitative services, including substance
abuse and mental health care interventions, employment services, individual and group
counseling and life skills training.
• Permanent Housing: refers to permanent housing that is affordable in the community or
permanent and service-enriched permanent housing that is linked with on-going supportive
services (on-site or off-site) and is designed to allow formerly homeless clients to live at the
facility on an indefinite basis.
Chart 2-14: Homeless Facilities/Providers in Nearby Areas
Facility Beds Clients Location
Emergency Shelter
Asian Americans for Community Involvement 12 Women with children San Jose
City Team Rescue Mission 52 Single men San Jose
Cold Weather Shelter (EHC) 125 Single men & women Sunnyvale
Hospitality House, Salvation Army 24 Single men San Jose
Our House Youth Services (EHC) 10 Homeless & run-away youth San Jose
San Jose Family Shelter 143 Families San Jose
Support Network for Battered Women 18 Domestic Violence Shelter –
Women and Children
San Jose
area
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-17
Chart 2-14: Homeless Facilities/Providers in Nearby Areas
Facility Beds Clients Location
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
InnVision – Commercial Street Inns, Community
Inns, Julian Street Inn, and Montgomery Street
Inns
212 Working men, women & children,
mentally ill men & women San Jose
James Boccardo Reception Center (EHC) 370 Families & single adults San Jose
Transitional Housing
Next Door – Women with Children 19 Women & children – victims of
domestic violence San Jose
St. Joseph’s Cathedral, Social Ministry Office 45 Worker housing – men, women and
children San Jose
YWCA – Villa Nueva 126 Women & children San Jose
Permanent Housing
Markham Plaza (EHC) 50 Men & women San Jose
Monterey Glenn Inn (EHC) 95 Men & women San Jose
Pensione Esperanza SRO (Catholic Charities) 109 Men & women San Jose
Sobrato House Youth Center 9 apts, 10
shelter beds Youth San Jose
Sources: Santa Clara County 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan; San Jose 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan.
As a smaller city, Campbell does not have any permanent emergency shelters, although during the
month of February, the Methodist Church sponsors a rotating shelter for men who have jobs but
can’t afford housing. Numerous regional service providers serve the homeless in the greater San
Jose area (Chart 2-14). Homeless individuals identified in Campbell are usually referred to one of the
emergency shelters located nearby in downtown San Jose.
The City of Campbell supports the provision of homeless services by allocating a portion of its
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to non-profit services providers, including the
Emergency Housing Consortium (EHC) and InnVision. As the Santa Clara County’s largest provider of
shelters and services for the homeless, EHC provides emergency shelters, transitional and
permanent housing and support services through a network of program locations throughout the
County. InnVision operates four inns in San Jose, which provide to a variety of persons in need,
including working men, women and children, and mentally ill persons. InnVision serves clients in
Campbell based on the availability of space in the inns at San Jose. However, if there are no available
spaces, clients get referred to any one of the 20 sites of InnVision, some of which are located
outside of San Jose. As exhibited in Chart 2-14, EHC and InnVision provide a significant number of
beds in transitional housing facilities and emergency shelters for the homeless. In 2007 and 2008, 76
homeless persons from Campbell stayed in shelters provided by EHC and 52 homeless persons in
shelters provided by InnVision.
Campbell provides funding support to both Catholic Charities and Sacred Heart to provide one-time
financial assistance to lower-income residents who are at risk of homelessness due to an
unexpected financial setback. Approximately 120 Campbell residents are assisted on an annual basis
through these programs.
A1-18 Campbell General Plan
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through
seasonal agricultural labor. They have special housing needs because of their relatively low income
and the unstable nature of their job (i.e. having to move throughout the year from one harvest to
the next). According to the 2000 Census, there were eight Campbell residents employed in farming,
forestry, and fishing occupations. These individuals accounted for less than one percent of the City’s
total employed residents. Given that there are so few persons employed in agricultural-related
industries, the City can address their housing needs through its overall housing programs.
C. Housing Stock Characteristics
This section of the Housing Element addresses various housing characteristics and conditions that
affect the well-being of City residents. Housing factors evaluated include the following: housing
stock and growth, tenure and vacancy rates, age and condition, housing costs, and affordability,
among others.
1. Housing Growth
As of January 2008, the State Department of Finance estimates identified 16,932 housing units in
Campbell. Between 1990 and 2000, the City’s housing stock increased by only three percent, with an
additional four percent increase from 2000-2008.
Chart 2-15 compares Campbell’s housing growth during the past two decades with nearby
communities and the County as a whole. As shown, housing growth levels in Campbell are similar to
the comparably small-sized cities of Saratoga and Los Gatos. In contrast, the larger cities of San Jose
and Santa Clara, along with the County as a whole, have experienced housing growth rates more
than double that of the smaller communities. The City’s 2001 General Plan and subsequent rezoning
provided expanded opportunities for residential development in Campbell, primarily along major
commercial corridors and adjacent the new Vasona Light Rail Stations and the City has begun to
evidence a limited amount of infill activity in these areas.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-19
The City is currently working on providing upgraded infrastructure in the East Campbell Avenue and
North Winchester Boulevard areas to support higher density development. In 2007, Campbell
received a Priority Development Area (PDA) designation from ABAG to facilitate transit-oriented
development within the Redevelopment Project Area.
2. Housing Type and Tenure
Chart 2-16 presents the mix of housing types in Campbell. Of the City’s nearly 17,000 housing units
in 2008, 56 percent were single-family homes (including attached and detached) and 43 percent
were multi-family units. The City also contains over 250 mobile homes, comprising one percent of
the City’s housing. The vacancy rate in Campbell remains a low 2.2 percent.
Chart 2-16: Housing Type
Housing Type 2000 2008
No. of Units % of Total No. of Units % of Total
Single-Family 8,846 53% 9,436 56%
Detached 6,863 41% 7,341 43%
Attached 1,983 12% 2,095 12%
Multi Family 7,224 45% 7,239 43%
2-4 Units 2,451 14% 2,438 14%
5+ Units 4,773 31% 4,801 28%
Mobile Homes/Other 278 2% 257 1%
Total Units 16,348 100% 16,932 100%
Vacancy Rate 2.20% 2.23%
Sources: Census 2000. State Department of Finance 2008 – Population and Housing Estimates
Note: The 2000 Census includes other units such as RV, Boat, Van etc within Mobile Home category
Housing tenure refers to whether a housing unit is owned, rented or is vacant. Tenure is an
important indicator of the housing climate of a community, reflecting the relative cost of housing
opportunities, and the ability of residents to afford housing. Tenure also influences residential
mobility, with owner units generally evidencing lower turnover rates than rental housing. According
to the 2000 Census, 48 percent of Campbell’s households were homeowners, below the 60 percent
ownership rate Countywide, although reflecting a slight increase from the City’s 47 percent
homeownership rate in 1990.
Chart 2-17: Housing Tenure
Occupied Housing Units 1990 2000
Units Percent Units Percent
Owner 7,199 47% 7,748 48%
Renter 8,107 53% 8,242 52%
Total 15,306 100% 15,990 100%
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census.
A1-20 Campbell General Plan
3. Housing Age and Condition
Housing age is an important indicator of housing condition within a community. Like any other
tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly
maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property
values and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Thus maintaining and improving
housing quality is an important goal for the City.
Chart 2-18 provides a breakdown of the housing stock by the year built (2000 Census). As of 2008,
54 percent of housing units in Campbell are over 35 years old and almost 28 percent are over 50
years old. A general rule in the housing industry is that structures older than 30 years begin to show
signs of deterioration and require reinvestment to maintain their quality. Unless properly
maintained, homes older than 50 years require major renovations to remain in good working order.
Comprising the southwestern quadrant of the City, the San Tomas Area is one of the older
neighborhoods in Campbell and has the greatest rehabilitation needs.
The City administers a Code Enforcement program that aims to preserve and maintain the livability
and quality of neighborhoods. Code enforcement staff investigates violations of property
maintenance standards as defined in the Municipal Code as well as other complaints. According to
the City of Campbell’s Code Enforcement Officer, Campbell does not receive many housing related
complaints. In the year 2008, there were 18 housing complaints out of a total of 222 complaints and
in the year 2007, there were again 18 housing complaints out of a total of 240 complaints. Around
50 percent of the complaints have to do with property maintenance issues. The most common
complaints that are received are related to mold problems, non-functional heating systems,
plumbing issues and missing smoke detectors. In lower income areas, graffiti and trash is a common
issue. In most cases, the Code Enforcement Officer asks the tenant to contact the owner to fix the
problem, but hazardous issues are immediately addressed. Code enforcement staff identifies the
following residential areas with rehabilitation needs: Ravens Court; some apartment complexes near
Safeway off Winchester Boulevard; a few residential areas on Hamilton Avenue; and Phoenix Drive
and Dover Way off of E. Hamilton Avenue.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-21
Also, some of the units on Sharmon Palms Lane and Sobrato Drive need rehabilitation as they have
been subject to deterioration over time with illegal dumping and plastic tarps attached from the
fence to the four-plexes covering the side yards causing a fire hazard. When violations are identified
and/or cited, staff encourages property owners to seek assistance through the Homeowner
Rehabilitation Program. Under this CDBG-funded program, the City provides financial assistance to
lower-income homeowners to assist them in the improvement of their homes. The City also works
with the County of Santa Clara to provide the Rental Rehabilitation Program to facilitate the
rehabilitation of units occupied by lower-income renters. The Campbell Redevelopment Agency has
also worked successfully with non-profit housing developers and the County Housing Authority to
rehabilitate the Sharmon Palms, San Tomas Gardens projects and most recently, Rincon Gardens.
4. Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to extent of housing problems in a community. If housing
costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a correspondingly higher
prevalence of overpayment and overcrowding. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of
the housing stock to Campbell residents.
Sales and Rental Survey
Chart 2-19 provides information on all sales of existing and new single-family homes and
condominiums within the Campbell city limits from October 1, 2007 - September 30, 2008. A total of
251 single-family home sales were recorded during this period, with three and four bedroom units
comprising 85 percent of all homes sold. Median sales prices ranged from $705,000 (one-bedroom)
to $906,000 (five-bedroom), with prices varying significantly based on location. Most homes were
well over thirty years in age, 1965 being the average year built. Unit sizes are relatively modest,
averaging only 1,700 square feet. The overall median home price in Campbell was $735,000 for a
1,700 square foot home built in 1965.
Chart 2-19: Home and Condominium Sales Prices, October 2007 – September 2008
Number of
Bedrooms Units Sold Price Range Median Price Avg. Unit Size Avg. Lot Size
Avg. Year
Built
Single-Family Homes
1 1 $750,000 $750,000 800 sq. ft. 10,200 sq. ft. 1940
2 20 $150,000 - $1,250,000 $705,000 1,200 sq. ft. 8,900 sq. ft. 1947
3 140 $150,000 - $2,250,000 $715,000 1,500 sq. ft. 7,100 sq. ft. 1963
4 72 $170,000 - $1,286,000 $795,000 2,000 sq. ft. 7,600 sq. ft. 1971
5 18 $285,000 - $1,475,000 $906,000 2,700 sq. ft. 9,200 sq. ft. 1977
Total 251 $150,000 - $2,250,000 $735,000 1,700 sq. ft. 7,600 sq. ft. 1965
Condominiums
1 9 $149,000 - $413,000 $275,000 730 sq. ft. -- 1980
2 56 $144,000 - $681,000 $440,000 1,100 sq. ft. -- 1976
3 44 $139,000 - $935,000 $610,000 1,600 sq. ft. -- 1988
4 2 $513,000 - $770,000 $642,000 1,680 sq. ft. -- 1990
Total 111 $139,000 - $935,000 $505,000 1,285 sq. ft. -- 1981
Source: Dataquick On-Line Real Estate Database: 10/1/07-9/30/08.
A1-22 Campbell General Plan
Chart 2-20: Survey of Vacant Rental Units
October 2008
Unit Type & Bedrooms Rental Range Median Rent
Apartments
Studio $1,175 - $1,275 $1,175
1 $1,080 - $1,798 $1,355
2 $1,300 - $2,049 $1,705
3 $1,700 - $2,821 $2,200
Condominiums / Townhomes
2 $1,695 - $2,295 $1,750
3 $1,825 - $2,950 $2,200
Single Family Home
3 $2,000 - $2,300 $2,200
4 $1,900 - $4,500 $2,995
Rooms for Rent
1 $535 - $900 $700
Source: www.MercuryNews.com,
www.apartments.com, www.craigslist.com
Approximately one-third of all units sold in Campbell during this one-year period were
condominiums. Median prices for condominiums ranged from $275,000 to $642,000, with an overall
median price of $505,000. Whereas the vast majority of single-family homes were three and four
bedroom units, condominiums were predominately two and three-bedroom units, selling for
significantly less than similarly sized single-family homes. Condominiums are thus helping to fill a
gap for smaller, less expensive ownership housing in the City.
Home foreclosures are having a major impact on housing sales throughout the State. In November
2008, nearly 40 percent of all resale homes in Santa Clara County were foreclosures. Within
Campbell, www.Realtytrac.com identifies 129 residential properties in various states of foreclosure:
40 defaults, 32 trustee sales, and 57 bank-owned properties (January 2009). This represents
approximately two percent of all properties in the County in foreclosure.
Current rental housing costs in Campbell were
obtained through a rent survey compiled from
internet and newspaper sources. Chart 2-20
enumerates the rental ranges as well as the
median rents for apartment units, condominiums/
townhomes and single family homes in Campbell.
The median rents for apartment units in Campbell
range from $1,175 for a studio, $1,355 for a one-
bedroom unit, $1,705 for a two-bedroom unit, to
$2,200 for a three-bedroom unit. (Rental data
were available for over thirty apartment
complexes, including smaller projects with less
than 20 units and larger ones with over 200 units).
Interestingly, median rental rates for townhomes
and single-family homes were fairly comparable to
that of apartments.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-23
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in
Campbell with the maximum affordable housing costs to households which earn different income
levels. Taken together, this information can provide a picture of who can afford what size and type
of housing as well as indicate the type of households that would likely experience overcrowding or
overpayment. California Health and Safety Code3 defines affordable owner and rental housing costs
as follows:
Affordable Ownership Housing Cost – moderate income
Housing costs consist of mortgage debt service, homeowner association dues,
insurance, utility allowance and property taxes.
Affordable costs are up to 35 percent of the defined household income.
Affordable costs for moderate income households are based on standard of 110 percent
of Area Median Income (AMI) for a household size equal to one more person than the
number of bedrooms in the unit.
Affordable Renter Housing Cost
Housing costs include rent plus utilities paid for by the tenant.
Affordable rent is up to 30 percent of the defined household income.
Affordable rents are based on a standard of 50 percent of AMI for very low income
households; 60 percent of AMI for low income households; and 110 percent AMI for
moderate income households for a household size equal to one more person than the
number of bedrooms in the unit.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household
income surveys nationwide, including Santa Clara County, to determine the maximum affordable
payments of different households and their eligibility for federal housing assistance. The 2008
Income Limits for a four-person household in Santa Clara County is $105,500.
Chart 2-21: 2008 Maximum Affordable Housing Cost (Moderate Income), Santa Clara County
Moderate Income
Affordable Housing Cost
1 Bedroom
(2 persons)
2 Bedroom
(3 persons)
3 Bedroom
(4 persons)
4 Bedroom
(5 persons)
Moderate Income Threshold
(110% County Median) $92,840 $104,500 $116,050 $125,290
Max. Income Towards Housing Cost @ 35% Income $32,500 $36,580 $40,620 $43,850
Less Ongoing Expenses:
Utilities $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
Property Taxes (1% affordable housing price) $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $4,900
HOA/Insurance $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Annual Income Available for Mortgage $24,500 $28,080 $31,620 $34,450
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage $2,042 $2,340 $2,635 $2,870
Supportable Mortgage @ 6.2% interest $333,000 $382,000 $430,000 $470,000
Homebuyer Downpayment (5%) $17,000 $18,000 $20,000 $25,000
Maximum Affordable Purchase Price $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $495,000
Campbell Median Single-Family Price $750,000 $705,000 $715,000 $795,000
Campbell Median Condominium Price $275,000 $440,000 $610,000 $642,000
Source: Karen Warner Associates.
3 Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 establishes affordable housing cost, and Section 50053 - affordable rents.
A1-24 Campbell General Plan
Based on these definitions of income and affordable housing cost, Chart 2-21 presents the
maximum affordable purchase price for moderate income households (110% AMI), and compares
this with market sales prices for single-family homes and condominiums in Campbell as previously
documented in Chart 2-19. As illustrated, median single-family home prices in Campbell are well
beyond the Ievel of affordability for moderate income households. For example, the maximum
affordable purchase price for a moderate income four person household is $450,000, whereas the
median priced three bedroom home in Campbell is $715,000, an affordability gap of $265,000.
However, condominiums are still within close reach for households earning moderate incomes. As
shown in Chart 2-21, the maximum affordable purchase price for a three person household is
$400,000, whereas the median priced two-bedroom condominium in Campbell sells for $440,000,
an affordability gap of just $40,000. Campbell’s first-time homebuyer program can provide
assistance to moderate income households to close this affordability gap.
