10-10-2023 PC Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 | 7:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
This Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person and virtually via video
teleconferencing (Zoom) in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act. Members of the
public may attend this meeting in person at Campbell City Hall or virtually via Zoom at
https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. The meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the
City's website, and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofCampbell.
Written correspondence will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov until 5:00 PM
on the day of the meeting, and thereafter may be delivered in-person at the public hearing.
Written correspondence will be posted to the City’s website and distributed to the Planning
Commission. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of September 26, 2023
➢ Meeting Minutes, 9/26/2023 (Regular Meeting)
COMMUNICATIONS
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning
Commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest
of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits
the Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to
staff for follow-up.
PUBLIC HEARING
Note: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public
hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of
five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for
closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Planning
Commission’s consent at the meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda for October 10, 2023 Pg. 2
2. PLN-2023-155 – Study Session on Housing Overlay Districts and Related Amendments
Study Session to review and provide feedback on the development of new Housing
Overlay zoning districts and related amendments to the Campbell Municipal Code and
Zoning Map. File No.: PLN-2023-155. Project Planner: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner.
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission receive the report and provide
feedback to staff on the development of three new Housing Overlay zoning districts and
related amendments to the Campbell Municipal Code and Zoning Map.
OLD BUSINESS
3. Ad hoc Subcommittees Discussion(s)
The assembled ad hoc Subcommittees may provide updates of their activities, as
applicable, to the Planning Commission.
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 2023, at 7:30 PM, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and via telecommunication.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available
for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the
meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at ClerksOffice@campbellca.gov or 408-866-2117
in advance of the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, September 26, 2023 I 7:30pm
City Hall Council Chamber
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2023 was called to order at 7:30 pm
by Chair Buchbinder, and the following proceedings were had to wit.
ROLL CALL
Members present:
Rob Eastwood, Director
Bill Seligmann, City Attorney
Nishant Seoni, Contract Associate Planner
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of September 12, 2023 (Roll Call Vote)
➢ Meeting Minutes, 9/12/2023 (Regular Meeting)
➢ Commissioner Majewski absent. All other commissioners approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
Planning Commissioners Present:
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
Alan Zisser, Vice Chair
Davis Fields
Matt Kamkar
Michael Krey
Cori Majewski
Planning Commission Absent
Maggie Ostrowski
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 26, 2023 Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning
Commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest
of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the
Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff
for follow-up.
Opened and Closed Public Comment, no public comments were received.
PUBLIC HEARING
Note: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public
hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five
(5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing
statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Planning Commission’s
consent at the meeting.
2. PLN-2023-148 – 412 E. Campbell Avenue
Public Hearing to consider the application of Paige Kepner to allow an existing 3,043
square-foot fitness studio (dba F45 Training) to operate with hours beginning at 5:00
AM on property located at 412 E. Campbell Avenue. The application under
consideration is a Conditional Use Permit for an existing pedestrian-oriented activity
with proposed late-night activities (early morning hours). File No.: PLN-2023-148. Staff
is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning
Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar
days. Project Planner: Nishant Seoni, Contract Associate Planner.
Contract Associate Planner Nishant Seoni presented Staff Report to allow an existing 3,043 square-
foot fitness studio (dba F45 Training) to operate with hours beginning at 5:00 AM on property
located at 412 E. Campbell Avenue.
Commissioners received clarification that the change in the opening business hours will be for staff
and customers to come in earlier. Staff clarified for the Planning Commission that earlier time for
employees could be allowed with modified direction. The applicant assured the Planning
Commission that thanks to the thick building walls no sound could be heard from the outside so
there would be no impact from noise to the surrounding community.
Planning Commission fully in support of the modification of business hours and applicant.
Commission also discussed allowing the business to open at 4:45am from Monday through Friday
and to allow business to open at 5:45am from Saturday through Sunday.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Kamkar the
Planning Commission motioned to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(PLN-2023-148) to allow an existing fitness studio (“Pedestrian-Oriented Activity”)
to operate with hours beginning at 4:45 AM from Monday through Friday and 5:45
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 26, 2023 Page 3
AM from Saturday through Sunday (“Late Night Activity) within an existing multi-
tenant commercial building on property located at 412 E Campbell Avenue in the
CB-MU (Central Business Mixed-Use) zoning district.
AYES: Fields, Majewski, Buchbinder, Zisser, Kamkar, Krey
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ostrowski
ABSTAIN: None
OLD BUSINESS
3. Ad hoc Subcommittees Discussion
Ad-hoc subcommittees will be presenting to the Planning Commission in the near
future. PC Economic Development subcommittee will be presenting to the City Council
in October/November.
5. Report of the Community Development Director
Job offer was made to the Environmental Programs Specialist
City Council authorized receipt of grant funds from Santa Clara County
Housing Program Manager recruitment closed September 22, 2023. There were some
strong applicants who applied.
State Legislature has a new bill deadline. New Land Use Bills and staff has been
tracking, SB 423 and SB 684 (like and enhanced SB9) specifically. Both of these bills will
require Muni Code updates and may be incorporated into workplans.
Chair Buchbinder closed the public hearing and adjourned to the next Regular
Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned meeting at 8:06 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday,
October 10, 2023, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and
via telecommunication.
PREPARED BY: _______________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED: ______________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST: ________________________________
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ October 10, 2023
File No(s):
PLN-2023-155
Study Session to review and provide feedback on the development of
new Housing Overlay zoning districts and related amendments to the
Campbell Municipal Code and Zoning Map.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission receive the report and provide feedback on the
development of three new Housing Overlay zoning districts and related amendments to
the Campbell Municipal Code and Zoning Map.
PURPOSE
This item solicits direction and feedback on the development of new Housing Overlay
zoning districts implementing Housing Element programs serving to promote the
production of affordable housing and comply with state law. This report also provides an
overview of draft amendments to the Campbell Municipal Code that will be required to
implement the new Housing Overlay zoning districts and related amendments to the
Zoning Map that will be synchronized with their adoption.
BACKGROUND
On April 18, 2023, the City of Campbell adopted the 2040 General Plan, 2023-2031
Housing Element, and related amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map.
The General Plan and Housing Element included implementation plans identifying a
schedule for the completion of key programs to meet overall goals and objectives. The
Housing Element included three programs, requiring amendments to the Zoning Map to
implement, identified to be completed by the end of 2023. These programs are
summarized as follows:
• Program H-1c: Affordable Housing Overlay: Establish an Affordable
Housing Overlay zoning district to incentivize the development of housing
meeting priorities by: 1) allowing an increase in density over that otherwise
allowed under state density bonus law; 2) allowing a reduction of parking
standards consistent with those provided under state density bonus law; 3)
providing for ministerial (i.e., by-right) permit processing; 4) providing for impact
fee reductions or waivers; 5) City funding support for frontage improvements.
• Program H-3e: Rezone for Lower Income Shortfall: Establish a By-Right
Housing Overlay zoning district to provide for the ministerial (i.e., by-right)
permit processing of at least 1,024 lower-income housing units on sites meeting
a minimum density of 30 units per acre and which allow for the production of at
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 2 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
least 16 units per site, when at least 20% or more of the units of a proposed
development are to be made are affordable to lower income households.
• Program H-3f: Reuse Sites: Modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the
ministerial (i.e., by-right) permit processing of projects on qualifying sites used
in prior Housing Elements, when at least 20% or more of the units of a proposed
development are to be made are affordable to lower income households.
Given the similarities between these three Housing Element programs and the
implementation timelines, staff is working on them concurrently. The following discussion
presents a summary of key policy decisions that will need to be made in their
development.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is organized into four sections focused on the following topics
areas: I) Affordable Housing Overlay; II) Reuse Sites Overlay; III) By-Right Housing
Overlay; and IV) Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments.