Chart 2-22 presents the maximum affordable rents for very low, low and moderate income
households by household size, and compares with median apartment rents in Campbell, previously
documented in Chart 2-20. As the table below indicates, citywide median rents are above the level
of affordability for very low and low income households, with the affordability gap ranging from
$100 to over $600 per month depending on household size. As the household size increases, so does
the affordability gap. Households earning moderate incomes, however, are easily able to afford
market rents in Campbell.
Chart 2-22: 2008 Maximum Affordable Rents, Santa Clara County
Income Level Studio
(1 person)
1 Bedroom
(2 person)
2 Bedroom
(3 person)
3 Bedroom
(4 person)
Very Low Income
(50% AMI) $924 $1,055 $1,187 $1,319
Low Income
(60% AMI) $1,108 $1,266 $1,425 $1,582
Moderate Income
(110% AMI) $2,032 $2,321 $2,613 $2,901
Campbell Median Rents 1,175 $1,355 $1,705 $2,200
Source: Karen Warner Associates
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-25
Fourplex on Sharmon Palms
5. Assisted Rental Housing
State Housing Element law requires an analysis of the potential for currently rent-restricted low
income housing units to convert to market rate housing, and to propose programs to preserve or
replace any units “at-risk” of conversion. This section presents an inventory of all assisted rental
housing in Campbell, and evaluates those units at risk of conversion during the ten year, 2009-2019
planning period.
Assisted Housing Inventory
Chart 2-23 is an inventory of assisted rental housing projects in Campbell. A total of 629 assisted
units are provided in twelve developments, including units assisted through a variety of federal and
local government programs/funds. These programs include HUD Section 8, Section 221 and Section
236, CDBG, local redevelopment set-aside funds, and the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
Chart 2-23: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing
Project Name Ownership Total
Units
Assisted
Units
Household Type Funding Source(s) Affordability
Period
Corinthian
House Non-Profit 104 36 Elderly & Disabled Section 8; Section
221(d)(3)
Continual
Renewal
Rincon Gardens Housing
Authority 200 200 Elderly & Disabled Section 8
Public Housing
Continual
Renewal
Wesley Manor Non-Profit 154 154 Elderly & Disabled Section 8 Continual
Renewal
Sharmon Palms Non-Profit 60 60 Family RDA 2063
Avalon Bay For-Profit 348 70 Family & Elderly RDA 2026
Gateway For-Profit 20 3 Family & Elderly RDA 2026
San Tomas
Gardens Non-Profit 100 100 Family Section 236;
Catholic Charities 2036
Downtown Mixed-Use For-Profit 20 3 Family Inclusionary Requirement 2062
Fairlands Court Non-Profit 1 1
(5 seniors) Elderly CDBG; Section 8 Perpetuity
Pollard Non-Profit 1 1 (5 seniors) Elderly RDA; HOME; CDBG Perpetuity
Llewellyn Non-Profit 1 1
(5 seniors) Elderly CDBG Perpetuity
TOTAL 1,017 629
Source: Community Development Department, City of Campbell, 2008.
Two of Campbell’s assisted housing projects are
undergoing or planning substantial rehabilitation
improvements. Rincon Gardens, owned and operated
by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, is a 200
unit senior housing complex originally developed in
1981, providing housing affordable to extremely low
and very low income seniors and disabled residents.
Sharmon Palms consists of a series of 15 fourplexes
acquired by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition in 1989
with the assistance of the City, and is in the process of
securing tax credit and other State funds for major
systems upgrades, which will extend the affordability
A1-26 Campbell General Plan
period to 2063.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-27
At-Risk Projects
This section evaluates those lower income rental projects in Campbell at-risk of converting to
market-rate uses prior to June 30, 2019. According to the 2008 risk assessment by California Housing
Partnership Corporation (CHPC), no assisted development in Campbell is identified at high risk of
conversion to market use. Of the 629 assisted units identified in Chart 2-23, 390 units in three
projects are determined to be at low risk of conversion over the next ten year period: Corinthian
House, Rincon Gardens and Wesley Manor. All of these projects maintain Section 8 project-based
Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) contracts with HUD subject to periodic renewals.
Preservation and Replacement Options
To maintain the existing affordable housing stock, the City must either preserve the existing assisted
units or facilitate the development of new units. Depending on the circumstances of at-risk projects,
different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation options typically
include:
1) Transfer of project to non-profit ownership;
2) Provision of rental assistance to tenants using non-federal funding sources; and
3) Purchase of affordability covenants.
In terms of replacement, the most direct option is the development of new assisted multi-family
housing units. These options are described below.
1) Transfer of Ownership: Transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing
provider is generally one of the least costly way to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable
for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a non-profit organization, low-income
restrictions can be secured indefinitely and the project would become potentially eligible for a
greater range of governmental assistance. This preservation option is, however, not applicable in
Campbell because two of the at-risk projects are already owned by non-profit organizations, with
the third under ownership by the Housing Authority. These projects are determined to be at
“low” risk of conversion largely due to their non-profit and public ownership status.
2) Rental Assistance: If Section 8 rent subsidies are terminated at the federal level, rent subsidies
using alternative State or local funding sources could be used to maintain affordability of the 390
at-risk units. Subsidies could be structured similar to the federal Section 8 program, where HUD
pays the owners the difference between what tenants can afford to pay (30% of household
income) and what HUD estimates as the Fair Market Rent (FMR) on the unit.
The feasibility of this alternative depends upon the availability of non-federal funding sources
necessary to make rent subsidies available and the willingness of property owners to accept
rental vouchers if they can be provided. Chart 2-24 shows the total cost of subsidizing the rents
at all at-risk units currently assisted through the Section 8 program. As indicated below, the total
cost of subsidizing the rents at the 390 at-risk units is estimated at about $65,000 per month or
$800,000 annually. Another way rent subsidies could be structured is as a rent buy-down. This
would involve the Agency providing a one-time assistance loan to the property owner to cover
the present value of the decrease in rents associated with the extended affordability term
compared with market rents achievable on the units. This approach offers a benefit to the owner
in that they receive cash upfront from the loan. A potential disincentive to the owner is that the
use of Redevelopment set-aside funds for the rent buy-down necessitates a 55 year affordability
covenant on the units.
A1-28 Campbell General Plan
Chart 2-24: Rental Subsidies Required
Unit
Size
Total
Units*
Voucher
Payment
Standard
Household
Size
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Affordable
Cost
Monthly Per
Unit Subsidy
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
0-br 22 $1,057 1 $37,150 $924 $133 $2,926
1-br 354 $1,224 2 $42,450 $1,055 $169 $59,826
2-br 14 $1,471 3 $47,750 $1,187 $284 $3,976
Total 390 $66,728
*Corinthian House consists of 22 studio and 14 one-bedroom units. All 154 units in Wesley Manor are one-bedroom
units. Rincon Gardens contains 186 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units.
3) Acquisition or Construction of Replacement Units: The construction or purchase of a
replacement building is another option to replace at-risk units should they be converted to
market-rate units. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including
density, size of the units, location, land costs, and type of construction. Based on review of 40
multi-family sales transactions in Campbell during 2006-2008, the average per unit purchase
price for a fourplex (the predominant multi-family product type in Campbell) runs
$225,000/unit. Therefore, the cost to replace the 390 at-risk units in Campbell can generally be
estimated at $87 million.
Cost Comparisons: Given their non-profit and public ownership, it is highly unlikely that any of the
three “at risk” projects will convert to market-uses. Nevertheless, the above analysis attempts to
estimate the cost of preserving the at-risk units under various options. The annual costs of providing
rental subsidies required to preserve the 390 assisted units is relatively low at $800,000. However,
long-term affordability of the units cannot be ensured in this manner, unless it was structured as a
one-time rent buy-down. The option of acquiring or developing 390 replacement units is very costly
and constrained by a variety of factors, including limited purchase opportunities of large multi-
family properties and the scarcity of land for new development. The best option to preserve the at-
risk units thus appears to be the purchase of affordability covenants through a one-time rent buy-
down. This option would likely require the participation of Campbell’s Redevelopment Agency and
the use of its set-aside funds.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-29
D. Regional Housing Needs
State law requires all regional councils of governments, including the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) to determine the existing and projected housing need for its region
(Government Code Section 65580 et. seq.) and determine the portion allocated to each jurisdiction
within the ABAG region. This is called the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) process.
1. Existing Housing Needs
A continuing priority of communities is enhancing or maintaining their quality of life. A key measure
of quality of life in a community is the extent of “housing problems.” The federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has developed an existing needs statement that details the
number of households earning lower income, living in overcrowded conditions, or overpaying for
housing. These housing problems are defined as follows:
• Lower Income: Refers to a household earning less than 80 percent of the median family
income, as adjusted by family size. For a four-person household, the median income was
$105,500 for Santa Clara County in 2008.
• Overcrowding: Refers to a housing unit which is occupied by more than one person per
room, excluding kitchens, bathrooms, hallways, and porches, as defined by HUD.
• Overpayment: Refers to a household paying 30 percent or more of its gross income for rent
(either mortgage or rent), including costs for utilities, property insurance, and real estate
taxes, as defined by HUD.
The prevalence of overcrowding and overpayment is particularly higher among lower-income
households, because they have less income for housing costs. Charts 2-24 and 2-25 in the following
sections document the prevalence of overcrowding and overpayment among all households in
Campbell, including low income.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when housing costs are so high relative to income that families double up to
devote income to other basic needs of food and medical care. Overcrowding also tends to result in
accelerated deterioration of homes, a shortage of street parking, and additional traffic. Therefore,
maintaining a reasonable level of occupancy and alleviating overcrowding are critical to enhancing
the quality of life in the community.
The Census defines overcrowding as an average of more than one person per room in a housing unit
(excluding kitchens, porches, and hallways); severe overcrowding is defined as greater than 1.5
persons per room. The incidence of overcrowded housing is a general measure of whether there is
an available supply of adequately sized housing units. Chart 2-25 shows the incidence of
overcrowding in Campbell by tenure, as measured by the 2000 Census.
A1-30 Campbell General Plan
Chart 2-25: Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding Households Percent Santa Clara County %
Owners
Overcrowding 250 3% 8%
Severe Overcrowding 96 1% 4%
Renters
Overcrowding 956 12% 23%
Severe Overcrowding 485 6% 15%
Total Overcrowding 1,206 8% 14%
Source: Census 2000.
Note: Severe Overcrowding is a subset of Overcrowding
In 2000, there were 1,206 households living in overcrowded conditions in Campbell, representing
eight percent of all households. Approximately 12 percent of renter households were overcrowded;
an increase from 1990 levels when eight percent of Campbell’s renters were overcrowded. While
household overcrowding has increased in Campbell, overcrowding remains approximately half of
that of the levels Countywide.
Overpayment
Housing overpayment refers to spending more than 30 percent of income on housing; severe
overpayment is spending greater than 50 percent. As is the case in throughout the Bay Area, it is not
uncommon to overpay for housing in Campbell. However, to the extent that overpayment is often
disproportionately concentrated among the most vulnerable members of the community,
maintaining a reasonable level of housing cost burden is an important contributor to quality of life.
Chart 2-26 shows the incidence of overpayment in Campbell.
Chart 2-26: Housing Overpayment
Overpayment Households Percent Santa Clara County %
Owners
Overpayment
(>30% income on housing) 1,945 29% 29%
Lower Income Overpayment 859 58% 56%
Severe Overpayment
(> 50% income on housing) 568 9% 10%
Renters
Overpayment
(> 30% income on housing) 3,290 40% 38%
Lower Income Overpayment 2,584 77% 67%
Severe Overpayment
(> 50% income on housing) 1,253 15% 17%
Total Overpayment 5,235 33% 30%
Source: 2000 Census; socds.huduser.org/chas/reports Notes: Percentage lower income overpayment reflects % of total lower income households spending > 30% income on housing. Severe Overpayment is a subset of Overpayment
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-31
According to the 2000 Census, 40 percent of renters and 29 percent of homeowners in Campbell
were overpaying for housing, slightly higher than the overpayment rate Countywide. Severe
overpayment impacts 15 percent of the City’s renters. In terms of lower income (<80% AMI)
households overpaying, 2,584 lower income renters and 859 lower income homeowners were faced
with overpayment in Campbell, indicating that over three-quarters of overpaying renters earned
lower incomes. Of these lower income households facing overpayment, 1,020 renters (39%), and
306 owners (36%) earned extremely low incomes (< 30% AMI).
Chart 2-27 provides a more detailed review of households that experienced severe housing
overpayment. Among renters, the elderly were most impacted by severe overpayment, with almost
one-third of the City’s total 932 elderly renters spending more than half their income on rent.
Among homeowners, it’s again the elderly who experience a comparatively higher level of severe
overpayment, at about 13 percent. These households are most at risk of foreclosure, particularly in
a declining housing market with rising interest rates.
Chart 2-27: Severe Housing Cost Burden by Type and Tenure
Elderly Small Family Large Family Other Total
Renter Households
Total # by household type 932 2,962 520 3,773 8,187
% with severe cost burden 32% 11% 13% 14% 15%
Owner Households
Total # by household type 1,578 4,015 572 1,561 7,726
% with severe cost burden 13% 6% 8% 13% 9%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2000 (http://socds.huduser.org/chas/reports)
2. Future Housing Needs
California’s Housing element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs
to meet its “fair share” of existing and future housing needs for all income groups, as determined by
the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments. This “fair share” allocation concept seeks to ensure that
each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of not only its resident population, but
also for the jurisdiction’s projected share of regional housing growth across all income categories.
Regional growth needs are defined as the number of units that would have to be added in each
jurisdiction to accommodate the forecasted number of households, as well as the number of units
that would have to be added to compensate for anticipated demolitions and changes to achieve an
“ideal” vacancy rate.
In the Bay Area region, the agency responsible for assigning these regional housing needs to each
jurisdiction is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The regional growth allocation
process begins with the State Department of Finance’s projections of population and associated of
housing demand for the planning period. In 2008 ABAG developed its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) based on forecasts contained in Projections 2007: Forecasts for the San Francisco
Bay Area to the Year 2035. The State, in consultation with ABAG, has identified a total housing need
for 214,500 housing units in the Bay Area during the 2007-2014 period.
ABAG is responsible for allocating the region’s projected housing needs among its jurisdictions by
income category. This is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The
RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units each community is required to provide
A1-32 Campbell General Plan
“adequate sites” for through zoning and is one of the primary threshold criteria necessary to achieve
State approval of the Housing Element.
Future housing needs refer to the share of the region’s housing need that has been allocated to a
community. In allocating the region’s future housing needs to jurisdictions, ABAG is required to take
the following factors into consideration:
Water and sewer capacity
Land suitable for urban development or conversion to residential use
Protected open space – lands protected by state and federal government
County policies to protect prime agricultural land
Distribution of household growth
Market demand for housing
City-centered growth policies
Loss of units in assisted housing developments
High housing cost burdens
Impact of universities and colleges on housing needs in a community
In devising the formula for allocating the 214,500 units amongst jurisdictions, ABAG had to consider
how each of these statutory factors could be incorporated into the mathematical equation. ABAG
staff and members of the Housing Methodology Committee sought input from every jurisdiction in
the Bay Area on the factors and how they could be used. The final allocation method adopted by
ABAG’s Executive Board includes factors related to housing and employment growth, and public
transit. ABAG’s allocation formula of the region’s projected housing growth is based on the following
selected factors and weights:
Household growth (45%)
Existing employment (22.5%)
Employment growth (22.5%)
Household growth near existing transit (5%)
Employment growth near existing transit (5%)
ABAG’s goals in the weighting of these factors include: 1) directing housing units to areas where
local governments are planning growth; 2) planning for housing in tandem with jobs growth and
addressing existing jobs-housing imbalances; 3) directing housing to communities with transit
infrastructure; and 4) minimizing housing growth in outlying areas, thereby reducing pressures on
open space and agricultural lands. As defined by the RHNA, Campbell’s new construction need for
the 2007-2014 period has been established at 892 new units, distributed among the four income
categories as shown in Chart 2-28. Through this Housing Element, the City will demonstrate the
availability of adequate sites to accommodate these projected new units.
Chart 2-28: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2007 -2014
Income Level Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) Units as per RHNA Percent of Total RHNA
Very Low* 0-50% 199 22%
Low 51-80% 122 14%
Moderate 81-120% 158 18%
Above Moderate 120%+ 413 46%
Total 892 100%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (March 20, 2008).
*An estimated half of Campbell’s very low income housing needs (100 units) are for extremely low income households
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-33
3. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
The provision of adequate and affordable housing opportunities is an important goal of the City.
However, there are a variety of factors that can encourage or constrain the development,
maintenance, and improvement of the housing stock in Campbell. These include market
mechanisms, government codes, and physical and environmental constraints. This section addresses
the potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints in Campbell.
A. Market Constraints
Land costs, construction costs, and market financing contribute to the cost of housing reinvestment,
and can potentially hinder the production of new affordable housing. Although many constraints are
driven by market conditions, jurisdictions have some leverage in instituting policies and programs to
addressing the constraints.
1. Development Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing
generally less expensive to construct than single family homes. However, there is wide variation
within each construction type depending on the size of unit and the number and quality of
amenities provided, such as fireplaces, swimming pools, and interior fixtures among others. Land
costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use which must be
removed.
Based on a recent (2008) financial proforma for a single-family subdivision in Campbell, construction
costs for a wood frame single-family home are estimated at approximately $170 per square foot,
excluding land costs. Additional costs associated with demolition of existing structures,
environmental remediation, on- and off-site improvements, and allocations for contractor overhead
and profit increased the total cost of construction to $230 per square foot. Review of 40 multi-family
sales transactions in Campbell during 2006-2008 indicates an average per unit purchase price of
$225,000 for a fourplex (the predominant multi-family product type in Campbell).
Ways to reduce development costs include a reduction in amenities and the quality of building
materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) which
could, in theory, result in lower sales prices. In addition, prefabricated factory-built housing may
provide for lower priced housing by reducing materials and labor costs. Another factor related to
construction costs is the number of units built at one time. As the number increases, overall costs
generally decrease as builders can benefit from economies of scale.
Another key component is the price of raw land and any necessary improvements. The diminishing
supply of residential land combined with a high demand for such development keeps land cost high
in cities across the Bay Area. While no vacant residential land sales have occurred in Campbell for
several years, evaluation of land sales transactions in Sunnyvale and San Jose indicate a range of $68
to $95 per square foot, with the price for multi-family properties generally at the high end of the
range, and single-family properties at the lower end of the range. As funding permits, the Campbell
A1-34 Campbell General Plan
Redevelopment Agency can support the development of affordable housing by writing-down the
cost of land on Agency-owned/acquired property in exchange for affordability controls.
2. Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including the type of
lending institutions active in the community, lending practices, rates and fees charged, laws and
regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to those institutions. Through analysis
of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on the disposition of residential loan applications,
an assessment can be made of the availability of residential financing within a community.
Chart 3-1 summarizes HMDA data for both Campbell and Santa Clara County as a whole, providing
information on the approval status of all home purchase, refinance and home improvement loan
applications during 2007. Of the total of 790 applications for conventional home purchase loans in
Campbell, 76 percent were approved, 17 percent denied, and seven percent withdrawn or
incomplete. In comparison to the County-wide average, mortgage loan approval rates were higher
in Campbell (76%), than the County (70%). Approval rates for home improvement loans were
significantly higher in Campbell than Santa Clara County as a whole, at 70 percent compared to only
59 percent County-wide.
Chart 3-1: Home Purchase and Improvement Loans - 2007
Loan Type
# Loan Applications in Campbell
% Loans Approved % Loans Denied % Loans Withdrawn/ Incomplete
Campbell
Santa
Clara
County
Campbell
Santa
Clara
County
Campbell
Santa
Clara
County
Home Purchase 790 76% 70% 17% 20% 7% 10%
Home Improvement 126 70% 59% 23% 29% 7% 12%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 2007
To address potential constraints and expand homeownership and home improvement
opportunities, the City of Campbell offers and/or participates in a variety of programs. These include
the First Time Homebuyer Program and Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) as well as rehabilitation
programs for single-family homes and rental properties. Such programs assist lower- and moderate-
income residents by increasing access to favorable loan terms to purchase or improve their homes.
The Housing Plan provides more detailed information on the type and extent of programs available.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-35
B. Governmental Constraints
Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and in particular, the
provision of affordable housing. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and
exactions, permit processing procedures, and various other issues may present constraints to the
maintenance, development and improvement of housing. This section discusses potential
governmental constraints in Campbell.
1. Land Use Controls
The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the City’s policies for guiding local
development. These policies, together with existing zoning regulations, establish the amount and
distribution of land allocated for different uses within Campbell. As summarized below in Chart 3-2,
the Land Use Element provides for six residential land use designations, a mobile home park
designation, one commercial designation, and four mixed-use designations that allow for residential
uses.
Chart 3-2: Land Use Categories Permitting Residential Use
General Plan Land Use
Category Zoning District(s) Density (Units
per Gross Acre) Residential Type(s)
Low Density Residential R-1-10, R-1-16 <3.5 Single-family detached homes on large lots
Low Density Residential R-1-8, R-1-9 <4.5 Single-family detached homes on large lots
Low Density Residential R-1-6 <6 Single-family detached homes on average sized lots
Low-Medium Density
Residential
R-M, R-D,
C-P-D, P-D 6—13
Duplexes, multi-plexes, townhomes, and small lot
single-family detached homes when PD designation
is used
Medium Density Residential R-2, C-P-D, P-D 14—20 Townhomes, apartments, condominiums, or multi-
plexes
High Density Residential R-3, C-P-D 21—17 Apartments or condominiums
Mobile Home Park P-D 6—13 Mobile home parks (greater than 10 acres in size)
Central Commercial C-3 None
specified
Condominiums or apartments on the second and
third floors
Low-Medium Density
Residential or Office P-D 6—13 Single-family homes on small lots, townhomes, multi-
plexes
Medium to High Density
Residential/ Commercial P-D 14—27
Multiple-family housing on the upper floors above
office/ commercial uses. Attached townhomes or
condominiums in the SOCA specific plan area.
Residential/ Commercial/
Professional Office P-D 14—27
Multiple-family housing including condominiums or
apartments on the upper floors above office or
commercial uses.
Source: City of Campbell General Plan, April 2001.
A1-36 Campbell General Plan
2. Residential Development Standards
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development primarily through
the Zoning Code. Zoning regulations are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and
general welfare of residents as well as implement the policies of the City’s General Plan. The Zoning
Code also serves to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. The Code sets
forth the City’s specific residential development standards, which are summarized in Chart 3-3.
Chart 3-3: Residential Development Standards
Zoning
District
Maximum
Density (du/ac)
Minimum Net Lot Area (sq.ft.)
Maximum Building Coverage (%)
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
R-1-6 <6.0 6,000 40% 28-35
R-1-8 <4.5 8,000 35% 28-35
R-1-9 <4.5 9,000 35% 28-35
R-1-10 <3.5 10,000 35% 28-35
R-1-16 <3.5 16,000 35% 28-35
R-2 20.0 6,000 40% 35
R-3 27.0 6,000 40% 35
R-M 13.0 6,000 40% 40
R-D 13.0 6,000 40% 35
C-P-D 27.0 N/A N/A N/A
P-D 27.0 N/A N/A N/A
Source: City of Campbell Planning Division, December 2008.
Parking Requirements
The City’s parking requirement for residential districts varies by housing type and anticipated
parking needs. The City calculates the parking requirements by unit type and on per-bedroom basis
for multi-family units, as illustrated in Chart 3-4. The City permits carports in lieu of garages for all
housing units, which can serve to reduce development costs. Under the City’s density bonus
program, projects that provide affordable (below market rate) or senior housing may be eligible for
a reduction in the parking requirements. Additionally, the Planning Commission has the authority to
adjust the parking requirements for specific projects when they determine that there are
circumstances that warrant an adjustment. These circumstances may include proximity to light rail
stations, transit corridors, or major employment centers. The Commission may also permit two uses
(such as residential and commercial) to jointly occupy the same parking spaces when their parking
demands occur at different times. Examples of parking reductions approved by the Planning
Commission include:
• Water Tower Place (a 21-unit condominium project): Because this project is located in the
Downtown near a light rail station, the Planning Commission required only two dedicated
spaces per unit within a single underground garage where 3.5 spaces per unit would
normally be required.
• The Gateway (a 20-unit apartment project): Because the project is located in the
Downtown, the Commission required only one non-dedicated parking space (shared with
commercial tenants) per unit where two dedicated spaces per unit are normally required.
• The Downtown Center (20-unit condominium project): This mixed-use downtown project
was approved and built with a provision of one parking space per unit.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-37
Chart 3-4: Parking Requirements
Housing Type Parking Space Requirements per Unit
Covered Uncovered Total
Single-Family 1 1 2
Duplex 1 1 2
Townhomes/Condominiums
One-bedroom units
Two or more bedrooms units
1
1
2
0.5
3
3.5
Multiple-Family
One-bedroom units
Two or more bedrooms units
1
1
0.5
1
1.5
2
Source: City of Campbell Planning Division, December 2008.
The parking requirement for condominiums and townhomes is currently three spaces for one-
bedroom units and 3.5 spaces for units with two or more bedrooms, one of which must be covered.
This requirement is higher than that for single-family homes (two spaces per unit) because
condominium and townhome developments typically do not have private driveways for additional
parking nor street frontage that could provide on-street guest parking spaces. The City has also
found that the parking needs of condominiums and townhomes are greater than those for
apartments or other multiple-family uses because townhomes or condominiums are usually larger in
size. Owners of condominiums or townhomes are also typically more likely to have secondary
vehicles (recreational). Consequently, condominiums commonly have more drivers per household
than apartments.
In the past, developers have not had problems meeting the City’s parking requirement for
condominiums and townhomes. The City does not have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) or lot
coverage requirement for condominium and townhomes, so the size and number of units is not
compromised in order to meet the parking requirement. Also, the cost of constructing the parking
spaces is minor and has not been an economic burden to developers.
Campbell’s development standards have proven to be effective in allowing projects to achieve
maximum densities. Given high land costs, the majority of multi-family and mixed use developments
in Campbell are built at or near maximum permitted densities. Recent examples include Gateway
mixed use (25 du/acre); Water Tower Lofts (27 du/acre); Onyx (27 du/acre); Campbell Center (26
du/acre); Gilman Cottages (27 du/acre); Creekside Commons (27 du/acre); and Merrill Gardens
senior housing (34 du/acre with density bonus). These and other infill project examples are included
in Appendix A3 of the Housing Element, and demonstrate that the City’s development standards
have not served as a constraint to achieving maximum zoned densities.
Flexibility in Development Standards
The City offers various mechanisms to provide relief from development standards that are typically
required of all residential projects under the Zoning Code. These mechanisms include mixed-use
development provisions and the density bonus program.
Mixed-Use Development: Within the City of Campbell, there are several areas where mixed use
development is encouraged, both as residential and commercial uses combined on a single parcel,
and as components of a single development. A key strategy of the City’s General Plan is to integrate
residential development along designated commercial corridors to create activity along the street,
provide a variety of housing types near work and shopping, and enhance public safety. This strategy
A1-38 Campbell General Plan
ensures safer, more viable commercial areas, with mixed-use residents helping to ensure the
viability of the commercial uses. Mixed-use development is located next to sidewalks or landscape
setback areas adjacent to the public street to enhance visibility, pedestrian access and interaction
with the commercial uses.
The City’s zoning ordinance provides several incentives to encourage mixed use. The allowable
density of a mixed-use project is defined by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) contained in specific land use
policies within each Area or Specific Plan; residential uses are encouraged by not counting the FAR
of the residential units towards the project FAR. Furthermore, the City allows for a shared parking
reduction where two or more uses have distinct and differing peak parking usage periods.
Furthermore, a reduction in the required open space for the residential component of a mixed-use
project may be granted where the full amount of open space is unable to be accommodated due to
the urban infill characteristics of the site. The City has approved several mixed-use projects since
adoption of the prior 2001 Housing Element. These include the following:
• Merrill Gardens (2041 – 2127 S. Winchester Blvd.) – This project consists of 127 total
units including 99 senior market rate units and 28 non-age restricted apartments. Of
these, 19 very low income units will be distributed throughout the project. Additionally,
21 Alzheimer care units and 16,950 square feet of retail fronting Winchester Boulevard
are provided. The City Council approved several concessions including waiving the park
fees for the affordable units.
• Boyce Property (1677 S. Bascom Avne) – The City approved this mixed-use project at the
maximum zoned density of 27 units per acre. The project provides 123 market rate
condominiums and 14,045 square feet of retail space fronting Hamilton Avenue.
• 2295 – 2305 S. Winchester Blvd – The City approved this small in-fill project adjacent to
single-family homes in June 2008. The project provides five apartments above retail
space fronting Winchester Boulevard consistent with the General Plan vision for
Winchester.
• Campbell Center (201 E. Campbell Avenue) – known as the Downtown Master Developer
Site, the Redevelopment Agency created this development opportunity with the
construction of the adjacent public parking structure. This project provides 22
condominiums (including three affordable units) over 25,000 square feet of commercial
space. This project was completed in 2007.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-39
Affordable Housing Density Bonus: The City of Campbell has offered density bonus incentives for
the provision of affordable housing since 1991. In November 2007, the Campbell City Council
adopted a new density bonus ordinance (Zoning Code Chapter 21.20) to conform to the new
requirements of Government Code Section 65915. In summary, applicants of residential projects of
five or more units may apply for a density bonus and additional incentive(s) if the project provides
for construction of one of the following:
a. Ten percent (10%) of the total units for lower income households; or
b. Five percent (5%) of the total units for very low income households; or
c. A senior citizen housing development or mobilehome park that limits residency based on
age requirements for housing for older persons; or
d. Ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a condominium for persons and families of
moderate income.
The amount of density bonus to which the applicant is entitled varies according to the amount by
which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the minimum percentage established in
this section, but generally ranges from 20-35 percent above the specified General Plan density. In
addition to the density bonus, eligible projects may receive 1-3 additional development incentives,
depending on the proportion of affordable units and level of income targeting.
The following types of incentives are offered:
a. A reduction in site development standards (e.g., setback and square footage requirements,
and/or parking requirements) or architectural design requirements. At the request of the
developer, the City will permit a parking ratio (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking)
of one space for 0-1 bedroom units, two spaces for 2-3 bedroom units, and 2½ spaces for
four or more bedrooms.
b. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if nonresidential land
uses would reduce the cost of individual units in the housing project, and the nonresidential
land uses would be compatible with the housing project and adjoining development.
c. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the permit applicant or the City that
would result in identifiable cost reductions.
In addition, the City has approved the following set of concessions:
Reduction in required on-site parking as described in CMC Section 21.20.120(4);
Expedited processing pursuant to a mutually agreed upon schedule; and,
Deferral of the collection of impact fees on market rate units until issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
The City advertises the availability of density bonus incentives on its website, and provides
information to prospective residential applicants. Particularly since Campbell now requires 15
percent inclusionary units on a Citywide basis, density bonuses offer a means of offsetting the cost
of providing the required affordable units. Both the Water Tower Place and Merrill Gardens projects
were granted an affordable housing density bonus.
Inclusionary Housing: For many years, Campbell has had an inclusionary housing requirement
within its Redevelopment Project Areas for developments to provide 15 percent affordable units. In
2006, the City Council adopted an ordinance that codified this policy, and extended the City’s
inclusionary requirements on a City wide basis.
A1-40 Campbell General Plan
Zoning Code Chapter 21.24 requires new residential projects with ten or more units to provide at
least 15 percent of the total units for low and moderate income households at an affordable
housing cost. Rental units are required to be made available to very low and low income households
(minimum 40% to very low), while owner units are to be available to low and moderate income
households. Regulatory agreements are recorded on inclusionary projects that require affordability
for a period of 45 years for ownership units and 55 years for rental units, consistent with
Redevelopment statutes. Preference in the rental or purchase of affordable units is provided as
follows: first to income eligible employees of the City of Campbell; second to income eligible existing
Campbell residents; and third to income eligible persons employed within the Campbell city limits.
As a means of providing flexibility in compliance with inclusionary requirements, the City allows the
following alternatives to provision of on-site affordable units:
Off-site construction of affordable units
Provision of rental units in for-sale projects (subject to very low and low income
affordability)
Dedication of land sufficient to accommodate the required affordable units
Payment of an in-lieu housing fee (for projects 6 units/acre and below).
In addition, Campbell’s inclusionary ordinance provides for a reduction or waiver of the inclusionary
requirement if an applicant can show there is no reasonable relationship between the project and
the requirement for affordable units, or if application of the inclusionary requirements represents a
taking.
The City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on October 3, 2006. As of January 2009, one
project has been approved and required to provide affordable units under the ordinance. This
project was a senior housing project by Merrill Gardens on Winchester Boulevard. This project also
received a density bonus.
A number of projects have been approved since the ordinance came into effect were deemed
complete prior to the ordinance taking effect. Numerous projects with less than 10 units, exempt
from the ordinance, have also been approved since the ordinance took effect. Projects under review
(examples included in Appendix C4 – Summary of Infill Development Projects) currently have
incorporated the required affordable units in their planning. The City has not received negative
feedback from developers of these larger projects in terms of affecting project viability. The
ordinance is similar to surrounding cities and has been accepted by the development community.
In-lieu fees are currently established at $33.50 per square foot for ownership housing units and
$20.70 for rental housing units. These fees are set by the City Council on an annual basis. By
ordinance, this fee is only available for projects with a density of six or fewer units per acre.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-41
3. Provisions for a Variety of Housing
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various
types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family homes,
multi-family housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters and transitional
housing among others. Chart 3-5 below summarizes housing types permitted within residential and
commercial zones.
Chart 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Zone
Housing Types Permitted R-1 R-2 R-3 R-D R-M P-D C-PD C-3
Residential Uses
Small Lot Single-Family
(<6,000 sq.ft. lots) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Conventional Single-Family (>6,000 sq.ft. lots) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Planned Unit Developments Y
Duplexes (2 attached units) Y Y Y Y
Second Units Y Y Y Y Y Y
Condominiums Y c
Mobile Home Parks
(sites 10 acres or larger) Y
Multiple-Family Residential Units
(e.g. apartments) Y Y Y Y c
Townhouses Y Y
Special Needs Housing
Residential Care Facility
(6 or less persons) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Residential Care Facility
(7 or more persons) c c c c c c c c
Convalescent Hospital c c c c c c c c
Philanthropic Residential Facility5 c c c c c c c c
Correctional Residential Facility c c c c c c c c
Boarding or Lodging House c
On-Site Living Facility* c c c c c c c C
Y = Permitted
c = Conditionally Permitted
* In conjunction with an approved conforming use for security and/or 24-hour service.