I. Affordable Housing Overlay
An Affordable Housing Overlay zoning district, or “AHOZ”, is a zoning tool used to
encourage the development of affordable housing projects in furtherance of Housing
Element goals and objectives. The establishment of an AHOZ generally involves the
identification of areas where it will apply, and the development of incentives the City may
offer in exchange for projects meeting specific policy objectives (“trade-offs”). Typically,
AHOZ’s are used by local jurisdictions to compete with State Density Law by offering a
list of identified (“on-menu”) incentives that may be found more attractive by developers
than those offered by State Density Bonus Law. In exchange for one or more incentives
offered by the City, the developer agrees to comply with requirements of local significance
that projects pursuing a State Density Bonus would not be required to meet.
Specific to Campbell, during development of the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031
Housing Element, the establishment of an AHOZ was identified by staff, the Planning
Commission, and Council as a potential tool to protect the City height limit of 75-feet
(mainly in response to provisions of State Density Bonus Law) and incentivize the
development of housing meeting the needs of special needs populations (i.e., Veterans,
Unhoused, Female-Headed Households). While members of the Council acknowledged
that it may not be essential to offer incentives to achieve compliance in all circumstances
(i.e., maintaining max height within the Pruneyard), that an AHOZ should be developed
to identify, and achieve, local priorities.
Separately, during development of the City’s Multi-Family Development and Design
Standards (MFDDS), staff, the Planning Commission, and Council prioritized standards
that protect single-family neighborhoods, through the development of adjacency
standards, and require mixed-use development, along key commercial corridors, and the
Downtown. Further, the City’s Economic Development Consultant emphasized the
importance of requiring the establishment of meaningful/functional tenant spaces, to
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 3 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
ensure that they can support a range of uses and activities, including objectives of the
form-based approach to create walkable areas.
To support the development of a local AHOZ, staff, with the support of summer intern
Hannah Meeks, surveyed the use and effectiveness of AHOZs throughout the State of
California. Results from research have been attached (reference Attachment A –
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Research) and incorporated into the following
discussion which focuses on the three most important policy considerations identified:
Policy Consideration #1: Should the AHOZ be designed to compete with, or
complement, State Density Bonus Law?
State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Sections 65915-65918) grants incentives
(e.g., concessions, waivers, reduced parking standards, density) to developers who meet
specified affordable and/or senior housing requirements. In developing an AHOZ, a key
policy consideration is to decide whether to develop a program that is designed to
compete with, or complement, the requirements and incentives of State Density Bonus
Law.
• Competitive AHOZ: An AHOZ designed to compete with State Density Bonus Law
forces developers to “choose” between the requirements and incentives offered by
the City and those provided by State Density Bonus Law.
o Key Advantages: They main advantage of a developing a competing AHOZ
is the ability to create a tailored set of incentives that achieve more
predictable outcomes aligned with local priorities (i.e., staying under the
City’s maximum height limit).
o Key Disadvantages: As State Density Bonus Law already allows developers
to deviate from any number of development standards (e.g., height,
setbacks) as well as up to five (5) regulatory requirements (e.g., utility
undergrounding), it will be challenging for the City to develop a program that
would be favored by developers without offering significant incentives in
exchange. Even if the City is successful in establishing a competitive
program, as State Density Bonus law changes, the City’s AHOZ may
become obsolete, and therefore require constant updates and maintenance
to keep up. For these reasons, many of the cities that initially established a
competitive AHOZ program are switching to a complementary model
(reference Attachment A – Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Research).
• Complementary AHOZ (Staff Recommended): An AHOZ that is designed to
complement State Density Law provides additional benefits to developers, in
exchange for meeting one or more local priorities. As an example, projects may
qualify for benefits above and beyond those offered by State Density Bonus Law,
in exchange for respecting the City maximum height limit.
o Key Advantages: As complementary AHOZ programs seek to “add” benefits
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 4 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
to those granted by State Density Bonus Law, such programs automatically
account for changes to state law and require little to no maintenance as a
result. As developers still retain all the benefits offered by State Density
Bonus Law, complementary programs are often the most attractive option
for developers and successful in producing affordable housing.
o Key Disadvantages: As State Density Bonus Law allows for broad deviation
from local standards and requirements, a complementary AHOZ would
have less control over project design (i.e., potentially allowing for cookie-
cutter design or the development of tall and boxy buildings) that may be of
community interest or significance to protect and/or preserve.
➢ Staff Recommendation: In consideration of the key benefits and drawbacks of
each approach, staff would recommend establishing an AHOZ that complements
State Density Bonus Law. By relying on the requirements and incentives offered
by State Density Bonus Law as a base, but offering additional benefits for projects
that meet one or more local priorities, the program may achieve key priorities (see
Table 1 – AHOZ Type Summary). As projects are developed, the City may also
adjust the list of local priorities, and incentives offered in exchange, to ensure that
the program remains competitive and utilized by developers – allowing for updates
to the program to occur on an “as needed” basis.
Table 1 - AHOZ Type Summary
Type Key Advantages Key Disadvantage(s)
Competitive Most Predictable
(Focus on Control)
Requires Significant Incentives,
Frequent Maintenance
Complementary
(Staff Recommended)
Requires Least Incentives
(Focus on Priorities)
Requires Appropriate Incentives
to Offset Focused Priorities
Policy Consideration #2: Establishing Local Priorities and Incentives (“Tradeoffs”)
In developing an AHOZ, the City must also establish a list of local priorities and identify
appropriate incentives to be offered in exchange.
From prior discussions and feedback from the Commission and Council, the following list
of potential priorities was identified:
• Potential Priorities:
o Adherence to Maximum Height Limits;
o Housing for Special Needs Populations (e.g., low-income, veterans);
o Compliance with Single-Family Residential Adjacency Standards; and
o Developing Mixed-Use Projects along Commercial Corridors and in the
Downtown.
In exchange for meeting one or more priorities, the City will need to establish an
appropriate, and competitive, set of incentives. As State Law already allows for broad
deviation from local development standards and requirements, the City will need to
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 5 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
provide financial incentives, or increases/reductions to standards beyond those already
provided for the AHOZ program to be successful. Examples of such incentives may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Potential Incentives:
o Increased residential density or commercial floor area (i.e., density bonus);
o Reduced, waived, or deferred payment of permit and impact fees;
o Priority use of supportive housing funds;
o Permitting developers to select the location and type of BMR housing units
in their projects (i.e., allowing developers to concentrate all of their BMR
units in less desirable locations within a development project);
o Allowing for ministerial (i.e., by-right) permit processing;
o Waive utility undergrounding requirements;
o City funding of frontage improvements; and
o Other financial incentives (i.e., covering the cost of transit passes).
To help illustrate how incentives may be used to achieve local priorities, and interface
with State Density Bonus Law, the following case study has been prepared (differences
shown in yellow highlight):
Standard Developer Option #1
(Pursue State Density Bonus)
Developer Option #2
(Pursue City AHOZ)
Concessions
(Requirements)
10% available to lower-income
households
10% available to lower-income
households
Comply with max. height limit.
(i.e., priority)
Incentives
(Benefits)
20% Density Bonus 20% Density Bonus
Reduced Parking Standards Reduced Parking Standards
Unlimited Waivers Unlimited Waivers*
(Excepting Height)
1 incentive per State Law
(i.e., waive undergrounding)
2 “on-menu” incentives
(i.e., waive undergrounding, &
ministerial review)
As illustrated in the example above, a developer complying with City maximum height
limit (a local priority) would receive the same density bonus (20%) and reduced parking
standards granted under state law, but instead of being limited to one (1) concession,
would receive two (2) “on-menu” incentives identified as an appropriate benefit.
➢ Staff Recommendation: Under a complementary program model, it is
recommended to focus on achieving only one or two of the priorities identified to
ensure that the incentives offered in exchange remain competitive. Staff further
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 6 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
recommends including all the potential incentives identified as options for a
developer to consider and structuring the program to allow for the developer to
select from the options available based on what best serves the needs of their
project (i.e., some projects may benefit from waiving utility undergrounding
requirements, where others may not). Further, staff recommend establishing
incentives that account for the project size and affordable housing produced to
ensure that incentives remain competitive while also avoiding being too generous
(i.e., when 20 percent or more of the units in a project with 50 or more units are
made affordable to lower-income households, up to two incentives may be
selected – where under state density bonus law, only one such incentive may be
granted for a similar project).