Source: City of Campbell Zoning Code, December 2008.
Multi-Family Rental Housing
The City’s Zoning Code provides for apartment developments in the R-M, R-2, R-3, and PD zoning
districts by-right, and with approval of a conditional use permit in the C-3, central business district.
Densities of up to 27 dwelling units per acre are permitted, with additional densities for affordable
and senior housing. The General Plan also provides for high density residential on designated
commercial corridors surrounding VTA Light Rail Stations.
5 Philanthropic residential facilities include temporary or permanent homeless shelters and transitional housing facilities.
A1-42 Campbell General Plan
Condominiums
Similar to many jurisdictions, Campbell’s Zoning Code distinguishes between condominiums and
multi-family rental housing. The C-PD (Condominium-Planned Development) zoning district provides
for the construction of new condominiums, or conversion of existing rental housing into
condominium ownership subject to a planned development permit. Condominiums are also
conditionally permitted in the C-3, central business district.
In order to provide maximum flexibility for projects and provide the city appropriate levels of
discretion, large areas of the city are zoned Planned Development. This designation has proven over
time to be an excellent vehicle for providing unique, custom tailored development solutions to
generally small, heavily constrained in-fill sites. The City requires a zoning designation to C-PD or
Condominium Planned Development for condominium projects. This allows for eliminating
minimum lot size requirements and also provides for a review of proposed apartment to
condominium conversion projects. This zoning requirement has not been a barrier to the approval
of numerous condominium projects in the past.
Secondary Dwelling Units
The purpose of permitting additional living units in single-family districts is to allow more efficient
use of the existing housing stock and infrastructure to provide the opportunity for the development
of small rental housing units designed to meet the special housing needs of individuals and families,
while preserving the integrity of single-family neighborhoods.
The passage of AB 1866 (effective July 2003) now requires local governments to use a ministerial
process for second unit applications for the purpose of facilitating production of affordable housing.
AB 1866 does allow cities to impose development standards on second units addressing issues such
as building size, parking, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. In order to comply with the new law, in
2004, the Campbell City Council amended Chapter 21.36.200 of the Zoning Code to permit attached
and detached second units as an accessory use in R-1 zoning districts on minimum 10,000 square
foot lots.
Campbell’s Zoning Code includes the following additional standards for secondary dwelling units:
• Restricted to a maximum of 640 square feet, one bedroom, and 14 feet in height.
• In conjunction with the primary single-family dwelling, a total of four parking spaces are
required, two of which shall be covered. Spaces may be allowed in tandem in a driveway of
a two-car garage if the garage meets minimum setbacks and lot configuration precludes
placement of parking areas elsewhere on the property.
• Must meet all of the applicable development standards of the zoning district (for example,
setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio);
• Required to be designed so that the appearance of the property remains that of a single-
family residence (for example, the entrances to secondary dwelling units must not be visible
from the street);
• A deed restriction is required that stipulates that only one of the two units on the property
may be rented at any one time; and
• There is no size or number of bedroom restrictions for secondary units on parcels that have
a minimum lot area of 250 percent of the minimum required for the district in which it is
located (for example, a 15,000 net square foot lot in an R-1-6 Zoning District).
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-43
Campbell receives an average of 2 to 3 second unit applications annually, with a total of 15 second
units constructed between 2001-2007. Approximately 1,000 R-1 parcels meet the City’s 10,000
square foot minimum parcel size requirement, providing significant additional capacity for second
units.
Manufactured Housing/ Mobile Homes
Section 65852.3 of the California Government Code requires jurisdictions to administratively allow
manufactured homes on lots zoned for single-family dwellings if they meet certain standards. More
specifically, the Government Code requires the following:
Except with respect to architectural requirements, jurisdictions can only subject the
manufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to the same development standards to
which a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject,
including, but not limited to, building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements,
standards for enclosures, access, and vehicle parking, aesthetic requirements, and minimum
square footage requirements. Any architectural requirements imposed on the manufactured
home structure itself shall be limited to its roof overhang, roofing material, and siding
material. These architectural requirements may be imposed on manufactured homes even if
similar requirements are not imposed on conventional single-family residential dwellings, but
requirements may not exceed those which would be required of conventional single-family
dwellings constructed on the same lot. In no case may a jurisdiction apply any development
standards that will have the effect of precluding manufactured homes from being installed
as permanent residences.
Campbell permits mobile home parks in the P-D zoning district on parcels with a Mobile Home Park
General Plan land use designation. There are currently two mobile home parks in Campbell: Paseo
de Palomas (106 units) and Timbercove Mobile Home Park (137 units). However, the City’s Zoning
Code does not specify provisions for individual manufactured housing units or mobile homes. In
order to better facilitate these uses, the Housing Element includes a program to list manufactured
housing as a permitted use within the R-1 zone, subject to architectural requirements within the
parameters of State law.
The City treats manufactured homes as simply another form of construction and does not apply any
requirements to them other than what normally applies to new residential construction. A number
of manufactured homes have gone through the normal design review process and been approved
and built.
A1-44 Campbell General Plan
Residential Care Homes and Residential Service Facilities
Campbell’s Zoning Code defines Residential Care Homes as licensed facilities where care, services, or
treatment is provided to persons living in a community residential setting. Residential Service
Facilities are defined as a residential facility where the operator receives compensation for the
provision of personal services, in addition to housing including protection, supervision, assistance,
guidance, training, therapy, or other non-medical care. The Zoning Code distinguishes between
small (six or fewer occupants) and large (seven or more occupants) Residential Care Homes and
Residential Service Facilities.
Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code requires residential facilities serving six or
fewer persons to be considered a residential use of property for purposes of local zoning
ordinances. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these
residential facilities – such as a conditional use permit (CUP), zoning variance or other zoning
clearance - than is required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The Campbell
Zoning Code permits Residential Care Homes and Residential Service Facilities serving six or fewer
persons by right in all residential zones (R-1, R-D, R-M, R-2, R-3, P-D), and does not subject such
facilities to a use permit, building standard, or regulation not otherwise required of single-family
homes in the same zone.
The Health and Safety Code further states that no local zoning ordinance can include residential
facilities which serve six or fewer residents in the definition of a boarding house, rooming house,
institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or the mentally infirm, foster care home, guest
home, rest home, sanitarium, mental hygiene home, or other similar term which implies that the
residential facility is a business run for profit or differs in any way from a family dwelling. In
compliance with the State statutes, the Campbell’s Zoning Code provides the following separate
definition for Rooming and Boarding Facilities, which are conditionally permitted in R-M, R-D, R-2
and R-3 zones:
“Rooming and Boarding houses means houses with individual bedrooms that are rented to
between three to five persons for profit, whether or not meals are provided.”
Due to the unique characteristics of larger (more than six persons) residential care homes/facilities,
most jurisdictions require a CUP to ensure neighborhood compatibility in the siting of these
facilities. As indicated previously in Chart 3-5, the Campbell Zoning Code provides for Residential
Care Homes and Service Facilities with more than six occupants in most all residential zone districts,
subject to approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission. The required findings for approval of a
CUP in Campbell are directed towards ensuring compatibility of the proposed use and not tied to
the user, and therefore are not viewed as a constraint per se to the provision of residential care
facilities.
The California courts have invalidated the following definition of “family” within jurisdictions Zoning
Ordinances: (a) an individual, (b) two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or (c)
a group of not more than a certain number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit.
Court rulings state that defining a family does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or
purpose recognized under the zoning and land planning powers of the city, and therefore violates
rights of privacy under the California Constitution. A zoning ordinance also cannot regulate
residency by discrimination between biologically related and unrelated persons.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-45
Campbell’s Zoning Code currently contains the following definition of “family”:
“Family means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or a
group of not more than five persons (excluding servants) not related by blood or marriage,
living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.”
The City’s definition of family has not functioned to preclude residential care or other group housing
from the City’s residential zone districts, as evidenced by the State Community Care Licensing
Division which identified two Group Homes, two Adult Residential Facilities, three Adult Residential
Facility for Persons with Special Health Care Needs, and 14 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
in Campbell. Nonetheless, a program has been included in the Housing Element to revise the current
definition of family to ensure compliance with state and federal laws.
Transitional and Supportive Housing and Emergency Shelters
Transitional housing is temporary housing (generally six months to two years) for a homeless
individual or family transitioning to permanent housing. Residents are also provided with one-on-
one case management, education and training, employment assistance, mental and physical
services, and support groups. Under Section 21.72.120: Additional Uses Permitted by Campbell’s
Municipal Code, "Philanthropic, correctional, residential care or day care home for more than six
residents" are allowed in any zoning district subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP).
The City has defined this category to include temporary or permanent homeless shelters and
transitional shelters. Locational and operational standards for transitional housing are specified in
Section 21.36.230, which includes a 300 foot separation requirement between a transitional facility
and another similar facility or single-family zoned parcel. Recent changes in State law (SB 2 -
effective January 2008) require transitional housing to be treated the same as any other residential
use within the same zone. The Housing Element includes a program for the City to modify its zoning
ordinance consistent with these new requirements, eliminating the CUP and spacing requirements
within residential zone districts.
Supportive housing is generally defined as permanent, affordable housing with on-site services that
help residents transition into stable, more productive lives. Services may include childcare, after-
school tutoring, career counseling, etc. Most transitional housing includes a supportive services
component. The City of Campbell regulates supportive housing as a residential use, provided
supportive services are ancillary to the primary use and for use by the residents of the facility.
The Campbell Zoning Ordinance defines “emergency shelters” as follows:
“Emergency shelter means a facility that provides families or individuals with emergency
overnight shelter, food, shower, clothes, and all other services critical to the day-to-day
needs of shelter residents. Case managers and shelter workers provide assistance in the
successful attainment of permanent housing including housing location assistance, housing
counseling, and educational services.”
The Zoning Code currently provides for emergency shelters in the R-M, R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, C-M, and
M-1 zones with a Conditional Use Permit. In 1995, the Planning Commission approved a CUP
(including waiver of the CUP fees) to allow the First United Methodist to use one building of the
church as a rotating homeless shelter for up to fifteen working single males each February; this
A1-46 Campbell General Plan
temporary winter shelter is still in operation. Pursuant to SB 2, jurisdictions with an unmet need for
emergency shelters are now required to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters will be allowed
as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. The identified
zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shelter need, and at a minimum provide
capacity for at least one year-round shelter. Permit processing, development and management
standards for emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the development of, or conversion
to, emergency shelters.
As discussed in the homeless section of the Housing Needs Assessment, the 2007 Santa Clara
Homeless Survey identified 96 homeless people in Campbell, including 54 people in cars/RV’s/vans
or encampments, 38 individuals in street locations, and four people in families; no homeless were
identified in shelters. In compliance with SB 2, Campbell has reviewed its zoning districts and
determined a portion of the M-1-S zone is best suited to be most conducive to house an emergency
homeless shelter. This sub-area of the M-1-S zone district provides for light industrial and
commercial uses, and is located centrally within the city and has good proximity to transit (bus and
light rail service). The area is bounded by Winchester Boulevard, Camden Avenue, Hacienda Avenue
and Los Gatos Creek County Park
While there are a limited number of vacant parcels within the identified M-1-S Sub-area, a large
number of properties are either underutilized or have existing structures which could potentially be
suitable for conversion to shelter use. The sub-area encompasses 53 parcels with an average lot size
of approximately 33,000 sq. ft (0.75 acres). Based on the estimate of Campbell’s homeless
population of 96 persons, it appears that this area is suitable for this purpose.
The City has included a program within the Housing Element to modify the Zoning Ordinance to
permit shelters in the M-1-S zone by right, subject to the same development and management
standards as other permitted uses in the zone. The City’s M-1-S development standards are
appropriate to facilitate emergency shelters, and can be summarized as follows:
Minimum lot size: 6,000 sq.ft.
Floor Area Ratio: 0.40
Building height: 30 feet
Front yard setback: 10 feet.
Side: 5 ft. or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line
(whichever is greater).
Rear Yard setbacks: 10 ft.
In addition to application of M-1-S development standards, pursuant to SB-2, the City can also
specify written, objective standards to regulate the following aspects of emergency shelters to
enhance compatibility:
The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly;
Off-street parking based on demonstrated need;
The size and location of exterior/interior onsite waiting and client intake areas;
The provision of onsite management;
The proximity of other emergency shelters provided that emergency shelters are not
required to be more than 300 feet apart;
The length of stay;
Lighting;
Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-47
Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
SRO residences are small, one room units (generally 100-250 sq. ft.) occupied by a single individual,
and may either have shared or private kitchen and bathroom facilities. SROs are rented on a weekly
to monthly basis typically without rental deposit, and can provide an entry point into the housing
market for extremely low income individuals, formerly homeless and disabled persons. Campbell’s
Zoning Ordinance does not currently explicitly address Single Room Occupancy uses. Campbell has
reviewed the City’s zoning districts and determined the R-3-S zones are the most conducive to
provision of SROs, either through new development or reuse of an existing building. A program has
been added to the Housing Element to revise the Zoning Code to explicitly specify SROs as a
conditionally permitted use within this zone.
The City will conditionally allow SRO’s in the R-3-S Multiple-Family Zone. This zoning district is the
City’s highest density residential zone and allows development up to 27 dwelling units per gross
acre. This zoning district is distributed in areas throughout Campbell with the largest single area
concentrated along Union Avenue on the eastern side of Campbell, in proximity to Bascom Avenue.
There are 92 parcels in the R-3-S zone, with an average lot size of 48,000 sq. ft (1.1 acres), providing
sufficient sites for SRO use.
Farm Employee Housing
The Census identifies eight Campbell residents employed in farming, fishing and forestry
occupations, representing less than one percent of the City’s labor force. No parcels in the City
remain in agricultural use. Therefore, given the extremely limited presence of farmworkers in the
community, the City has not identified a need for specialized farmworker housing beyond overall
programs for housing affordability.
Accessibility Accommodations
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an
affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e. modifications or
exceptions) in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be
necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example,
it may be a reasonable accommodation to allow covered ramps in the setbacks of properties that
have already been developed to accommodate residents with mobility impairments.
It is the policy of the City of Campbell to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with
disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of its zoning laws. In furtherance of this
policy, Chapter 21.50 of the Zoning Code sets forth the process for making a request for reasonable
accommodation. Campbell’s process and findings for reasonable accommodation can be
summarized as follows:
The applicant is provided a form to identify the Zoning Code provision, regulation or policy
from which accommodation is being requested, and to provide the basis for the claim and
why the accommodation is necessary.
The Community Development Director serves as the reviewing body for the request, unless
the project for which the request is being made requires some other discretionary and use
permit or approval.
A1-48 Campbell General Plan
The following factors are considered in determining the reasonableness of a requested
accommodation:
- Special need created by the disability
- Potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested modification
- Potential impact on surrounding uses
- Physical attributes of the property and structures
- Alternative accommodations which may provide an equivalent level of benefit.
- In the case of a determination involving a single-family dwelling, whether the
household would be considered a single housekeeping unit if it were not using
special services that are required because of the disabilities of the residents.
- Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the city
The factors for consideration of a reasonable accommodation request do not serve as deterrents to
housing accessibility. The “potential benefit” factor is a standard finding that is a restatement of the
City’s policy that the granting of a reasonable accommodation is a benefit by definition as it
facilitates providing fair access to housing. The “potential impact on surrounding uses” factor can be
addressed, to the extent necessary, by evaluating alternative approaches to addressing the
accessibility needs of the disabled to minimize the potential impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
Since adoption of the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance in 2004, the City has had one request
for a modification. The request involved a new market rate development which incorporated three
affordable units pursuant to the City’s inclusionary requirements. An income eligible applicant for
one of the affordable units was physically disabled. The City approved the modification request
through a ministerial process, and in addition provided funding to retrofit the affordable unit –
including lowered countertops and a fully accessible bathroom.
Campbell has an active history of assisting disabled residents in obtaining wheelchair ramps to allow
them to remain in their homes. Through the City’s residential rehabilitation program, the City has
provided numerous low interest, deferred loans for the installation of ramps. In addition, many
extremely low, very low and low income residents have been provided ramps free of charge through
the City’s Handyworker Program and through the non-profit serve agency Rebuilding Together.
4. Development Permit Procedures
The processing time needed to obtain development permits and required approvals varies
depending on the scope of the project. Smaller projects typically require less time and larger
projects more time. The City strives to keep its permit procedures streamlined and processing times
minimal. The Planning Division is the lead agency in processing residential development applications
and coordinates the processing of those applications with other City departments such as the Public
Works Department, Building Division, and the Redevelopment Agency.
Multi-family and Mixed-Use residential projects typically require some type of discretionary action.
Projects with Planned Development (P-D) zoning require a P-D permit from the Planning
Commission and City Council. Processing times for a P-D project take typically four to six months.
This provision for P-D approvals is not a constraint on projects because the project usually requires
other entitlements such as a parking adjustment, deviation from other development standards
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-49
and/or subdivision map that would require public hearings. The requirement for a P-D approval for
multi-family projects or mixed-use projects in P-D zoning districts allows for a case by case approach
that can achieve maximum flexibility.
As residential neighborhoods in Campbell are nearly built-out, the majority of new residential
development has been accommodated through mixed-use projects within the P-D zoning district.
The P-D mechanism allows for deviations in minimum lot size, lot coverage, building setbacks and
height standards.
Development certainty and predictability is provided through the General Plan, which clearly states
the development scenarios for all areas zoned P-D. The General Plan Land Use Element provides for
specific development types such as Central Commercial, Professional Office/Retail/Residential and
describes mixed-use development as the preferred development type. These areas are described by
the General Plan as follows:
a. Central Commercial: This designation includes parts of Campbell and Winchester Avenues in
Downtown Campbell and is intended to provide shopping, services and entertainment. It
requires that the building forms in this designation edge the street, and should include retail
commercial uses on the ground floor with either office or residential uses on the second and
third floors.
b. Medium to High Density Residential and/or Commercial: This designation occurs near
Downtown in the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA), where the General Plan identifies
parcels for commercial or mixed use, promoting commercial on the ground floor, and
residential above.
c. Residential/ Commercial/Professional Office: This designation includes many areas in the
City including the North of Campbell Avenue (NOCA), where the intention is to provide a
residential component to traditional commercial and/or professional office uses. This
designation also maintains commercial and office uses on the ground floor and residential
uses on the upper floors.
Development standards are derived by two different sources for properties within the P-D zone:
a. Many of the sites (11 of 17 opportunity sites) in the P-D zones have a Master Plan for that
area. These include the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, the Winchester Boulevard
Master Plan, and the SOCA and NOCA Area Plans. Each of the Master plans have very clear
development standards that applicants can use as a basis for project design. However, there
is still flexibility in resolving design challenges.
b. If there is no Master Plan for an area, then the project is compared to the Zoning District
with the same General Plan Designation. For example, projects in the Hamilton/STEX Area
are evaluated using development standards of R-3, those in the West Campbell Avenue Area
use development standards of R-2, R-3 or R-M, depending on the site. Each of these zones
has clear development standards that can be used while developing a project design.
However, the P-D zone provides them with flexibility in resolving the design.
For further detail regarding these development standards for the P-D Zoned areas, please refer to
Appendix A-4: Inventory of Opportunity Sites.
A1-50 Campbell General Plan
Also, a P-D requires specific findings to be made, which focus on physical design features rather than
use or density. Considerations for P-D approval (CMC 21.12.030) are:
1. Considerations relating to site circulation, traffic congestion, and traffic safety;
2. Considerations related to landscaping; and
3. Considerations relating to structure and site lay-out.
These findings have allowed for a long track record of successful mixed-use projects including the
Gateway mixed use (25 du/acre); Water Tower Lofts (27 du/acre); Onyx (27 du/acre); Campbell
Center (26 du/acre); Gilman Cottages (27 du/acre); Creekside Commons (27 du/acre); and Merrill
Gardens (34 du/acre with density bonus). These projects have all been approved by the City in a
timely fashion (4 to 6 months typically) without impacting project feasibility.
Campbell’s development process can be summarized in the following seven steps. All of these steps
may not be necessary depending on the nature of a project.
Preliminary Application: The preliminary application process is offered at minimal cost to
applicants. The submitted plans are routed to all the applicable departments of the Development
Review Committee for review and comment. The Development Review Committee consists of
representatives from City Departments and the County Fire Department. Approximately three
weeks after the application is submitted, the applicant is invited to meet with staff from the various
departments to go over the comments, discuss any particular concerns, and explain any special
requirements of the projects. This process can save developers time and money by addressing
potential concerns at an early stage thereby avoiding delays later in the process.
Application Submittal: The planning application submittal process is when a developer submits a
development application, required fees, and application materials.
Plan Review: After the application is received, it is routed through the Development Review
Committee. A planner is assigned to serve as the developer’s liaison helping to expedite the permit
process and coordinating the department reviews. Individual departments assess the completeness
of the application and prepare preliminary Conditions of Approval. A review of the environmental
issues associated with the proposed project (as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act) will also be completed at this time.
Planning Commission/ City Council Approval: If a project is determined to require discretionary
action, it will be scheduled for the Site and Architectural Review Committee (if necessary) and
Planning Commission meetings. Public Notice will be provided and all property owners within 300
feet of the project site will be notified by mail. In some instances (for example, Planned
Development Permits), the project will require City Council approval. After projects receive approval
by the Planning Commission there is a ten-day appeal period during which the project may be
appealed to the City Council. The City Council decision is final.
Plan Check: After the project receives any required approvals, the full plans may be submitted to
the building division for plan check for building permits. The plans will be routed to the City’s Public
Works Department and Planning Division. The project planner will review the plans for conformance
with the Zoning Code, any required Conditions of Approval, and with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission or City Council. The building division will verify that all building, fire,
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-51
mechanical, plumbing and electrical code requirements are fulfilled in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code and other State requirements.
Building Permit: After the project plans receive approval from the relevant departments, the
building division issues a building permit. Construction can begin after this point. Regular inspections
are required throughout the construction process. The final inspection requires clearance from all
relevant City departments and the County Fire Department.
Occupancy Permit: Once the final inspection is complete, the developer needs to secure an
occupancy permit. If park impact fees are required, the remaining balance must be paid at this time.
Buildings or structures cannot be used or occupied until the Building Official has issued a certificate
of occupancy. The chart below shows the average processing time for typical residential
development applications.
Chart 3-6: Average Time Frames for Development Applications
Application Type Frequency of Hearings Average Processing Time*
General Plan Amendment 4 times per year 3-4 months
Zone Change 2 times per month 3-4 months
Planned Development Permit 2 times per month 4-6 months
Tentative Subdivision Map 2 times per month 2-3 months
Tentative Parcel Map Administrative Hearing
(as needed) 2-3 months
Conditional Use Permit 2 times per month 2-3 months
Site and Architectural Review Permit 2 times per month 3-4 months
* Note: Processing times shown are averages and should not be used to assume that a specific project will be
processed within this time period.
Source: City of Campbell Planning Division, December 2008.
A1-52 Campbell General Plan
5. Fees and Exactions
The City of Campbell collects various fees from developments to cover the costs of processing
permits and providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development
projects. Fees levied by the City are comparable to those charged in surrounding communities and
thus not considered a constraint to housing development. Chart 3-7 summarizes the planning and
development fees collected by the City.
Chart 3-7: Planning and Development Fees
Type of Fee Fee Fees ($)
Planning Division
Parcels 5+ Acres
General Plan Amendment $13,100
Zone Change $12,100
Planned Development Permit* $14,450
EIR Review Actual Cost + 20% Admin Overhead
Parcels 1 to 5 acres
General Plan Amendment $11,100
Zone Change $10,100
Planned Development Permit* $11,355
EIR Review Actual Cost + 20% Admin Overhead
Parcels less than 1 acre
General Plan Amendment $8,770
Zone Change $7,850
Planned Development Permit $11,355
EIR Review Actual Cost + 20% Admin Overhead
Other Fees
Tentative Subdivision Map (5+ lots) $6,300
Tentative Parcel Map: 4 lots or less $2,440
Site and Architectural: >10,000 sq. ft. $8,000
Site and Architectural: Single-Family $1,065
Site and Architectural: 5001-10,000 sq. ft. $5,600
Site and Architectural: 1-5000 sq. ft. $3,820
Admin PD/Site & Arch $700
Building Division
Building Permit (Valuations > 500,000) 1.66% of sq.ft. cost
Building Permit (Valuations up to 500,000) 2.00% of sq.ft. cost
Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical $81/hour
Plan Check Fee 33% of Building Permit Fee
Seismic Fee: Residential .0001 of Valuation
Seismic Fee: Others .00021 of Valuation
Park Dedication Fees
<6 units per acre $16,119/unit
6-<13 units per acre $9,415/unit
13-<21 units per acre $6,616/unit
>21-27 units per acre and Secondary Dwelling Units $6,590/unit
Fire Department Review
Site and Architectural Approval $71.00
Project Plan Review $214.00
Subdivisions $143.00 + $10/lot
CEQA Review $399
Source: City of Campbell Planning Division, December 2008.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-53
Chart 3-8: City and Non-City Fees for Single and Multi-family Residences
Fee 2 single-family residences with one
existing residence on lot
4-unit multi-family project with credit of a
single family residential home
Per Unit Cost Total Cost Per Unit Cost Total Cost
Planning
Planned Development Application Fee $8,850 $8,850 $8,850 $8,850
Park Impact Fee
(6 to <13 units per acre) $9,415 $9,415 $9,415 $21,514
Tentative Parcel Map $4,100 $4,100 $4,100 $4,100
Public Works
Final Parcel Map $3,500 + $78
per parcel $3,656 $3,500 + $78
per parcel $3,656
Encroachment Permit $310 $310 $310 $310
Storm Drain Area Fee (Multi-
Family Residential) $2,385/acre $423 $2,385/acre $5,546
Building
Building Permit 2% of Evaluation $5628.76 2% of Evaluation $5242.31
Plan Check Fee 33% of Building Permit Fee $1857.49 33% of Building Permit Fee $1729.96
Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical ($73+$22) x
number of permits $285 ($73+$22) x
number of permits $285
Non-City Agencies
School District $1.24 per sq. ft. $3171.92 $1.24 per sq. ft. $7779.76
Sewer (Connection + Capacity
Fee)
$7,293 (Connection);
$1,288 (Capacity Fee) $8,581 $7,293 (Connection);
$1,288 (Capacity Fee) $34,324
Fire – Site and Arch (Residential) $71 $71 $71 $71
Fire – Subdivision $143 + $10 per lot $163 $143+$10 per lot $183
Total $46,512 $93,591
Per Unit Cost $23,256 $23,398
Source: City of Campbell Planning Division, December 2008
As a means of assessing the cost that fees contribute to development in Campbell, the City has
calculated the total Planning, Building, Public Works and Non-City Agency fees associated with
development of two different residential prototypes. The first prototype consists of two single
family residences with one existing residence on the lot, whereas the second prototype is a four unit
multi-family project. As indicated in Chart 3-8, development fees for the prototypical single-family
project as well as a multi-family project run approximately at $23,000 per unit.
A1-54 Campbell General Plan
6. Building Codes and their Enforcement
The City of Campbell has adopted the International Building Code of 2006, as amended by
California’s State Building Regulations (Title 24), which establishes standards and requires
inspections at various stages of construction to ensure code compliance. The City’s building code
also requires new residential construction to comply with the federal American with Disabilities Act
(ADA), which specifies a minimum percentage of dwelling units in new developments that must be
fully accessible to the physically disabled. Although these standards and the time required for
inspections increase housing production costs and may impact the viability of rehabilitation of older
properties which are required to be brought up to current code standards, the intent of the codes is
to provide structurally sound, safe, and energy-efficient housing.
The City administers a Code Enforcement Program that aims to preserve and maintain the livability
and quality of neighborhoods. Code enforcement staff investigates violations of property
maintenance standards as defined in the Municipal Code as well as other complaints. When
violations are identified or cited, staff encourages property owners to seek assistance through the
rehabilitation assistance programs offered by the City.
7. Site Improvements
Developers of single-family residential tracts in the City are required to install arterial and local
streets; curbs, gutters, sidewalks; water lines; sewer; street lighting; and trees in the public right-of-
way within and adjacent to a tract. These facilities are in most cases dedicated to the City or other
agencies that are responsible for maintenance. Without the site improvement requirement there
are no other means of providing necessary infrastructure to the City's land parcels. Requirements
for site improvements are at a level necessary to meet the City's costs and are necessary to protect
health, safety, and welfare.
The cost of these required off-site improvements vary with the amount of property frontage. The
developed portions of Campbell have the majority of necessary infrastructure, such as streets,
electrical and water facilities, already in place.
The Circulation Element of the City of Campbell’s General Plan establishes the City’s street width
standards. Residential streets are required to have a standard 40 foot curb-to-curb width, with park
strips and sidewalks. The City does allow reduced 36 foot street widths, although due to the impact
on fire truck access, reduced street widths trigger fire sprinkler requirements in single-family homes.
Most projects utilize private streets where the site constraints determine the specific street design.
The City has also allowed rolled curbs in situations where there is a reduced parkway/sidewalk width
as a means of facilitating handicapped access for persons using the sidewalk. An example is the San
Tomas Area, a 1.5 square mile area in the southwest of the City governed by the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan. This Plan requires rolled curbs and no sidewalks on minor streets to create a
semi-rural atmosphere, resulting in a reduced cost for off-site improvements.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-55
C. Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints and hazards affect, in varying degrees, existing and future residential
developments in Campbell. Discussed below are the major environmental hazards in the City. (More
detailed discussion of environmental safety issues is provided in the Health and Safety Element of
the General Plan)
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Campbell is subject to the effects of earthquakes due to its location at the tectonic boundary
between the Pacific and North American Plates. The movement of these plates leads to the
accumulation of strain energy in the crustal rocks of the Bay Area. The release of strain energy by
the sudden movement of a fault creates earthquakes. Several active faults in the Bay Area region
create a high likelihood of future seismic events affecting Campbell. In particular, the San Andreas
Fault, the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault and the Calaveras Fault pose the greatest earthquake threat
because they have high quake odds and run through the Santa Clara Valley region’s urban core.
Within Campbell, earthquake damage to structures can be caused by ground rupture, near-field
effects, liquefaction and ground shaking. Damage associated with ground rupture is normally
confined to roads, buildings and utilities within a narrow band along a fault. The primary earthquake
hazards are ground shaking (acceleration of surface material) and liquefaction (sudden loss of soil
strength due to the upward migration of groundwater as a result of ground shaking). Liquefaction in
Campbell is most likely to occur in areas with fine-grained alluvial soils. Unreinforced masonry
buildings are extremely susceptible to ground shaking. The 1989 City Unreinforced Masonry
Ordinance identified ten potentially hazardous buildings identified in the City. All of these buildings
are non-residential structures.
Fire Hazards
Campbell may be affected by brush and structural fires that can threaten life and property. Brush
fires may occur due to natural or human causes on vacant lots where accumulation of weeds has
increased the fuel load. Structure fires are most likely in building constructed prior to the advent of
modern building codes, which comprise an increasingly smaller share of fire activity in Campbell.
Most new buildings are equipped with fire protection features such as alarm systems and sprinklers.
Flood Hazards
A flood is a temporary increase in water flow that overtops the banks of a river, stream, or drainage
channel to inundate adjacent areas not normally covered by water. Only a very small portion of
Campbell is subject to flooding, according to maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Although natural factors such as overgrown brush and trees in creek channels can
obstruct water flow and increase flood damage, development poses the highest potential to
increase the magnitude and frequency of flooding. Campbell is primarily a suburban community
with few undeveloped areas where storm water can percolate into the ground. Additional paving
will further reduce infiltration and increase surface runoff. Localized flooding may also occur in low
spots or where infrastructure is unable to accommodate peak flows during a storm event. In most
cases, localized flooding dissipates quickly after heavy rain ceases. Many streets in the San Tomas
neighborhood annexed into the City in the 1970s have a rural character with no curb, gutter or
paving, which precludes installation of storm drain facilities. Although some nuisance flooding
results, the City anticipates preserving the rural character of the area.
A1-56 Campbell General Plan
Impact of Environmental Constraints on Development
In summary, while Campbell is subject to the environmental constraints described above, the City’s
General Plan Health and Safety Element sets forth a series of actions to minimize these constraints.
Campbell incorporates this knowledge of safety hazards into its land use planning and development
review processes.
The residential opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element (Table H-2) were all evaluated for
their suitability for housing as part of the environmental impact report (EIR) on the City’s 2001
General Plan. The EIR concluded that all the opportunity sites – many of which were newly
designated for mixed use under the General Plan – were suitable for residential use and their
development would not result in a significant environmental impact. Campbell’s General Plan EIR is
a program EIR which is based on the concept of “tiering”, which means that as project proposals are
made on specific sites, the need for additional environmental analysis will be determined. If a
proposed project has the potential for impacts which exceed those discussed in the General Plan
EIR, additional environmental analysis will be required at that time.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-57
4. HOUSING ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In order to develop an effective housing strategy for the 2009 to 2014 planning period, the City must
assess the achievements of the existing housing programs. This assessment allows the City to
determine the effectiveness and continued appropriateness of the existing programs and make
necessary adjustments for the next five years.
A. Evaluation of Accomplishments under Adopted Housing Element
Under State Housing Element law, communities are required to assess the achievements under their
adopted housing programs as part of the five-year update to their housing elements. These results
should be quantified where possible (e.g. the number of units that were rehabilitated), but may be
qualitative where necessary (e.g. mitigation of governmental constraints). The results should then
be compared with what was projected or planned in the earlier element. Where significant shortfalls
exist between what was planned and what was achieved, the reasons for such differences must be
discussed.
Campbell’s last Housing Element was adopted in 2001, and sets forth a series of housing programs
with related objectives under each of the following policies:
Policy A: Plan for the addition of new units to the housing stock through the provision of
adequate land zoned for appropriate residential densities.
Policy B: Encourage housing units affordable to a variety of household income levels.
Policy C: Conserve existing affordable housing opportunities.
Policy D: Provide decent, safe and sanitary housing through rehabilitation and
replacement housing programs.
Policy E: Promote cooperative efforts between public and private sectors in the
provision of housing opportunities.