Table 2 - AHOZ Incentives and Concessions Summary
Potential Priorities Potential Incentives
Max Height Increased Density / Intensity
Special Needs Housing Reduced, Deferred, Waived Fees
Protection of Single-Family
Adjacencies Priority Use of Supportive Funds
Mixed-Use Development Selection of BMR Units
Ministerial (“By-Right”) Permit
Processing
Waive Utility Undergrounding Req.
Funding Support of Frontage
Improvements
Other Financial Incentives
(i.e., City funded transit passes)
Policy Consideration #3: Identification of Policy Area
In addition to identifying a specific set of priorities and incentives, the City must also
decide where in the City the AHOZ should be applied. Consistent with State Density
Bonus Law, the AHOZ could be applied to qualifying projects Citywide or, alternatively,
used as a tool to target the production of housing meeting local priorities in select areas
of the community. Examples of potential planning and/or policy areas, that may be used
to establish the AHOZ boundary include:
• Potential Overlay Boundaries:
o Applying the AHOZ Citywide;
o Aligning the AHOZ with existing planning boundaries (e.g.; area plans,
Priority Development Areas, other Overlays); and
o Applying the AHOZ to specific land use designations (i.e., higher density
land uses).
➢ Staff Recommendation: To maximize the effectiveness and use of the AHOZ,
staff would recommend applying the AHOZ Citywide, excepting single-family areas
(which may be separately addressed by SB 10 and other Housing Element programs),
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 7 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
and establish appropriate priorities and incentives based on location, product type,
and/or density (i.e., in multi-family areas a possible incentive may be to grant an
additional accessory dwelling unit, whereas in transit-oriented areas, a possible
incentive may include providing City funded transit passes).
II. Reuse Sites Housing Overlay
In accordance with State Law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)), nonvacant parcels
included in the prior Housing Element planning period (i.e., 5th cycle), and vacant sites
included in two or more consecutive planning periods (e.g., 5th and 4th cycle), are eligible
for ministerial (i.e., by-right) permit processing when at least 20 percent of the units in the
project are made affordable to lower-income households.
For Campbell, the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory included 59 non-vacant reuse sites,
and one (1) vacant reuse site that was included in two or more consecutive planning
periods. These reuse sites primarily consist of a series of smaller properties, located
south of E. Campbell Avenue, between the Downtown and the Pruneyard.
To identify sites meeting these criteria, Housing Element Program H3-f, directs the
establishment of a “Reuse Sites Overlay” (reference Attachment B – Reuse Sites
Overlay) as follows:
Exhibit A: Reuse Sites Overlay (Excerpt)
➢ Staff Recommendation: As a requirement of state law, there is no discretion in
the selection of sites included in the Reuse Overlay, thus staff will proceed with the
associated mapping and code amendments accordingly. Separately, however,
staff recommend including sites subject to the Reuse Overlay, in the Affordable
Housing Overlay and/or By-Right Housing Overlay, to maximize their effectiveness
and utility in meeting the City’s housing needs and state requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 8 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
III. By-Right Housing Overlay
As a consequence of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element and associated land use
changes after the compliance deadline (January 31, 2023), Campbell was required to
include a Program H-3e (Rezone for Lower-Income Shortfall) as part of its Housing
Element to address the City’s lower-income housing “shortfall”.
The City’s “shortfall”, is determined by adding all lower-income housing units assigned to
the City under the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle (i.e., 742 very-
low & 434 low-income units) and subtracting any pipeline projects, baseline ADU
production estimates, and existing capacity to build housing on sites at a densities greater
than 30-units per acre (i.e., the minimum density presumed by state law to support the
production of affordable housing). As the City’s prior General Plan did not include any
sites with a density of 30-units per acre, the City’s lower-income housing “shortfall” was
calculated as follows:
Table 3 – Lower Income Housing Shortfall
Lower-Income Unit Obligation
(6th Cycle RHNA | 742 very-low + 434 low-income)
1,186 units
Accessory Dwelling Production
(8-year estimate based on past trends) -129 units
Pipeline Projects
(Low-Income Units of Pending Projects) -33 units
Sites Supporting Low-Income Housing
(No sites over 30/du acre; prior to January 31, 2023) -0 units
Unit Shortfall 1,024 units
To address the lower-income housing shortfall, cities typically have up to three years,
following the adoption of the Housing Element, to establish a “By-Right Housing” Overlay
meeting the requirements of state law (Gov. Code 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i). However,
as HCD encouraged the City to establish a schedule for the required rezoning to be
completed “as early as possible”, Program H-3e committed the City to adoption of a “By-
Right” Housing Overlay by the end of 2023.
To comply with the requirements of Program H-3e and state law, the “By-Right Housing”
Overlay must meet all of the following requirements.
• Allow for ministerial (“by-right”) permit processing of projects within the Overlay
when at least 20% or more of the units of a proposed development are to be made
are affordable to lower income households;
• Permit the development of exclusively residential uses (i.e., no mixed-use
requirement) for sites included within the Overlay;
• Provide sufficient sites to demonstrate a combined housing capacity equivalent to
the City’s lower-income housing shortfall (i.e., 1,024 units); and
• Only select sites that meet the following requirements:
o Allow for the production of at least 16 dwelling units;
o Have a density of at least 30 units per acre;
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 9 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
o Include a requirement to least 50% of the floor area of a mixed-use project
to residential uses.
As the “By-Right Housing” Overlay provides greater discretion to decide which sites to
include (unlike the Reuse Overlay), the City needs to decide where the City is most
comfortable allowing for ministerial review over affordable housing projects (no public
hearings) and residential only development (eliminating mixed-use requirements). As a
starting point, since sites included in the “Reuse Sites” Overlay will separately be required
to provide for ministerial review and may be combined/overlapped with sites to be
identified for inclusion in the “By-Right Housing” Overlay, staff recommends including
“Reuse Sites” Overlay sites in the “By-Right Housing” Overlay.
The following discussion focuses on three approaches/options that may be considered
as the basis for site selections, with a focus on maximizing reuse sites, minimizing impact
to public input, and preserving mixed-use requirements. In addition to identifying potential
benefits and drawbacks of each approach, maps identifying affected properties have also
been included for reference (for full size copies of the maps, please refer to Attachment
C – Reuse Housing Overlay Options).
By-Right Overlay Option #1: Reuse Sites + Highest Density (1,067 units / 29 sites)
Under this approach, all of the reuse sites that are already subject to ministerial review
(discussed under II. above) would be also included in the By-Right Overlay.
Under Option 1, the By-Right Housing Overlay would include all eligible sites included in
the Reuse Housing Overlay and the minimum number of high-density sites (e.g., sites
starting at 34-units per gross acre and higher; Lloyd Square on E. Campbell Avenue)
necessary to meet the City’s lower-income housing shortfall of 1,024 units. In total, Option
1 would provide for the ministerial review of 1,067 units on 29 sites.
o Key Advantages: By maximizing Reuse Sites, the total number of properties
subject to ministerial review is minimized.
o Key Disadvantages: The higher density sites of community significance,
such as former Fry’s Electronics, will be eligible for ministerial permit
processing. Additionally, Option 1 would allow for a significant number of
mixed-use sites to be developed exclusively as residential uses.
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 10 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
Figure 1: By-Right Housing Overlay - Option 1
By-Right Overlay Option #2: Reuse Sites + Lowest Density (1,039 units / 27 sites)
Similar to Option 1, Option 2 would include all eligible sites in the Reuse Housing Overlay,
but instead of targeting high-density sites, include the minimum number of low-density
sites (sites starting at 26-33 units per gross acre; First Congressional Church on
Hamilton) necessary to meet the City’s lower-income housing shortfall of 1,024 units. In
total, Option 2 would provide for the ministerial review of 1,039 units on 27 sites.
o Key Advantages: Similar to Option 1, by maximizing Reuse Sites, the total
number of properties subject to ministerial review is minimized.
o Key Disadvantages: By including lower-density sites, projects located
closer to single-family neighborhoods would be subject to ministerial review.
Similar to Option 1, Option 2 would also allow for a significant number of
mixed-use sites to be developed exclusively as residential uses.
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 11 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
Figure 2: By-Right Housing Overlay Option 2 – Reuse Sites + Lowest Density
By-Right Overlay Option #3 (Staff Rec.): Protect Mixed-Use (1,029 units/ 17 sites)
Option 3 aims to protect mixed-use sites. Under this option, only one mixed-use site
(located in the Campbell Plaza Shopping Center – Safeway Site on Winchester Blvd.)
would be impacted.
o Key Advantages: Protects nearly all sites with a mixed-use requirement.
o Key Disadvantages: Results in a greater number of properties subject to
ministerial review, as it does not overlap to the same degree as sites
included in the Reuse Sites Overlay (only one reuse site is included in this
option; located in the Campbell Plaza Shopping Center).
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 12 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
Figure 4: By-Right Housing Overlay Option 3 – Reuse Sites + Greatest Capacity
➢ Staff Recommendation: In consideration of the three options presented, staff
recommends Option 3, as it best protects the City’s interest in mixed-use
development. While this option would result in a greater number of sites being
subject to ministerial review, staff’s recommendation recognizes that ministerial
review is already possible under separate provisions of state law (i.e., SB 35). By
protecting mixed-use development, the City can also better achieve the desired
form and character for the community while also enhancing its ability to support
essential City services through the collection of sales tax.
Table 4 – By-Right Housing Overlay Option Summary
Option # Description Key Advantages Key Disadvantage(s)
1 Reuse Sites +
Highest Density
Preserves Greater Discretion of
Projects in Low-Density Residential
Neighborhoods
Loss of Discretionary Review
of Projects in Higher Density
Areas; Does not Protect
Mixed-Use
2 Reuse Sites +
Lowest Density
Preserves Greater Discretion of
Higher Density Areas
Loss of Discretionary Review
of Projects in Residential
Neighborhoods; Does not
Protect Mixed-Use
3 Preserve
Mixed-Use Protects Mixed-Use Greater Number of Sites
Allowing Ministerial Review
IV. Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments
To effectuate the new Housing Overlay zoning districts, the following amendments to the
Zoning Code and Zoning Map will be required:
Zoning Code Amendments: Chapter 21.14 (Overlay/Combining Districts) of the Zoning
Code will be updated to include three new sections outlining the purpose and scope of
each Housing Overlay zoning district (reference Attachment D – Draft Zoning Code
Amendments). Initial drafts of proposed text amendments have been included for
Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2023 Page 13 of 13
PLN-2023-155 | Study Session on Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
reference. Direction on key policy considerations, outlined in this report, will be reflected
in a final draft of the code for review and consideration later this year (see “Next Steps”).
Zoning Map Amendments: To identify the specific sites and/or areas subject to the new
Housing Overlay zoning districts, a new Zoning Map will need to be adopted. As part of
the update, staff intends to address inconsistencies between the General Plan and Zoning
Map, which occurred as part of the April 18, 2023, updates (see “Background).
Specifically, the map will be updated to correct mismatches between the land use
designation and zoning of properties where renaming occurred (i.e., “High-Density
Residential” was renamed “Medium-High Density Residential” to provide for the new
density ranges established with the update).
NEXT STEPS
Following the subject meeting, staff will hold a study session with the City Council on
October 17, 2023. Based on the feedback and direction provided on the AHOZ, staff will
develop a refined list of potential priorities and concessions and solicit feedback on their
effectiveness from developers (including affordable housing developers). Further, staff
will solicit feedback from property owners of sites identified for potential inclusion in a
Housing Overlay. Accounting for this feedback, staff will return with completed
Ordinances and Overlay Zones for review and adoption later this year.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this item.
Prepared by: _________________________________
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Approved by: _________________________________
Rob Eastwood, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
A. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Research
B. Reuse Sites Overlay Map
C. By-Right Housing Overlay Options
D. Draft Zoning Code Amendments (Chapter 21.14)
To: Planning Division Date: September 15, 2023
From: Hannah Meeks, Planning Intern
Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) – Research & Recommendations
This memorandum serves to summarize research on the use of Affordable Housing Overlay (AHOZ)
programs in California and provide recommendations for implementation of an AHOZ program in
Campbell. The research summarized in this memorandum was compiled between June 26th and July 25th,
2023, and included eleven cities (reference Attachment A). Out of the eleven cities surveyed, the
programs implemented by Menlo Park, Tiberon, and Milpitas, were found to be the most comprehensive,
and as a result, were solicited for feedback on the successes/challenges implementing their programs as
part of this study (reference Attachment B). A Google Survey was also distributed to HCD Listserv to gather
additional information and feedback about other AHOZ programs, in which seven cities responded
(reference Attachment C). In addition to the research on AHOZ programs, this memo also provides a
summary of a recent relevant court case.1
PURPOSE
The City of Campbell’s 2023-2031 Housing Element included Program H-1c which outlines a schedule for
the creation of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) with the goal of improving housing
affordability. Consistent with the implementation timeline, this memo was prepared to research the use
of AHOZs in the Bay Area by mid-2023 (see Table 1; Timeframe).
Goal/Policy/Program Timeframe
Program H-1c: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
Establish an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to incentivize
the development of housing meeting priorities. Incentives to
be incorporated into the AHOZ may include:
•Allowing an increase in density over that otherwise
allowed under State Density Bonus Law.
•Allowing a reduction in parking standards consistent
with those provided under State Density Bonus Law.
•Providing for Ministerial Review.
Other incentives to be evaluated in developing the AHOZ
include providing for
a)building, planning, and/or impact fee reductions or
waivers
b)City funding support for frontage improvements.
Research other AHOZs in the Bay
Area and conduct developer
interviews on meaningful incentives
(mid 2023); Develop draft AHOZ and
conduct public hearings (Fall 2023);
Adopt AHOZ (Spring 2024)
Table 1 – Program H-1c from Campbell’s 2023-2031 Housing Element
1 Martinez vs City of Clovis - reference Attachment D
Community Development Department
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
Attachment A
Memorandum – Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) Page 2 of 7
WHAT IS AN AHOZ
An Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, or AHOZ, is a zoning tool used by local governments in California to
encourage the development of affordable housing projects. The establishment of an AHOZ involves the
identification of areas where it will apply, and the development of policies and requirements that overlay
existing zoning. Within a defined geographical or policy area, an AHOZ provides regulations for
qualification that typically focus on achieving local policy objectives and lays out incentives for developers
to choose from in exchange for meeting those policy objectives. Common features in AHOZ are listed
below.
1. Designation: Local governments identify specific areas or zones within their jurisdiction where
the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will be applied. These areas are typically chosen based on
various criteria such as proximity to public transportation, existing infrastructure, and potential
for affordable housing development.
2. Incentives: The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone often offers developers certain incentives to
encourage them to build affordable housing projects. These incentives may include density
bonuses, reduced parking requirements, streamlined permitting processes, and potential fee
waivers.
3. Affordability Requirements: Developers seeking to take advantage of the incentives within the
overlay zone are usually required to allocate a certain percentage of the units in their projects as
affordable housing. The level of affordability (e.g., low-income, moderate-income) may vary
depending on local regulations.
4. Affordable Housing Funds: In some cases, local governments may establish affordable housing
funds generated from fees collected from developers who choose not to include affordable units
in their projects. These funds can be used to support affordable housing initiatives within the city
or region, including projects within the AHOZ.
KEY POLICY DECISIONS
The following discussion serves to identify the most common, and important, policy decisions that need
to be made when establishing an AHOZ.
Policy Consideration 1: Should the AHOZ be structured to compete with, or complement incentives and
requirements provided by State Density Bonus Law?