Policy F: Assist in the provision of equal housing opportunities for all households
regardless of race, age, sex, marital status, ethnic background or other arbitrary factors.
This section reviews the progress in implementing the housing programs since 2001, and their
continued appropriateness for the 2009-2014 Housing Element. Chart 4-1 summarizes the City’s
housing accomplishments since 1992.
A1-58 Campbell General Plan
Chart 4-1: Review of Accomplishments under 2001 Housing Element
Program Accomplishments
Goal: Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
H-1.1a Housing Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Action: Provide financial assistance to
owners of single-family homes and
mobile homes who lack sufficient
resources to make needed health and
safety repairs. Assist 25 to 35
households over the 2001-2006 period.
Progress: Between 2001-2007, the City assisted 69 households.
Effectiveness: The City exceeded its overall housing rehabilitation goals. The
program is effective in addressing health & safety repairs as well as some
cosmetic repairs. Anticipate the same numbers given the available dollars.
Appropriateness: Given the ongoing need to maintain the City’s aging
housing stock, the rehabilitation program remains highly appropriate.
Housing staff have teamed with Code Enforcement to secure more
applicants, and will continue to conduct target mailings.
H-1.1b Emergency Home Repair Grant
Program
Action: Assist lower-income families
and seniors in making repairs to correct
urgent safety or health problems. Assist
25 to 35 households over the 2001-
2006 period.
Progress: Between 2001-2007, the City assisted 88 households.
Effectiveness: The City exceeded its Home Repair goals. In prior years, two
agencies provided emergency grant assistance. While only one agency
continues to provide this service, the City’s goals are still being met.
Appropriateness: This program remains appropriate, and even with one
agency, the numbers of emergency grants are anticipated to be
approximately eight per year.
H-1.1c Code Enforcement Program
Action: Ensure ongoing maintenance of
housing stock. Continue to implement
current program, and establish annual
goal for units that could qualify for
rehabilitation assistance.
Progress: During 2001-2007, the City opened 754 health/safety cases, and
closed 1,155 cases.
Effectiveness: The City’s Code Enforcement Officer has been effective in
attaining code compliance without having to go to court. The City will
continue to open approximately 120 cases per year and close approximately
60% of the health & safety cases.
Appropriateness: Code enforcement remains an appropriate program to the
Housing Element. While the overall volume of cases warrants additional code
compliance staff, added staff is not anticipated due to budgetary constraints,
which may ultimately impact the caseload.
H-1.2a Multi-Family Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Action: Assist non-profit housing corporations in identifying and acquiring deteriorating properties in need of rehabilitation. Provide financial assistance in acquisition and rehabilitation of targeted properties.
Progress: The City coordinated closely with the Santa Clara Housing Authority on the rehabilitation of Rincon Gardens, and is currently supporting Mid-Peninsula Housing Corp in applying for outside funds to support rehabilitation.
Effectiveness: Rincon Gardens and Sharmon Palms were both able to secure non-City financing to undertake rehab projects. No new acquisition/rehab projects were identified in the prior reporting period.
Appropriateness: The RDA has set aside funds for future acquisition/rehab projects, and will be approaching several non-profit agencies to determine
potential acquisition/rehab sites.
Goal: Housing Affordability
H-2.1a Preservation of Assisted
Housing
Action: Preserve 399 rental units at-risk
of conversion. Monitor at-risk units,
participate in preservation, conduct
tenant education and support in
location of alternate housing.
Progress: One 8 unit affordable rental project, Hamilton Avenue, converted
to market rate during the prior planning period.
Effectiveness: The City was not contacted by the owners of Hamilton Avenue
regarding conversion, and was therefore not able to be effective in offering
preservation incentives.
Appropriateness: Preservation of assisted rental housing remains highly
appropriate. The RDA maintains a list of affordable housing projects, and it
will be important for the city to continue to verify the status of the projects
each year. Fortunately, Campbell does not anticipate the loss of any
affordable units in the next cycle.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-59
Program Accomplishments
H-2.2a Section 8 Rental Assistance
Action: Continue to provide Section 8
rental assistance in cooperation with
the County to assist very low income
tenants.
Progress: The level of Section 8 assistance in Campbell has increased, with
295 rent vouchers in 2008, compared to 234 in 2001.
Effectiveness: The program is very successful in providing needed rental
assistance in Campbell.
Appropriateness: The program remains appropriate for the upcoming period.
H-2.2b One-time Rental Assistance
Program
Action: In partnership with Catholic
Charities, assist residents at risk of
homelessness by providing one-time or
temporary rental assistance
Progress: 621 households were provided with rental assistance.
Effectiveness: The rental assistance program has been highly effective in
preventing homelessness.
Appropriateness: The City will continue partnership with Catholic Charities as
well as Sacred Heart to provide one-time rental assistance, with a goal of
assisting approximately 100 households per year.
H-2.3a First Time Homebuyer Program
Action: Assist in expanding home-ownership opportunities to moderate income households. Provide financial assistance to 25-35 households between 2001-2006.
Progress: Between 2001-2007 the City provided first-time homebuyer assistance to 37 households.
Effectiveness: The City was effective in meeting its goals.
Appropriateness: The RDA continues to provide financial support for 10 loans per year. With for-sale prices coming down slightly, the City is better able to qualify applicants for homebuyer assistance, particularly with condominiums. However, mortgage availability could be a problem.
H-2.3b Mortgage Credit Certificate
Action: Promote the MCC Program
through local realtors, on the City’s
website, and through the City’s Housing
Program brochure. Assist 75
households over the 2001-2006 period.
Progress: A total of 18 households were assisted through the MCC program.
Effectiveness: As long as Congress continues to approve funds for the MCC
program, Santa Clara County will be eligible to receive them.
Appropriateness: At $570,000, the maximum purchase prices for existing
units under the MCC program still apply to Campbell, although few new units
would fall within the $630,000 maximum purchase price for new
construction. While the MCC program remains appropriate, rather than a
numeric goal, the City’s objective will be to promote program availability.
H-2.4a Housing Assistance for Essential
Civic Employees
Action: Establish criteria for
prioritization of local housing
assistance for essential civic
employees.
Progress: The City has established priority to persons who work or rent in
Campbell as part of the inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.
Since enactment of this policy, the City has assisted two Campbell
employees.
Effectiveness: The City’s policy remains to provide assistance to employees,
but it has been expanded to all persons who work, rent or have children in
Campbell schools. The City no longer maintains any other lists since the
current list has over 400 potential applicants.
Appropriateness: Program no longer appropriate, having expanded the list to
persons who rent or work somewhere in Campbell. Will be incorporated as
Housing Element policy.
H-2.5a Shared Housing Program
Action: Support provision of shared
housing opportunities offered through
outside agencies. Continue to fund and advertise program.
Progress: The program assisted 27 persons in finding shared living arrangements.
Effectiveness: The program has been effective, and the City anticipates the same numbers assisted through Catholic Charities shared housing program.
Appropriateness: The program remains very appropriate for single parent
households. There is no longer an agency that handles shared housing for
seniors. The City has approached Catholic Charities about expanding their
role, but with funds being tight, they concentrate on single parents.
A1-60 Campbell General Plan
Program Accomplishments
H-2.5b Homeless Assistance/ Shelter
Provisions
Action: Financially support agencies
serving the homeless. Amend the
Zoning Code to specify conditions for
emergency shelters and transitional
housing.
Progress: The program served 718 homeless and persons at-risk of
homelessness with shelter and services.
Effectiveness: The City continues to meet and exceed its goals and should
continue to do so. In addition, within the city, we have one rotating shelter
at the Methodist Church during the month of February. This shelter is for
men who have jobs but can’t afford housing.
Appropriateness: CDBG dollars have decreased slightly. If they continue to
decrease, the City may not be able to fund all the homeless shelters they
have been funding.
H-2.5c Physically Accessible Housing
Action: Increase supply of physically
accessible housing. Work with
developers to provide accessible units.
Progress: No accessible units were constructed during this reporting period.
However, the City approved and provided financial assistance to Merrill
Gardens, which will provide 99 senior rental apartments, 28 non-age
restricted apartments, and a 21 unit dementia facility. In addition, the City
has adopted Reasonable Accommodation procedures to facilitate zoning
modifications for persons with disabilities.
Effectiveness: State law dictates accessibility standards for new construction.
Appropriateness: Unless the City is providing financial assistance for
affordability, the City has little leverage to entice developers to provide
accessible units beyond that required under ADA. As the City does not have
funds dedicated to providing accessible units, this is better addressed as a
policy.
Goal: Housing Production
H-3.1a Affordable Housing
Development
Action: Grant land write-downs,
regulatory incentives, and/or direct
assistance to support development of
affordable housing for families, seniors
and special needs populations.
Progress: The RDA provided financial assistance and assisted in the purchase
of land from the Santa Clara Valley Water District for Charities Housing
Project at 555 W. Campbell Avenue, which will provide 24 below market rate
and 16 market rate residential units. The City has also worked with a local
non-profit and provided financial assistance for creation of 2 senior group
homes (Pollard and Llewellyn), accommodating a total of 10 seniors at very
low income rents. Density bonuses and financial incentives were granted in
the Merrill Gardens and Water Tower Place projects.
Effectiveness: Despite limited financial resources, the City was successful in
facilitating several affordable housing projects through a combination of
financial and regulatory tools.
Appropriateness: Providing financial and regulatory support for affordable
housing remains critical to addressing the City’s housing needs.
H-3.2a Citywide Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
Action: Conduct nexus study to
establish in-lieu fee amount, followed
by adoption of City-wide inclusionary
ordinance to integrate affordable
housing in market-rate developments.
Progress: The City adopted an Inclusionary Ordinance requiring 15%
affordability citywide. Rental projects are required to provide low and very
low income units (Min. 40% very low), and ownership projects are required
to provide low and moderate income units. The Ordinance also includes
provisions for in-lieu fees.
Effectiveness: The inclusionary ordinance has been effective in integrating
affordable units within market rate developments. Several projects have
taken advantage of density bonus incentives in conjunction with fulfilling
inclusionary requirements.
Appropriateness: The inclusionary ordinance remains appropriate to the
Element update.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-61
Program Accomplishments
Goal: Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
H-4.1a Sites Inventory Action: Provide adequate sites to meet
City’s share of regional housing needs.
Adopt an updated General Plan with
expanded areas for mixed use; conduct
a developer’s workshop to discuss
development opportunities.
Progress: The City held public meetings that led to the re-zoning of the following areas: Central Commercial designation; East Campbell Ave.;
Winchester Blvd.; Hamilton Ave (adjacent to San Tomas Expressway & the
south-side of Hamilton Ave at Darryl Ave; Campbell Plaza shopping center,
auto repair south of Campbell Plaza; east and west side of Winchester
adjacent to Light Rail station.
Effectiveness: The General Plan and Zoning Changes have allowed for
numerous mixed-use projects to be approved and built within the
designated areas.
Appropriateness: The previous round of General Plan and Zoning changes
has resulted in adequate sites to accommodate the 2009-2124 housing
numbers.
H-4.2a Mixed-Use Development
Action: Encourage mixed -use
development along commercial
corridors and around transit stations.
Provide financial, technical, & other
forms of assistance to support mixed-
use development.
Progress: Provided technical assistance for Master Development Site, mixed
use site in Downtown Campbell (22 residential units/ 16,000 sq ft. retail @
Campbell Ave & 2nd St).
Provided density bonus to Merrill Gardens Senior housing project as well as
fee waivers.
Effectiveness: This action statement has been very effective in encouraging
mixed-use development on challenging infill sites.
Appropriateness: This action statement is still appropriate to facilitate
mixed-use projects.
Goal: Removal of Governmental Constraints
H-5.1a Density Bonus Action: Continue to offer density bonus and/or other regulatory incentives/ concessions to facilitate affordable and senior housing; advertise program availability.
Progress: Campbell has offered density bonus incentives for the provision of affordable housing since 1991. Pursuant to the new requirements of Government Code Section 65915, the City updated its ordinance in November 2007. During the prior planning period, Water Tower Place and Merrill Gardens projects were both granted an affordable housing density
bonus.
Effectiveness: The City advertises the availability of density bonus incentives on its website, and provides information to prospective residential applicants.
Appropriateness: Particularly since Campbell now requires 15 percent inclusionary units on a Citywide basis, density bonuses offer a means of offsetting the cost of providing the required affordable units.
H-5.2a Secondary Dwelling Units
Action: Amend Zoning Code to reduce
minimum lot size from 12,000 to
10,000 square feet. Consider an
amnesty program to legalize illegal
second units.
Progress: The City amended its second unit ordinance to reduce the
minimum lot size to 10,000 square feet. In addition, the ordinance now
provides for ministerial approval of second units. Between 2001-2007; 15
secondary units were permitted.
Effectiveness: With an average of 2 to 3 second unit applications annually,
this program has been effective in provided needed rental housing.
Appropriateness: Approximately 1,000 R-1 parcels meet the City’s 10,000
square foot minimum parcel size requirement, providing significant
additional capacity for second units.
A1-62 Campbell General Plan
Program Accomplishments
Goal: Promotion of Equal Housing Opportunity
H-6.1a Fair Housing Program Action: Through the County, continue
to financially support Project Sentinel
and promote the organization’s fair
housing services through dissemination
of brochures.
Progress: Processed 103 fair housing cases.
Effectiveness: This program has proven to be very effective in educating
rental property owners and defending discrimination cases.
Appropriateness: This program is still appropriate and will continue to
receive funds from Santa Clara County to provide services to all non-
entitlement cities, including Campbell.
H-6.2a Rent Mediation Program
Action: Continue to enforce the Rental
Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance
and offer the Rent Mediation Program
as a means of settling disputes/issues
between tenants and landlords;
advertise program availability.
Progress: Conducted 243 tenant and landlord conciliations/55 mediations.
Effectiveness: This program is very effective and has a track record of
resolving over 90% of cases.
Appropriateness: This service continues to be appropriate and is funded
through the City’s business license fees paid by apartment owners.
Chart 4-2 summarizes the quantified objectives contained in Campbell’s 2001 Housing Element, and
compares the City’s progress in fulfilling these objectives.
Chart 4-2: Summary of Quantified Objectives
Income
Level
New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation
Goal* Progress Goal** Progress Goal*** Progress
Very Low 165 23 24 – 34 46 234 295
Low 77 15 26 - 36 23 419 411 (Loss of 8 units in
Hamilton Ave)
Moderate 214 98 - - - -
Above
Moderate 321 482 -
Totals 777 618 50 – 70 69 653 706
* Reflects RHNA
** Reflects City assisted single-family rehabilitation
*** Reflects Section 8 (234 households) and preservation of 419 at-risk units
As illustrated in Chart 4-2, based on review of residential building permits issued between January
1999-December 2006, the City fulfilled 79 percent of its total regional housing construction needs,
or “RHNA” (refer to Appendix for summary of building permits issued). However, given the nature of
the real estate market in the Bay Area, housing for very low, low and moderate income households
is not being produced at RHNA levels.
The City and its Redevelopment Agency facilitated development of several affordable and mixed
income projects during the planning period. As seen in the chart, 23 units affordable to very low
income households were provided, including six units completed by Habitat for Humanity, and
inclusionary units provided in Water Tower Place and Campbell Center. Units affordable to low
income households were provided through the development of 15 second units. Rent levels for
second units can be approximated by looking at rents for one-bedroom apartments, which average
around $1,300 in Campbell, compared to a low income rent threshold of $1,688 for a one-bedroom
unit.
Appendix A1: Housing Element Technical Report A1-63
In terms of housing rehabilitation, the City provided assistance to 69 lower income mobile home and
single-family homeowners, fulfilling its goal to assist 50-70 households. An additional 88 households
were assisted with emergency repair grants. The City coordinated closely with the Santa Clara
Housing Authority on the rehabilitation of Rincon Gardens, and is currently supporting Mid-
Peninsula Housing Corp in applying for outside funds to support rehabilitation. A key focus of the
City’s housing rehabilitation and neighborhood stabilization efforts will be to support non-profits in
the acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-family properties and place long-term affordability
restrictions on the units.
Finally, the City exceeded its Section 8 conservation goal, receiving an increase in rental assistance
vouchers from 234 to 295. However, one eight unit affordable rental project, Hamilton Avenue,
converted to market rate during the prior planning period. The City was not contacted by the
owners of Hamilton Avenue regarding conversion, and was therefore unable to negotiate incentives
for preservation. During the next Housing Element cycle, the City does not anticipate the loss of any
affordable units based on public or non-profit ownership and long term affordability controls.
Appendix A2: Summary of Public Comments A2-1
Appendix A2
Summary of Public Comments
CAMPBELL HOUSING ELEMENT WORKSHOP #1
OCTOBER 29, 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The first Community Workshop for the 2009-2014 Housing Element update for the City of Campbell
was held on October 29, 2008 at the Community Center in Campbell. Metropolitan Planning Group
(M-Group) presented data that had been analyzed, that outlined the City’s Housing Needs
Assessment. After the presentation, a Q&A followed where the participants got a chance to address
their requirements and queries to the consultant and the City. The following points summarize the
discussion that took place.
General comments:
• Campbell is small enough, and big enough, to implement unique programs.
• Incorporate green.
Foreclosure issues:
• Focus on Foreclosure Crisis, get names, addresses, set up system to reach out to people, try
to help them stay in their homes.