The State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Sections 65915-65918) is a statewide policy that grants
certain incentives to developers who include affordable housing units of a certain percentage and/or
senior housing in their projects. As the law is implemented at a statewide level, local governments may
find the law inadequate in addressing their unique housing needs or preferences. Table 2 below compares
the key differences between an AHOZ and the provisions of State Density Bonus Law.
The City of Agoura Hills, Navato, Chino, Alameda, Menlo Park, Boyle Heights, and Foster City have
implemented their AHOZ programs to complement the density bonus law. This means allowing
developers to receive additional incentives when they exceed the requirements of the state density bonus
law. The cities of Buellton, Tiberon, San Diego, Capitola, Corte Madera, Milpitas, Fremont, Los Gatos, and
Palo Alto chose to have their AHOZ programs compete with the state density bonus law. This means
developers have the option to choose either the density bonus program or the AHOZ program
independently. Table 3 displays a chart describing the key pros and cons of each option.
Memorandum – Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) Page 3 of 7
Provision AHOZ Density
Bonus Law
Tailored Zoning Designation:
Allows local authorities to target efforts and areas where affordable housing
is in the greatest demand.
X
Customized Incentives:
Local governments can customize the package of benefits to better suit the
needs and priorities of their community.
X
Customized Affordability Thresholds:
The city can set its own affordability criteria, potentially accommodating a
broader range of income levels, and making the housing even more
accessible to a diverse population.
X
Streamlined Process:
AHOZs can speed up the permit process to incentivize developers.
X
Community Input:
AHOZs are established at the local level, allowing for greater community
input, and tailors the program to the unique needs and preferences of the residents.
X
Local Funding:
AHOZs can create dedicated local funding mechanisms to support affordable
housing initiatives. This could involve leveraging local funds, grants, or other
financial resources to complement the state’s funding efforts.
X
Mandated by State Law:
Density Bonus Law mandates a density increase at a designated percentage,
and a set list of incentives and waivers to encourage developers to build
more affordable and senior housing in all areas. Given that State Density
Bonus law is mandated at a state level, requirements are also consistent
across jurisdictions and more commonly applied and understood by
developers.
X
Table 2 – AHOZ vs State Density Bonus Law
Pros of Complementing Density Bonus Law Cons of Complementing Density Bonus Law
Developers may have an increased number of
incentives.
Having both regulations may be confusing for the
developer in understanding what their options are.
There may be increased affordable housing
development because only one overall program will
be utilized and worked more closely with city staff.
Planners may need extra time to make sure all
incentives and programs are internally consistent.
The AHOZ incentives and tradeoffs may be tailored
towards the city priorities, therefore the
developments could line up with the city’s character
and long-term goals more closely.
Pros of Competing with Density Bonus Law Cons of Competing with Density Bonus Law
The developer may have one clear incentive path to
follow.
Developers may have fewer options for incentives.
It could be easier to alter the AHOZ when it is a
singular entity.
There may be a lack of incentives to offer that the
density bonus law does not already offer.
Memorandum – Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) Page 4 of 7
Table 3 - Complementing vs Competing State Density Bonus Law
PC 1: City Feedback/Observations
It appears there is a division among cities, with some choosing to complement (7) and others opting to
compete (9) with the density bonus law. However, cities like Menlo Park have indicated that they have
transitioned their AHOZ program to complement the law. Menlo Park was a city who was solicited for
feedback, and they noted that will clarify that their AHO program can be combined with the state density
program, allowing for developments of 100 units or more.
Recommendation on PC 1: For Campbell, the complementary option is recommended because it
could ensure greater adaptability over time, especially as new housing laws come to fruition. It
could also have the potential to keep the development process in the hands of the city’s control
longer and the incentives and tradeoffs could be tailored to the city priorities therefore potentially
lining up with the cities long term goals and community characteristics more closely.
Menlo Park exemplifies aspects of this policy consideration and has their program thoroughly
outlined and could be referenced as a model ordinance.
Policy Consideration 2: Establishing Local Priorities and Incentives (Tradeoffs)
Priorities/Criteria to Qualify
One of the most significant policy decisions, in the development of an AHOZ, is to determine the specific
local priorities required to qualify (i.e., provide housing for a special needs population, compliance with a
specific development standard) and suite of incentives that will be offered in exchange (i.e., reduced
impact fees, expedited permit processing). For instance, Menlo Park requires that 25% of units be
allocated to low/extremely low-income individuals, while Milpitas allocates 15% of units to extremely low-
income residents for residential projects with 10 or more units. Foster City stood out in that their AHOZ
focused on providing affordable housing for seniors. Additionally, most cities have defined qualifying
conditions, or priorities, to be eligible for incentives offered by their AHOZ program. For example, Tiburon
includes a provision specifying that a percentage of units must be reserved for special needs populations.
The qualifications for the three contacted cities are listed in Attachment B for reference.
PC 2: Priorities City Feedback/Observations
Milpitas updates involve reducing the commercial floor area ratio and increasing the maximum residential
density to support the development of below-market-rate housing, thus indirectly increasing affordable
housing. Additionally, they are considering incentivizing only 100% affordable housing and limiting the
affordable incentives related to relaxed development standards, freeing developers to request waivers or
concessions on other development standards.
Recommendation on PC 2 (Priorities/Criteria to Qualify): For Campbell, priorities may include a
max height of 75 feet, the protection of trees, ensuring commercial uses on the ground floor of
affordable housing projects, and keeping a minimum percentage of open space even if a reduction
is allowed. Qualifications for the AHOZ program may include developers agreeing to produce a
certain percentage of affordable units.
Memorandum – Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) Page 5 of 7
The following qualifications for the AHOZ program may be considered. Require affordable housing
to be constructed in a single phase, rather than multiple phases, and allow the transfer of square
footage within units. These approaches could help expedite the development process, reduce
regulatory burdens, and increase the number of affordable units built. To ensure fair access to
amenities and services, affordable units could be evenly distributed within the development
project. It is recommended for Campbell to also define the maximum number of incentives
developers can use, taking cues from Milpitas (up to two waivers) and Los Gatos (up to four
concessions) as examples. Campbell may also require a certain percentage of affordable units per
project. These policies could offer clarity for developers and assurance that these units will be
constructed.
Milpitas and Tiberon exemplify aspects of this policy consideration and have their programs
thoroughly outlined and could be referenced as a model ordinance.
Incentives Offered in Exchange
Beyond establishing priorities, cities have outlined incentives they are willing to offer in exchange for more
housing. One common incentive listed by 4 of the 11 cities is increasing the height limit for buildings. The
specific incentives used by each city are detailed in Attachment A. When deliberating potential incentives,
it is imperative to acknowledge that this roster of incentives does not constitute an all-or-nothing
proposition. Instead, it may entail a partial reduction, such as a reduction of 25% from the standard, rather
than a complete elimination.
PC 2: Incentives City Feedback/Observations
Milpitas mentioned that providing additional incentives beyond those already outlined in the Density
Bonus Program is challenging. They highlighted that if they were to offer supplemental density bonuses
for exceeding AHO requirements, the added density would need to be significantly higher to effectively
incentivize developers. Moreover, the relaxed development standards they implemented seemed to be
ineffective, as developers could opt for requesting waivers and concessions through the Density Bonus
Program instead.
Recommendation on PC 2 (Potential Incentives): Incentives may include increasing floor area
ratio, parking reductions, setback reductions, reductions of common/private open space (can
include reduced landscaping requirements - Milpitas, Palo Alto), fee waivers such as planning and
engineering application fees, building plan check and inspection fees, construction mitigation
fees), increased max building coverage/allowable paving, reduced restrictions on building types,
clustering of affordable units within a project, and waiving development standards in exchange
for meeting local priorities.
Milpitas and Menlo Park serve as noteworthy examples illustrating key facets of this policy
deliberation. Their meticulously detailed programs could be cited as examples of a model
ordinance.
Policy Consideration 3: Location
Through an AHOZ, a local jurisdiction may promote housing production in specific areas of the community.
The cities surveyed, target the production of housing in various ways, described below.
Previous Designation
Memorandum – Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) Page 6 of 7
Buellton and Foster City have elected to designate their affordable housing sites in advance. This implies
that, within the framework of their AHOZ program, the affordable housing locations have already been
predetermined, and potentially no other prospective housing sites can be included in the program without
prior discussion and approval.
Geospatially Located
Geospatially situating the AHOZ program offers a range of strategic possibilities. One such possibility
involves aligning the program with distinct area plan boundaries, as exemplified by Menlo Park, which
applies the program within their El Camino Real and Downtown specific plan areas.
Alternatively, this spatial approach could be applied to target specific areas within the city, including those
in close proximity to transit hubs or falling within predefined land use designations. In the case of Menlo
Park, their program is specifically tailored to properties zoned as R-4-S (AHO high-density residential,
special—affordable housing overlay).
Policy Locations
The selection of AHOZ housing sites may also be determined through the utilization of TCAC (Tax Credit
Allocation Committee) eligibility criteria or demographic data, with a focus on prioritizing underserved
communities and individuals.
PC 3: City Feedback/Observations
Menlo Park is in the process of extending its overlay to encompass opportunity sites and R-3 sites located
in proximity to Downtown and within high resource areas. Meanwhile, Milpitas is actively engaged in the
revision and enhancement of their mixed-use zoning districts.
Recommendation on PC 3 (Location): Due to the small size of Campbell, it is recommended to
geospatially map the where the AHOZ program will be applied. It is recommended to consider
properties within a commercial-corridor mixed-use zone, transit-oriented mixed-use designation,
medium/high density development zones, and/or areas within priority development zones. These
zones, including areas designated for multi-family development, planned development zones, or
special project areas (e.g., East Campbell Master Plan, Hamilton Area Precise Plan or Winchester
Boulevard Master Plan), could offer promising opportunities to accommodate a larger population.
Importantly, these choices align with the strategies adopted by the cities examined in this
research.
In the event the City of Campbell opts for precise site selection for the AHOZ, it is advisable to
incorporate explicit design guidelines within the program. This could become especially pertinent
if these guidelines deviate from the regulations inherent to the underlying zoning framework.
Such an approach could mitigate potential confusion in regulatory interpretation and ensure a
streamlined implementation of the AHOZ program.
Menlo Park exemplifies aspects of this policy consideration and has their program thoroughly
outlined and could be referenced as a model ordinance.
1. Attachment A – Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Memorandum – Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (AHOZs) Page 7 of 7
2. Attachment B – Qualifications from Menlo Park, Tiberon, and Milpitas
3. Attachment C – Survey Results
4. Attachment D – Martinez vs City of Clovis
Attachment A
Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Incentive Menlo Park Tiberon Los Gatos Milpitas Corte Madera San Diego Capitola Boyle
Heights
Foster City
– Senior
Housing
Fremont Palo Alto
Floor Area
Ratio
Increase
Increase by
amount of
density
increase as
well as
additional 5%
Not to
exceed 50%
of the max
FAR for
commercial
space in
mixed use
zoning
Averaging
But no
specifics
Max of 2.4
FAR
Height &
Number
of Stories
Project = 45%
density bonus
gets max 4
stories + no
more than 48’
Project = > 45%
density bonus
gets 5 stories +
no more than
60’
Waivers not
exceed 20%
of max
zoning
height limits
and
not exceed
general plan
height limits
No
minimum bu
ilding site
area
requirement
Increased
maximum
building
height and
/or stories.
Height up
to 50 feet
except
within 50
feet of
residential
zone
Parking
Reduction
Studio = 0.8
space
1Bed = 1 space
2 Bed or more
= 1.5 space
Senior housing
= 0.8 or less
Near Station =
minus 0.2
spaces
Reduced
within
reason
(shared
parking,
joint use,
off-site
parking)
Reduction to
one space
per unit =
seniors
disabilities.
Reduction to
one (1) space
per unit for
development
s within one-
quarter (¼)
mile to the
proposed
Max 20%
Averaging
but no
specifics
Off-street
parking
Reduce
ratio to
0.75
spaces per
unit except
where
precluded
by state
law
Attachment A
Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Incentive Menlo Park Tiberon Los Gatos Milpitas Corte Madera San Diego Capitola Boyle
Heights
Foster City
– Senior
Housing
Fremont Palo Alto
Long Term
Biking – no
more than 0.5
per unit
Electric Vehicle
= reduced by
50%
Vasona Light
Rail Station.
Setback
Reduction
Required
setbacks
reduced to 5’
Exception:
When an AHO
project parcel
is next to a
parcel zoned
for single-
family
residential the
underlying
zoning
requirement
still applies
Any two
property
setbacks may
be reduced
by up to 50%
Not to
exceed 50%
of minimum
required
setback
The
minimum se
tbacks from
property
lines shall be
determined
by the city
through the
design
permit
process
Reduced
minimum
lot setback
Reduction
of
common/
private
open
space
Open Space
may be
reduced up to
50%
Also said
minimum open
space reduced
10%
Reduced
landscaping
requirement
s
Reduced
minimum
outdoor
and/or
private
outdoor
living area.
Landscape
and open
space
areas may
be located
on or
above the
ground
level, and
Attachment A
Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Incentive Menlo Park Tiberon Los Gatos Milpitas Corte Madera San Diego Capitola Boyle
Heights
Foster City
– Senior
Housing
Fremont Palo Alto
may
include
balconies,
terraces,
and
rooftop
gardens
Fee
Waivers
Project = 50%
low income or
20% very low
gets all
processing fee
waiver
Waive or
reduce
town
application
and
developme
nt fees
Also:
Constructi
on
subsidies
Assistance
in securing
public
financing –
bonds/tax
credits
Processing
Fee
reduction
A.
Planning and
engineering
application
fees (but not
Town
consultant
fees).
b.
Building plan
check and
inspection
fees.
c.
Construction
mitigation
fee.
Developmen
t Processing
Fees
Developmen
t Impact Fees
Administrativ
e Fees
Traffic Impact
Mitigation
fees
Town council
may waive,
reduce, or
rebate fees
for processing
the various
applications
for
development
in the AHO
Waives
expedite
fees
Did not
directly say
fees
Yes but no
specifics
Increased
Max
building
coverage/
allowable
paving
Coverage
Increased by
5%
Increased lot
coverage
increased up
to 50%
The city shall
determine
the
maximum b
uilding
coverage for
Up to a
25%
increase in
Building
Coverage
limits
Increased
maximum
lot
coverage
Attachment A
Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Incentive Menlo Park Tiberon Los Gatos Milpitas Corte Madera San Diego Capitola Boyle
Heights
Foster City
– Senior
Housing
Fremont Palo Alto
the
proposed
project
through the
design
permit
process
Priority
Processin
g
Give
qualifying
projects
highest
priority
processing
Projects the
highest
processing
priority for
planning
entitlements,
building plan
check and
building
inspection.
Yes but no
specifics Yes but no
specifics
Architectu
ral Design
Variation
Affordable
units
allowed to
vary in
design and
square
footage.
Also
encourage
d shared
common
spaces
Attachment A
Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Incentive Menlo Park Tiberon Los Gatos Milpitas Corte Madera San Diego Capitola Boyle
Heights
Foster City
– Senior
Housing
Fremont Palo Alto
Flexibility
in
Developm
ent
Standards
Higher
density
and
relaxation
and/or
flexibility
in the
developme
nt
standards
in
RMP/AHO
Max height
38ft
Reduction
in dwelling
unit size
In a
residential
project
which
contains
attached
multi-story
living units,
affordable
units may
contain
only
one story.