• Advocate for people at risk of foreclosure. Mortgage crisis is an emergency.
Rental units in the city:
• Develop detailed database of all rental units in the City, to share with the private property
owners. (the City can get a grant or can use an intern to do this work)
• Organize all rental property owners.
• Develop standardized "house rules" (this may be lease?).
• Work with owners to evict crime causing tenants. Charge landlords for repeat Public
disturbance responses to encourage property owners to deal with problem tenants.
• Work with PG&E to develop updated units counts based on connects/disconnects.
• Identify all housing support groups, diagram out all housing providers; network and build
relationships.
• Identify current number of units being provided (with help from existing owners / landlords)
• Prioritize objectives.
• Establish a strong framework to build upon.
• There are landlords that are reserving a few rental units as low income out of social
obligation. Count these units?
• Look at creative ways to keep rental properties below market rate (private trusts to buy
small rental properties).
• Find out what percentage of affordable housing units are being provided currently (i.e.
check with the experts).
A2-2 Campbell General Plan
Additional comments:
• Bo Enterprises conducts free energy audits for low-income renters.
• Sacred Heart just received state grant money to do the same free energy audits for low-
income renters.
• The housing threats in Campbell are rents are too high and will go higher.
• Campbell should consider "rent control" ordinance.
• There is a senior citizen population that needs your help.
• Economic hard times are here and not looking good for the future.
Appendix A2: Summary of Public Comments A2-3
A2-4 Campbell General Plan
Appendix A2: Summary of Public Comments A2-5
CAMPBELL HOUSING ELEMENT WORKSHOP #2
NOVEMBER 20, 2008
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Campbell Community Workshop for the 2009-2014 Housing Element update was held on
November 20, 2008 at the Community Center in Campbell. Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group)
summarized the first community workshop by a PowerPoint presentation, outlining the City’s
Housing Needs Assessment. After the presentation, the participants were divided into two small
groups in order to gather responses regarding the existing policies and goals as outlined in the
Current Housing Element. This was done by the manner of a housing programs light-bulb as a tool to
solicit ideas from one another.
M-Group used flip charts and grouped the existing programs into the six goal areas, with one sheet
per program area. As each small group reported back and brought up additional program areas, they
were added to the flip charts. At the end, the participants were asked to vote on what they felt were
the three most important programs listed. Listed below are the responses of the participants to the
existing policies and goals for Campbell.
Goal A: Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
• New policy : forming Smoke Free Communities
• Reinforce commitment for rehabilitation program
• Assist in conversion of market rate units to affordable units.
Goal B: Housing Affordability
• Health Friendly Environment
o Remedial measures for Heath related issues to be incorporated within existing
programs.
o To provide aid for people with larger health issues
• Difficulties in developing due to complexity, funding issues, etc.
o Explore the “ extremely low income” category
• Residents concerned about NIMBYism (when new complexes are built around
neighborhoods)
• Project based vouchers (Section 8)
• Self Sufficient group homes for Seniors.
Goal C: Housing Production
• To include an inclusionary housing program for Low income households.
• Alter the current BMR program to the following percentages:
o For Rental :
Six percent very low
Nine percent low
o For sale:
Six percent low
Nine percent moderate
• Count seniors / group homes as units.
A2-6 Campbell General Plan
Goal D: Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
• Standards of Green Building practices to be included
o Make it green
o Sustainable
o Solar
• Sustainability measures to be adopted
• Include information on rental sites that are smoke free (in ads, on websites etc)
• Provide website that can help find apartments / housing in community.
• Possible new sites near
o Downtown Campbell
o Near Campbell Park
o Mixed use along major corridors.
Goal E: Removal of Governmental Constraints
• Incorporate following reduction of developmental standards when close to transit.
o Parking requirements
o Flexible setbacks
o Height regulations
• Incentivize affordable housing
o Financially
o By better developmental standards
Goal F: Promotion of Equal housing Opportunity
• Promote re-evaluation of income / poverty levels on basis of essentials - break down of
costs
o E.g people with continuous / required high medical bills might actually be in a
different income bracket.
• Perform a qualitative analysis for the people.
• Provide website that can help find apartments / housing in community.
From all the policies discussed above, three programs were identified by the residents for further
research:
Health Friendly Environment
Standards of Green Building practices to be included
Incentivize affordable housing
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-1
Appendix A3
Summary of Infill Development Projects
Project Name Status Description No. of
Units
Orchard Grove Completed and occupied Mixed Use: Small-lot single-family and live/work units 20
The Gateway Completed and occupied Mixed Use: Residential apartments, retail,
and office 20
Habitat at Grant Street Completed and occupied Very –low income ownership housing 2
Pulte Homes Completed and occupied Small-lot single family in traditional
neighborhood 43
Ainsley Square Completed and occupied Small-lot single-family adjacent to civic center and historic downtown neighborhoods 51
Water Tower Lofts Completed and occupied High-density transit-oriented condominium
project in Downtown 21
Habitat at Victor Ave. Completed and occupied Very-low income ownership housing 4
Onyx/ 1815 Bascom Ave Completed and occupied Mixed Use – Condominiums and commercial 45
The Campbell Center/201 East
Campbell Avenue Completed and occupied Mixed Use: Condominiums and commercial 22
Gilman Cottages Completed and occupied High-density transit-oriented condominium
project in SOCA 29
South First Street/154 & 160 S.
First Street
Approved and under
construction Small-lot single-family homes 15
Salmar Avenue
Townhomes/430-450 Salmar
Ave
Approved and under
construction Residential townhouses 20
Merrill Gardens
2041-2127 S. Winchester Blvd Approved Mixed Use: Residential, Alzheimer patient
units and commercial 127
Creekside Commons (Boyce)
1677 S. Bascom Ave Approved Mixed Use: Residential and Commercial 123
Mixed Use project/Lexmar
Development
2295-2305 S. Winchester Blvd
Approved Mixed Use: Residential and retail 5
Campbell Avenue Homes/511-
555 W. Campbell Avenue Approved Residential townhouses 40
Riverside Plaza
651, 655 & 677 W. Hamilton
Avenue
Current Development Application Mixed Use: Residential apartments and retail 108
Orchard Green Apartments 125 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd Pre-application Multi-family residential project 50
Dillon Avenue Townhome
230/280/282 Dillon Avenue Pre-application Condominium Development 53
A3-2 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: ORCHARD GROVE
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: The project is on two consolidated parcels which were historically a
food processing plant and vacant since 1978. The project consists of
fifteen single-family residences and five attached live/work units. The
live/work units have two residential stories above and a ground level
room that can be used as office or retail. The project provides housing
near the new Vasona Light Rail Station and provides a mix of residential
and commercial uses in the downtown area.
Net Parcel Size: 1.59 acres
Number of Units: 20
Density: 11 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 3 units
Parking Spaces: 3.5 spaces per unit
Year Approved: 1996
Year Completed: 1998
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-3
PROJECT NAME: THE GATEWAY
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: This project was developed on the site of a former Bank of America
building. The existing bank building was retained as office space and a
new three story residential and retail building was built next to it. An
additional two-story office building is located to the rear.
Net Parcel Size: 0.80 acres
Number of Units: 20
Density: 25 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 3 units
RDA Subsidy: $21,000 to make one of the affordable units disabled accessible
Parking Spaces: 1 space per unit (non-dedicated, shared parking with commercial
parking available in the off hours)
Year Approved: 1997
Year Completed: 2000
A3-4 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOMES AT GRANT STREET
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: The project consisted of the construction of two new single-family
residences. The houses were each 4 bedrooms (for large families) and
were sold to very low-income residents.
Net Parcel Size: 0.17 acres
Number of Units: 2
Density: 12 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 2 units
RDA Subsidy: The Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Silicon Valley Habitat for Humanity. The
Agency purchased the property from the City at fair market value and
transferred the property to SVHH with a subsidy value of $175,000 per
unit; $350,000 total. Subsidy includes the total land cost and City permit
fees.
Parking Spaces: 3 spaces per unit (made up of tandem carports and driveway space)
Year Approved: 2000
Year Completed: 2001
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-5
PROJECT NAME: PULTE HOMES
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: This redevelopment project is on the site of the former Best Products
discount retail store. The small lot single-family homes were completed
in 2000 in conjunction with a new public park within the development
and the Larkspur Landing Hotel. The houses are 3-4 bedrooms in size
and have lots of approximately 4,500 square feet. This project was
developed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
although it is a higher density than the adjacent 6,000-7,000 square foot
lots.
Net Parcel Size: 5 acres
Number of Units: 43 units
Density: 6 units per gross acre
Parking Spaces: 4.6 spaces per unit
Year Approved: 1998
Year Completed: 2000
A3-6 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: AINSLEY SQUARE
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: This redevelopment project is on five consolidated parcels that were
previously developed with older industrial and warehouse buildings.
The site was developed through a Disposition and Development
Agreement with the Campbell Redevelopment Agency and SummerHill
Homes. The 51-unit project provides housing for families within walking
distance of downtown Campbell and the new Vasona Light Rail Station
and provides a transition from the downtown to an existing single-
family neighborhood.
Net Parcel Size: 3.76 acres
Number of Units: 51
Density: 12 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 8 units
RDA Subsidy: Approximately $2 million dollars for the relocation of 10 commercial
tenants.
Parking Spaces: 2.96 spaces per unit (less than required 3.5 spaces per unit)
Year Approved: 1999
Year Completed: 2001
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-7
PROJECT NAME: WATER TOWER LOFTS
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: Originally proposed as an 11-units single-family residential project, Staff
worked with the developer to increase the density. This project now
consists of 21 loft-style units on a very constrained in-fill site within an
existing office complex. The three and four story building features all
underground parking and architectural design to complement the
surrounding historical former cannery and warehouse.
Net Parcel Size: 0.78 acres
Number of Units: 21
Density: 27 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 3 units (15% of total)
RDA Subsidy: Approximately $50,000 for the undergrounding of existing utility lines.
Parking Spaces: 2 spaces per unit
Year Approved: 2001
Year Completed: 2006
A3-8 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOMES AT VICTOR AVENUE
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: The project consists of four new single-family residences on a vacant,
City-owned site. The houses will be 4-bedrooms (for large families) and
will be affordable to very low-income residents.
Net Parcel Size: 0.56 acres
Number of Units: 4
Density: 4.6 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 4 units
RDA Subsidy: The Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Silicon Valley Habitat for Humanity. The
Agency purchased the property from the City at fair market value and is
transferring the property to Habitat with a subsidy value of $800,000
($200,000 subsidy per unit.)
The homes will sell for approximately $150,000 apiece.
Parking Spaces: 3 spaces per unit (made up of tandem carports and driveway space)
Year Approved: 2001
Year of Completion: 2004
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-9
PROJECT NAME: ONYX/ 1815 S. BASCOM AVE
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: The project is a mixed-use development that consists of 45 luxury
condominium and 4,850 square feet of retail space on the ground floor.
The project is four stories in height.
The project site stretches along the entire block at Bascom and Campisi
and extends nearly to Creekside.
Net Parcel size: 52,195 sq. ft. (1.20 acres)
Number of Units: 45 units
Density: 26.78 du/acre
Parking Spaces: 126 parking spaces
Year Approved: 2004
Year Completed: 2008
A3-10 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: THE CAMPBELL CENTER/ 175-201 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: The project is a mixed-use development that consists of 22
condominiums on the upper floors and office and 11,240 square feet of
retail space on the ground floor including a 4,760 of retail mezzanine
space on property owned by the City of Campbell Redevelopment
Agency located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue. The project is three
stories in height.
The project site is located on Bascom, at the old location of Fung Lum
Restaurant, near the Pruneyard.
Net Parcel size: 25,106 sq. ft. (0.58 acres)
Number of Units: 22 units
Density: 25.8 du/acre
Affordable Units: 3
RDA Subsidy: Yes (lowered purchase price of land)
Parking Spaces: 18 on-site
Year Approved: 2004
Year Completed: 2007
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-11
PROJECT NAME: GILMAN COTTAGES
Status: Completed and occupied
Brief Description: This project is on a previous trailer park site that is currently vacant. The
project consists of the development of 29 one- and two-bedroom
condominium units over a parking garage. Its proximity to the
downtown area, a light rail station, and the regional creek trail system
makes it a desirable high-density project.
Net Parcel Size: 0.94 acres
Number of Units: 29
Density: 27 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 5 units
Parking Spaces: 2 spaces per unit (less than required 3-3.5 spaces per unit)
Year of Approval: 2001/2002
Year of Completion: 2003
A3-12 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: SOUTH FIRST STREET SMALL-LOT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT/ 154 & 160 S.
FIRST STREET
Status: Approved and under construction
Brief Description: The project is a planned development of low-medium density
residential that consists of 15 two-story small-lot single-family
residences.
Net Parcel Size: 1.36 acres
Number of Units: 15 units
Density: 10.6 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 2 units
Parking Spaces: 4 spaces per unit. Total number of parking spaces is 60 of which 30 are
covered in two-car garages and 30 are uncovered.
Year Approved: 2007
Year of Completion: 2010 (Anticipated)
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-13
PROJECT NAME: SALMAR AVENUE TOWNHOMES/ 430-450 SALMAR AVENUE
Status: Approved and under construction
Brief Description: The project is a planned development that consists of 20 townhouse
units.
The project site is located at Salmar Avenue, east of Harrison Avenue.
Net Parcel Size: 1.27 acres
Number of Units: 20 units
Density: 14.1 units per acre
Parking Spaces: 3.25 spaces per unit. Total number of parking = 65 spaces
Year Approved: 2007
Year of Completion: 2009 (Anticipated)
A3-14 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: MERRILL GARDENS/ 2041-2127 S. WINCHESTER BLVD
Status: Approved
Brief Description: The project is a mixed-use development that consists of 99 senior rental
apartment units, 28 non-age-restricted apartment units, a 21-unit
dementia unit (convalescent facility) and 16,043 square feet of
retail/restaurant space.
The project site is located at S. Winchester Blvd between Campbell and
Rincon Avenue. The mixed-use building would be two and three stories
in height.
Net Parcel Size: 3.69 gross acres
Number of Units: 127
Density: 34.4 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 19 units
Parking Spaces: 182 spaces (37 surface retail, 7 surface convalescent facility
employee/guest spaces; 138 underground spaces of which 89 spaces
are designated for residential and guest parking, 44 spaces are
designated for retail and there are five additional undesignated spaces)
Year Approved: 2007
Year of Completion: TBD
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-15
PROJECT NAME: CREEKSIDE COMMONS (BOYCE) / 1677 S. BASCOM AVENUE
Status: Approved
Brief Description: The project is a mixed-use development that consists of 123
condominium units and 14,045 square feet of ground-level retail
commercial development.
The project site is located at Bascom Avenue, north of Campisi way. The
mixed-use building would be four stories in height ranging from 66 feet
to a maximum of 75 feet in height.
Net Parcel Size: 4 acres
Number of Units: 123
Density: 26.78 units per gross acre
Parking Spaces: 330 parking spaces (2.6 per unit for residential)
72 parking spaces for retail
Year Approved: 2007
Year of Completion: TBD
A3-16 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: MIXED-USE PROJECT FOR LEXMAR DEVELOPMENT/ 2295-2305 S.
WINCHESTER BLVD/ CATALPA
Status: Approved.
Brief Description: The project is a two-story mixed-use development that consists of 6,879
square feet of ground floor retail and five apartment units above.
The project site is located at South Winchester Boulevard, south of El
Camino Avenue. The mixed-use building would be two stories in height
with a maximum height of 40 feet.
Net Parcel Size: 0.56 acres
Number of Units: 5
Density: 6.25 units per gross acre
Parking Spaces: 11 residential parking spaces
35 retail parking spaces (24 parking spaces are provided in the garage
and 22 parking spaces are provided in the rear of the building)
Year Approved: 2008
Year of Completion: TBD
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-17
PROJECT NAME: CAMPBELL AVENUE HOMES / 511-555 W. CAMPBELL AVENUE
Status: Approved
Brief Description: The project is a planned development that consists of 24 below market
rate and 16 market rate residential units on the site of the former Santa
Clara Valley Water District Site, at Campbell Avenue at San Tomas
Expressway.
Net Parcel Size: 3.00 acres
Number of Units: 40
Density: 9.4 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 24 units
Parking Spaces: 2.75 spaces per unit of which 72 are covered and 38 are uncovered.
Total number of spaces = 110 spaces
Year Approved: 2005
Year of Completion: TBD
A3-18 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: RIVERSIDE PLAZA/ 651, 655 & 677 HAMILTON AVENUE
Status: Current Development Application
Brief Description: The project is a mixed-use development that consists of residential and
retail uses. The project site is located at the northwest corner of
Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway and will consist of 11,050
square feet of ground-floor retail space with (37) studio and one-
bedroom condominiums above and (68) two- and three- bedroom
townhouses to the rear of the site.
The mixed use building would be three to four stories and a maximum
of 58 feet in height and the attached townhouses would be three stories
in height.