Remove
max
dwelling
unit
density
Interior
Amenity
May be
reduced
within
reason to
reduce
costs
Reduced
interior or
exterior
amenities
Affordable
units may
have
different
interior
finishes
and
features
than
market-
rate units
in the
same
residential
project
Attachment A
Review of Adopted Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Incentive Menlo Park Tiberon Los Gatos Milpitas Corte Madera San Diego Capitola Boyle
Heights
Foster City
– Senior
Housing
Fremont Palo Alto
Density
Averaging
Permit
higher densi
ty levels in
certain
project
portions in
exchange for
advantageo
us project
design
features
Yes but
no
specifics
Dwelling
unit
density
bonus
Lot Width
Reduction Up to 25%
decrease
Reduced
minimum l
ot size
and/or
dimension
Reduced
Minimum
Building
Separatio
n
Yes but no
specifics
Reduced
street
standard,
such as
reduced
minimum
street
width.
Yes but no
specifics
# of
Incentives 7 6 5 8 1 1 5 5 5 9 4
Additional Cities Researched
& Surveyed
No AHO: Gilroy, Larkspur
AHO or In Progress: Concord, Novato, Chino, Alameda, Agoura Hills, Buellton
Attachment B
Qualifications from Menlo Park, Tiberon, and Milpitas
Attachment B
Menlo Park
Apply to the Menlo Park El Camino Real and
Downtown specific plan area and those
properties zoned R-4-S (AHO) (high density
residential, special—affordable housing overlay)
Tiberon
Milpitas
Must Comply with All Below
Accommodate full range of incomes Minimum of 5% very-low-income, 10%
low-income, and 10% moderate-income
housing units
Moderate-income rental units shall be
counted only if they are below ninety
percent of the median income. On smaller
sites that would yield ten or fewer total
units at the minimum allowable density,
the affordable component shall be
reduced from 25% to 20% of total units.
At least 50% of the required affordable
units shall be low income or very low
income.
The AHO requires all
new residential
projects with ten or
more units to develop
15% of the total
number of units as
affordable units
At least 25% affordable units for low and/or
extremely low income OR At least 15% affordable
units for extremely low income
Ensure that affordable units are deed-
restricted for a period of not less than 55
years, and in perpetuity, if possible, to
ensure affordable resale and rents
If an applicant
provides affordable
units in excess of 20%
of the total number of
units in the project the
city provides the
incentives
Qualification for AHO + Density Bonus +
Incentives
Those projects located in the Menlo Park El
Camino Real + Downtown specific plan area that
qualify for the AHO shall be eligible for the
density bonus and incentives identified in this
chapter. The density bonus applies only to the
residential component of a project in the Menlo
Park El Camino Real and Downtown specific plan
Provide a percentage of units for special
needs populations in compliance with
section 16-70.030 (general inclusionary
requirements).
Attachment B
Qualifications from Menlo Park, Tiberon, and Milpitas
area and does not act to entitle a project to more
office, retail or other nonresidential density.
5 to 100 residential dwelling units: = a minimum
of 21% low-income units or 12% very low-income
units
Comply with Overlay Development
Standards
If smaller project proposes to provide both low
and very low-income units: the minimum
percentage of units to qualify for the AHO shall be
more than the additive amount necessary to
achieve 35% density bonus
100 Residential and Above: provide a minimum of
21% low-income units or 12% very low-income
units.
If a larger project proposes to provide both low
and very low-income units, the minimum
percentage of units to qualify for the AHO shall be
the additive amount necessary to achieve more
than 35% density bonus.
The low or very low income percentage to qualify
for the AHO shall not include the below market
rate units required to be provided by for-sale
residential development projects and commercial
development projects pursuant to the city’s
below market rate housing program,
Chapter 16.96.
Attachment C
Survey Results
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
scott.watkins@cityof
concord.org
City of
Concord
100,000 or
greater
Our AHO is under
development, and
this is one of the
questions for our
City Attorney.
Must be
identified in our
housing element
Ministerial
approval (may
add other
incentives)
0 Our AHO is
under
development.
Please share
the responses
of your survey
We have scanned 28
jurisdictions AHO
throughout
California for their
AHO policies and
found a wide variety
of approaches.
Would be great to
see a model AHO
policy developed,
and a toolkit written
to discuss how
jurisdictions could
adapt and
implement AHOs.
rnesovic@agourahills
city.org
City of
Agoura
Hills
25,000 to
49,999
Complements
state density
bonus law (i.e.,
state density
bonus law benefits
+ more).
• Must be
located within a
specific area
(i.e., proximity
to transit, within
a specific area
plan or land use
designation).
• Must exceed
• Expedited
permit
processing.
• Permit fee
waivers or
reductions.
• Reduced
6 to 10 • Expedited
permit
processing.
• Housing
density or unit
count bonus.
• Height and
floor area ratio
bonuses.
One lesson learned
is that during the
public review phase
of the housing
element and/or
overlay zone, it is
very
important to
communicate loudly
and often about
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
local
inclusionary
ordinance
and/or state
density bonus
law affordability
requirements.
• Must satisfy
one or more
specific
development
standards or
policy
objectives.
• Must satisfy
specific
environmental
and
sustainability
requirements.
• Must include
specific tenant
protection
parking
requirements.
• Housing
density or unit
count bonus.
• Height and
floor area ratio
bonuses
State Density Bonus
Law. If the overlay
requires a maximum
of three story
buildings and a
handful of
developers waive
the three-story
height requirements,
elected officials and
the public
will likely be very
upset when they see
applications for 4 or
5 story buildings and
can't do much about
it.
Additionally, in my
experience, always
expect that the
developer will opt
for a 50% density
bonus. This means
that they will have
to provide at least
24% low-income or
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
measures (i.e.,
tenant
relocation
assistance, rent
control
measures).
• Other: Our
affordable
housing overlay
gives an
increase in
allowable
density and a
ministerial
permit pathway,
so long as the
developer
provides at least
10% VLI and
10% LI units.
15% very low-
income. It may be
beneficial to create
development
standards that can
be reasonably met
with a 50% increase
to the allowable
base density, that
way the public and
elected officials
know that their
development
standards will be
met the majority of
the time.
cindy.mccormick@cit
yofgilroy.org
Gilroy 50,000 to
99,999
No AFO. Exploring
incentives beyond
state law
(complement +
more)
Will likely be
tied to ELI
housing, maybe
farmworker
housing
Exploring. Will
be interested in
your findings
0 N/A We are only
exploring at this
time. I am interested
in your results.
Thanks Stephen!
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
esemonian@cityoflar
kspur.org
City of
Larkspur
10,000 to
24,999
We have no
adopted one yet
but plan to adopt
one
none yet
• Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
• By right
approval
0 not adopted
yet
Please share your
survey results.
smarshall@novato.or
g
City of
Novato
50,000 to
99,999
Complements
state density
bonus law (i.e.,
state density
bonus law benefits
+ more).
Must satisfy one
or more specific
development
standards or
policy
objectives.
• Reduced
parking
requirement
s
• Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
1 to 5 • Reduced
parking
requiremen
ts.
• Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
I cannot recommend
AHOs based on
current housing law,
particularly state
density bonus law.
While I think its
commendable that
agencies offer their
own incentives to
construct affordable
housing through
AHOs, the reality is
these overlays raise
the base density
level against which a
density bonus is
calculated, and the
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
accompanying
standards are easily
overcome by
concessions/incentiv
es and
waivers/reductions.
That is to say, an
AHO is likely as
effective as the
assignment of a
traditional
residential land use
classification when
factoring for
application of a
density bonus. I
believe agencies are
better off retaining
their traditional land
use/density
assignments,
developing robust
objective
development
standards, and
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
letting the
development
community decided
whether to increase
affordability to
achieve a higher
percentage bonus.
mhitz@cityofchino.o
rg
City of
Chino
50,000 to
99,999
Complements
state density
bonus law (i.e.,
state density
bonus law benefits
+ more).
• Must
exceed local
inclusionary
ordinance
and/or state
density
bonus law
affordability
requirement
s.
• Must satisfy
one or more
specific
developmen
t standards
• Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
• Height and
floor area
ratio
bonuses.
1 to 5 • Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
• Height and
floor area
ratio
bonuses.