Net Parcel Size: 4.6 acres
Number of Units: 105
Density: 19.1 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 16 units
Parking Spaces: 2.46 spaces per unit with shared scheme (264 parking spaces in total of
which 164 are garages, 9 are carports and 91 spaces are guest/
commercial shared spaces)
Hamilton Avenue Elevation (Mixed-Use Building)
Darryl Drive Elevation (Townhomes)
Appendix A3: Summary of Infill Development Projects A3-19
PROJECT NAME: ORCHARD GREEN APARTMENTS/125 S. SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD
Status: Pre-application
Brief Description: This is a multi-family residential project located at the northwest corner
of Bucknall road and San Tomas Aquino Road. The project is designated
as a Medium Density residential development and consists of 50
apartment units on a 2.7 gross-acre site.
The site was proposed as townhome unit style building groupings of
three and four units with two car garages. Garages are proposed
partially below grade format with two level of living area above.
Net Parcel Size: 2.7 acres
Number of Units: 50
Density: 18.5 units per gross acre
Affordable Units: 8 units
Parking Spaces: 2 spaces per unit
A3-20 Campbell General Plan
PROJECT NAME: DILLON AVENUE TOWNHOUSES/230, 280, 282 DILLON AVENUE
Status: Pre-application
Brief Description: The project is a townhouse development that consists of 53 unit
condominiums on a 1.93 acre site located in the Downtown
Redevelopment Project Area.
The project site is located at the terminus of Dillon Avenue and will
consist of 41 two-story townhouses (five with direct access garages) and
12 three-story townhouses (four with direct access garages). The
residential building would be a maximum of four stories, with a level of
parking below.
Net Parcel Size: 1.93 acres
Number of Units: 53
Density: 27.46 per acre
Affordable Units: 8 units
Parking Spaces: 111 covered in below-grade garage and 10 at grade uncovered,
including 3 accessible spaces
Appendix A4: Inventory of Opportunity Sites A4-1
Appendix A4
Inventory of Opportunity Sites
As discussed earlier in the Housing Resources chapter of the Campbell Housing Element, a detailed
opportunity sites analysis has been completed to demonstrate with specific sites that an adequate
inventory of vacant and underutilized land with appropriate general plan and zoning designations
currently in place. The following table provides a parcel-specific detail analysis of the various
Opportunity Sites for the City of Campbell, suitable for development within the 2009-2014 planning
period. The opportunity sites are located within six areas found in the City. Some of these areas
correspond to actual plan areas, as indicated, while others are grouped geographically.
The methodology used to determine the realistic development capacity of each of the Opportunity
Sites was a combination of factors specific to each site including zoning designation and
accompanying development standards, lot size, development trends and other land constraints
applicable to the specific site. Given high land costs, the majority of multi-family and mixed use
developments in Campbell are built at or near maximum permitted densities.
A4-2 Campbell General Plan
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
A) HAMILTON/STEX AREA
Projects evaluated using comparable Zoning
District with same GP Designation: R-3 GP Policies
1
651, 655, 671 W.
Hamilton Ave.
Riverside Plaza Site/ Filed
Application
Shopping
Center Poor
Comm. /
Office/ Resi. PD 4.73 108 19
Single
Ownership
Distressed single story shopping center currently
vacant
0.55 Floor Area Ratio (FAR); 40% Lot Coverage;
40 ft. height/3 Stories;
20 ft. front setback; 5 ft. side and rear setbacks; and, 12 ft. street side setbacks.
Commercial/offices on ground floor with residential on upper
floors; and,
Encourage building placement toward edge of street and parking in the rear or underneath.
a 655, 659, 747 W. Hamilton Ave Entitlements Obtained No tenants Poor PD Robson Homes
b
651 & 667 W.
Hamilton Ave.
Entitlements
Obtained No tenants Poor PD
Robson
Homes
c
671, 683, 687, 691, 699, 707,
711, 723, 727 W.
Hamilton Ave.
Entitlements
Obtained No tenants Poor PD
Robson
Homes
2
780-890 W.
Hamilton Ave.
Petsmart
Plaza Site/
No Appl.
Shopping
Center Fair
Comm. /
Office/ Resi. PD 6.57 132 20
Multiple
Owners
Shopping Center originally const.
in 1970. Under
performing
0.55 FAR; 40% Lot Coverage;
40 ft. height/3 Stories;
20 ft. front setback; 5 ft. side and rear setbacks; and, 12 ft. street side setbacks.
Commercial/offices on ground floor with
residential on upper
floors; and, Encourage building placement toward edge of street and parking in
the rear or underneath. a 450 Marathon Dr.
Adult Day Care/Sarahcare of Campbell Fair PD
Harold H. Nelson Trustee
b 890 & 876 W. Hamilton Ave. Chinese Cuisine/ Chef Ko Fair PD
Joseph &
Maria Kwong
c
850 W. Hamilton
Ave. Petsmart Fair PD
Steven P.
Delucchi
d
816, 820, 828, 836
& 842 W.
Hamilton Ave.
Morita's Picture, New Elite Salon, Addis Ethiopian
Cuisine, Dollar
Value Mart Fair PD
Raymond V.
Castello
Trustee
e
780 W. Hamilton
Ave
Barbershop/
Convenience
Market Fair PD
Theofilos &
Maria
Fkiaras
Appendix A4: Inventory of Opportunity Sites A4-3
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
B) WEST CAMPBELL AVENUE AREA
Projects evaluated using
comparable Zoning District with same GP
Designation GP Policies
3
125 S. San Tomas
Aquino Road
Kirkorian Auto Center/ Pre-
Application Tires Unlimited Fair
Neigh.
Comm. C-1 2.7 50 19 Kirkorian
Various car repair
businesses and
car wash. Owner has submitted plans for res.
redevelopment.
Evaluated based on R-3 Standards: 0.55 Floor Area Ratio;
40% Lot Coverage;
40 ft. height/ 3 Stories; 20 ft. front setback; 5 ft. side and rear setbacks; and,
12 ft. street side setbacks.
Commercial/Office on ground floor with residential on upper
floors; and,
Encourage building placement toward edge of street and parking in the rear or underneath.
4
511, 555 W.
Campbell Ave.
Water Co. Property/
Entitled Vacant land Vacant
Low-
Medium PD 4.25 40 9
Single
Ownership
Property in
process of being
acquired by RDA. Approval granted in 2005 for 40
affordable units.
Evaluated based on R-M Standards: 0.50 Floor Area Ratio; 40% Lot Coverage;
35 ft. height/ 2.5 stories; 20 ft. front setback; 5 ft. side and rear setbacks; and,
12 ft. street side setbacks.
Development should consist of duplexes, small apartment buildings, and small lot
single-family detached homes.
a
511 W. Campbell
Ave Vacant land Vacant PD Santa Clara Valley Water
District
b
555 W. Campbell
Ave.
Three SCVWD
Well Buildings Vacant PD
5 Intersection of Dot and Campbell
Dot Ave.
Property/
Vacant Site - No Application Vacant land Vacant Medium Density PD 2.72 40 15 Single Ownership
Vacant property.
Owner interested
to partner with RDA and Non-profit.
Evaluated based on R-2 Standards: 0.55 Floor Area Ratio; 40% Lot Coverage;
35 ft. height/ 2.5 stories;
20 ft. front setback; 5 ft. side and rear setbacks; and,
12 ft. street side setbacks.
Development should consist of apartment buildings, condominiums and townhomes.
a
Intersection of
Dot&Campbell Vacant land Vacant PD
Robert P Dubcich
Trustee
b
Intersection of
Dot&Campbell Vacant land Vacant PD
c
464 W. Campbell
Ave.
Single Family
Residence Fair PD
A4-4 Campbell General Plan
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
C) BASCOM/HAMILTON AREA Projects evaluated using specific GP Policies listed Specific General Plan Polices in LUT-14
6 1627-1667 S. Bascom Ave.
North of
Boyce property/ No Application
Multiple Commercial Parcels Fair Comm. / Office/ Resi. PD 2.63 54 21 Multiple Owners
Small
underutilized
properties; require lot consolidation.
See GP Policies 2.0 FAR (Doesn’t incl.
resi. component);
Orient resi. units along public street parking to side of or rear of, or
underground,
Taller buildings toward Hwy 17 with heights reduced as building forms approach
Hamilton Ave. Bascom Ave and the Creek Trail, Ground floor retail on
Bascom and Hamilton with vibrant street levels.
a 1627 S. Bascom Ave.
A Window
Provider and Sherry's Yoga Studio Fair PD
Gelagio IV
Llc
b
1639 S. Bascom
Ave. No tenants Poor PD
c
1645 S. Bascom
Ave.
Several small
retail1 Poor PD
d 1661 S. Bascom Ave. BTM Motor Works Fair PD
Louis K. Himelhoch Trustee
e
1667 S. Bascom
Ave.
Pacific Hand Car
Wash Inc Fair PD
Helen Ling L.
Tang
f 1657 S. Bascom Ave. Veterinary Clinic Fair PD Veterinarian's United
D) EAST CAMPBELL AVENUE PLAN AREA
Projects evaluated based on Master Plan
Policies
E. Campbell Avenue
Master Plan
7 621 E. Campbell Ave.
Hicks
Property/
Pre-Application Filed Shopping Center Fair Central Comm. PD 1.94 40 21 Single Ownership
Under developed
low rise office complex built in 1957.
See E. Campbell Avenue Master Plan 1.5 FA (Exclusive of resi.); Max. ht - 45 ft. (varied
height to achieve
eclectic rhythm or 'wedding cake" design approach); Ground floor finished
ceiling ht - 15 ft.;
a
621 E. Campbell
Ave.
Small retail and stores2
Fair PD Greylands
Prof. Office Center Llc.
b 621 E. Campbell Ave. Fair PD
Appendix A4: Inventory of Opportunity Sites A4-5
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
8 530-600 E. Campbell Ave.
PDG
Property/ No
Application Filed Multiple Tenant Building Poor Central Comm. PD 1.02 21 21 Single Ownership
Blighted car repair and machine shop
near downtown.
Ripe for redevelopment
See E. Campbell Avenue Master Plan 0 ft. front setback; Rear setback is parcel specific and varies from
5 - 20 ft. dependent size
and adjacencies; 0 ft. side setbacks; and, No new surface parking along E. Campbell
Avenue. a
530 & 540 E.
Campbell Ave. Machine Shop Poor PD
Paul Del
Grande
b 548 & 558 E.
Campbell Ave. Car Repair Poor PD
c
566 & 600 E.
Campbell Ave.
Used record
store Poor PD
E) WINCHESTER BLVD PLAN AREA
Projects evaluated based on Master Plan Policies Winchester Boulevard Master Plan
9
2260 Winchester
Blvd.
Car Wash/No
Application
Filed
Alvarado Coin
Op Car Wash Poor
Central
Commercial PD 0.8 16 20
Cosme &
Albina
Alvarado
Under developed
property on
prime corner of Winchester near Light Rail. Ripe
for
redevelopment
See Winchester Boulevard Master Plan
Area 2
1.5 FAR (Exclusive of resi.);
Max. Ht - 45 ft./3 stories;
Min. ht of one story - 2:0 ratio of max. building ht/lot depth; Ground floor finished
ceiling ht of 15 ft.; Main entrance facing Winchester or Campbell Avenue;
120 ft. max. building
frontage; 5 ft. front setback; 8 ft. rear setback to
parking or building; &
5 ft. street side setback.
A4-6 Campbell General Plan
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
10
2565 Winchester
Blvd.
Automotive Repair Center/ No
Application
Filed GM Truck Fair
Comm./
Prof. Office/
Res. PD 2.5 50 20
Campbell Plaza
Developme
nt Co.
Various car repair
businesses. Near
Light Rail.
See Winchester
Boulevard Master Plan
Area 1
1.5 FAR (Exclusive of
resi.); Max. ht - 55 ft./4
stories; Min. ht of two stories - 2:0 ratio of max building ht/lot depth);
Ground floor finished
ceiling ht of 15 ft.; Main entrance facing Winchester or Campbell
Avenue; 200 ft. max
building frontage; 15 ft.
front row recommended (7 ft. min.); 2:1 ratio of rear setback per building
ht; 10 ft. side setback; &,
0 ft. street side setback.
11 1799 Winchester Blvd.
Home
Church Property
Contractors License
Training, Home
Church, Koinonia Koffeehouse,
Medhane Alem
Evangelical Church Good Central Comm. PD 6.99 70 20 Home Church Inc..
Assumes half of
site redevelops at 20 du/ac.
F) NOCA/SOCA AREAS
Projects evaluated
based on Area Plan
Policies
NOCA / SOCA Specific
Plan
12
90, 100, 130, 136
Gilman Ave.
Campbell Park/ Pre-Application
Filed
Multiple Industrial
Buildings Fair
Comm./ Medium Density/
Prof. Office PD 1.2 27 23
Family
Ownership
Under Developed
property in close proximity to downtown, Light
Rail & freeways.
See SOCA Area Plan Sub
Area 3
Lots must be a minimum
of 0.5 acre for resi. development; Density based on lot size
(Larger lots equals
greater density); 0.20-0.35 FAR for Commercial/Industrial (Based on lot size- resi.
development not a 90 Gilman Ave.
Mc Clintock
Landscape Center Fair PD
David &
Georgene Bowen
Appendix A4: Inventory of Opportunity Sites A4-7
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
b 100 Gilman Ave.
Column works, DZ Light, Dune Design Group,
Saratoga tree
Services, Waves-Working Against VO Fair PD Bruce Bowen
counted against FAR); Commercial on ground floor with residential on
upper floors; and,
Maximum ht - 75 ft.
c 130 Gilman Ave. No tenants Fair PD
David &
Georgene
Bowen
d 136 Gilman Ave. No tenants Fair PD
Bruce
Bowen
13
230, 280, 282
Dillon Ave.
Biddle Roofing/ Pre-
Appl. Vacant land Vacant
High Density
Res. PD 1.97 53 27
Single
Ownership
Nearly vacant property with developer plans
for housing.
See SOCA Area Plan Sub Area 3 Lots must be a minimum of 0.5 acre for resi.
development;
Density based on lot size (Larger lots equals greater density);
0.20-0.35 FAR for
Commercial/Industrial (Based on lot size- resi. development not counted against FAR);
Commercial on ground floor with residential on upper floors; and, Maximum ht - 75 ft.
a 280 Dillon Ave. Vacant land Vacant PD
Mark H. Bittle Trustee
b 230 Dillon Ave. Vacant land Vacant PD
c 282 Dillon Ave. Vacant land Vacant PD
14 509 Salmar Ave.
Public Storage
Facility Public Storage Poor
Comm./ Prof. Office/
Res. PD 3.97 80 20
Storage
Equities/ Ps Partners Salmar
Avenue
Underdeveloped
property in close proximity to downtown, light
rails & freeways.
See NOCA Area Plan Up to 1.0 FAR(Based on lot size and resi.
development not counted against FAR); Encourage Parcel Consolidation; and,
Encourage joint use of
parking facilities if possible. 15 479 Salmar Ave. Industrial Buildings Mike Howard Garage Doors Poor
Comm./ Prof. Office/ Res. PD 1.27 26 20
Campbell Industrial Park
Non conforming Industrial uses in the downtown.
See NOCA Area Plan
A4-8 Campbell General Plan
Inventory of Opportunity Sites, City of Campbell
Site No Address Name/ Status Existing Use Building Condition
General
Plan Designation Zoning Gross Acres Realistic Units
Density
(du/ acre) Property Ownership Description of Site Development Standards GP Policies/ Specific Plans / Area Plans
16
423-425 Salmar &
240 Harrison
Industrial
Buildings Poor
Comm./
Prof. Office/
Res. PD 1.81 40 22
Single
Ownership
Non conforming
Industrial uses in
the downtown.
See NOCA Area Plan
a
423 & 425 Salmar
Ave
California
Closets, Masuda Landscape Services Inc,
Screen Solutions Poor PD
Campbell Industrial
Park
b
210 & 230
Harrison Ave
Triad Precision,
Len Conrad School Photography Poor PD
Campbell Industrial Park
17 500 Salmar Ave. Old Metal Bldgs. Sierra Pacific Turf Supply Poor
Comm./ Prof. Office/ Res. PD 1.17 25 21
Donald & Rebecca Naumann
Non conforming
Industrial uses in the downtown. Built in 1945.
See NOCA Area Plan
18 536 Salmar Ave. Old Metal Bldgs. Warehouse & Industrial Uses Poor
Comm./ Prof. Office/ Res. PD 1 20 20
Campbell Industrial Park
Non conforming
Industrial uses in the downtown. Built in 1971.
See NOCA Area Plan
TOTAL NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITY SITES 847
1 African Foods Market, American International Travel, Amore De Beaute Skincare, Beautify Your Skin, English by the Hour, Farmers Insurance Group, Fine Fretted String Instruments, Hipwear, Hollywood Nails, Meme's Bikinis & Intimate, Mendiola Tax Services, Modern Casual Hair Replacement, Pacific Plantscapes, Patricia S Nakamura Skin Care, Print Crafter Provident Payday Loans/Notary, Pure Solutions Skin
Care and Acne Treatments, Rainbow Revelation Health Center, The Right Spot, Treasure Hunter
2 A New Day Healing Arts, Abel Karen J, Annemarie Lynch, MPT, As Children Blossom Therapy, Bay Area Nutrition LLC, Beverly Floresca, Bingham Electrolysis, Campbell Optometric Group, Harmony Birth & Family, Mens Center Of Northern California, Purcell Patrick Lmfcc, Silicon Valley Silk Screen
Note: All properties identified have utilities in place (water, sewer, electricity, gas and phone)