• Relaxed
use
requiremen
ts (i.e.,
allowing
conditional
uses as
We have both a
Mixed Use Overlay
(MUO and an AHO),
both require a
certain density range
and inclusionary
percentage. Until we
have a few projects
in practice, it is
difficult to know
how well the
Objective
Development
standards will be
implemented.
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
or policy
objectives.
permitted
uses).
atai@alamedaca.gov
City of
Alameda
50,000 to
99,999
Complements
state density
bonus law (i.e.,
state density
bonus law benefits
+ more).
• Must be
located
within a
specific area
(i.e.,
proximity to
transit,
within a
specific area
plan or land
use
designation.
• Must satisfy
one or more
specific
developmen
t standards
or policy
objectives.
• Must
include
• Reduced
parking
requirement
s.
• Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
• Height and
floor area
ratio
bonuses.
0 • Permit fee
waivers or
reductions.
• Impact fee
waivers or
reductions.
• Housing
density or
unit count
bonus.
Our AHO came into
effect this year
(2023). It is part of
Alameda's Backyard
Infill strategy to
induce additional
units beyond ADUs.
Due to slowdown in
the housing market
we have not seen
development
interest in this
opportunity. Hoping
things will change in
the near future.
Attachment C
Survey Results
Email Jurisdictio
n
Jurisdiction
Size
Tell us about your
AHO -
Is your AHO
designed to
compete with (as
an alternative to)
or complement
(add to) state
density bonus
law?
Does your AHO
have specific
criteria that
must be met to
qualify?
Which of the
following
incentives are
offered by your
AHO?
How
many
projects
have
utilized
your AHO
(including
pending)?
Which of the
following
incentives
have
developers
preferred?
Please share your
experiences and any
lessons learned.
What would you
improve about your
AHO?
specific
tenant
protection
measures
(i.e., tenant
relocation
assistance,
rent control
measures.
Attachment D
Martinez vs City of Clovis
Attachment D
MARTINEZ v. CITY OF CLOVIS
When the City of Clovis implemented their AHOZ, Martinez raised an argument stating that the new
zoning overlay did not align with the requirements of the Housing Element Law, specifically concerning
the minimum density stipulation. The contention was that the overlay retained the lower base densities
associated with single-family and multi-family zoning. This, in turn, permitted developers to opt for the
lower density alternative. On April 7th, 2023, the courts concurred with this perspective, finding that the
city had not replaced their existing base density with the mandated 20 units per acre density.
Consequently, the city neglected to take actions that would promote the availability of affordable housing
for its residents, leading to a failure in meeting the obligation to "affirmatively further fair housing."
Campbell has effectively addressed this matter by formally codifying their rezoning densities to
accommodate for the increase in mandatory housing densities. Additionally, they have included the
required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) density targets directly within their zoning
ordinances.
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
§¨¦17
§¨¦17
V
A
NDUSE N LN ARCRDS WINCHESTER BLVDCAPRI DRCAMBRIANDR
DELL AVEEL
P
ATIO DR
UNION AVESAN
TO
M
AS
EXPYMARILYNDRCARLYN AVEW HACIENDA AVE
PAYNE AVE
LLEWELLYN AVECENTRAL PARK D R
SWINCHESTERBLVDALMARIDA DRCREEK
SIDEWA
YHAZEL AVE N MIDWAY STLOT TIELNB EDA LP A R KC T CURTNERA VE
BURROWS RDEMOZARTAVE UNION
AVEAINSLEY PARK DRVIRGINIA AVEE RINCONAVE
CYPRESS LN
SMIDWAYSTSUNNYSIDE AVE
ECAMPBELL AVE GRACE AVEW CAMPBELLAVE
SONUCACTSSANTOMASAQUINORD PENNY LN
SHARPAVESUNBERR
Y
DRPEACHTREECTW LATIMER AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
ORCHARDCITYDR
HARRIETAVEPHANTOM AVEN 3RD STHARRIET
AVEDILLON AVEREDDING RDNSANTOMASAQUINORD SHEFFIELD CTWRINCONAVE
MONTEMAR WAY
GALE DR
CA
L
A
D
O
A
V
E
S1STSTUNNAMED
ST
LACO
RONACTBOISE DR
ROBWAY AVE
SHAMR
O
CK
DR
C IVIC CENTERDR
CA
M
D
E
N
A
V
E
W ESTMONT AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
NLEIGHAVEWALNUT DRSOBRATO CT
SMITHAVE
E M C G L INCYLNEDEN AVEMARAVIL
LACTW CAMPBELL AVE
POPE CT
SOBRATO WAY
FRIA R WAY
HE DEGARDAVE
BEDAL LN TIMBERCOVEDRMILLICHD
REVERETT AVEAPPLEBLOSSOMLNWHITWOOD
LN
PAYMANPLWHITEOAKSRDCOLLEEN
WAYW HAMILTON AVE
PEGGY CTDELLACTBUCKNAM CTHOLMESAVESOBRATODRSTONEHURSTWAYSAINTANTHONYS PLPAMLAR AVE
U N IO N PL
ELWO
O
D
D
R
HEDEGARD AVE
ESUNNYOAK S A V EERIE WAYFAIRLANDS AVE RAILWAYAVETHERESA AVECAMEODR
ROSE CT
MAGGIOCTCHALETWOODSCIR
STOKES
ST
AUDREY AVEVILLARITA DRCA
S
T
R
O
C
T
KIM CT
VIRGINIA CT GILMAN AVEE LATIMERAVE
DELLOMA DR
W SUNNYOAKS AVE HARRISONAVEKIM LOUISE DRGINDENDRC
AMDENAVESPRINGFIELDDR
N 2ND STDARRYL DRS IL A C C I DR
INSKIP DR
CAMDEN AVE
N
PETERDRINWOOD DRKENNEDY AVEDELPRADODR
HYDEDRELWOOD DRBUDD CTGWEN DRCENTURYDR FLAMINGO DRSALMARAVELONGFELLOWAVEW LATIMER AVE
SHELLEY AVE
PATIO DR
GAYAVEBETH WAY
ADRIEN DR
BUCKNAM AVE
VIA RANCHEROSAFFLE CTNELL
ODRLAWNDALE AVEDUNCANVILLE
CT
DRY
CREE KRDENSENADADR
WALDO RD DUNSTER DRKENNETHSTKIL
M
E
R
A
V
E OLY
M
PIA
AVECHRISTOPHERAVEBUDD AVE
HAZELWOOD AVE
LINDA DR NCENTRALAVEBISMARCK DR
N1STSTMANCHESTER AVENIDO DRBENT DR SPETERDRPEGGY AVEPAGE STDOVERWAYPAULA DR ST PAUL DREHAMILTONAVE
POPLARAVEADLERAVE BARBANO AVEDALLAS DR
SUNNYARBORCT S 4TH STCHAPMANDR
W
P
ARRAVETRAILBLAZER PLMCBAIN AVE
ERIN WAYSALMARTERGRANT ST
MORRIS LN
MOREAVEYORKAVES WINCHESTER BLVDMITCHELLCTVICTORAVEGRAHAM DRFAWN CT HERBERT LNDECORAH LNSUPERIORDREHAMILTONAVE
VAN
D
E
L
L
W
A
YHICKORYCT SALICEWAYEBBE T S DR REGASDR
FILBERTWAYABBOTTAVEELAM AVE
K E ITHDR WELKER CTPECAN WAYDECARLI CT
ARNOTTWAYHARRISONAVE
KENNETHAVEJOHNKIRKCTFAIRBANKSAVE
CONNIE DR
NADINE DR
ALICE AVE CAMP IS IWAY
SALERNO DRBROWNINGAVE
LORETTALNRIDGELEY DR
OLD ORCHARD
RDWRENWAYLUCOT WAYCROCKETTAVE SHARMON PALMS LNLOST LAKE LNMARGARETLN
ROBNICK CT
WILTON DR
ABBOTTAVEW HAMILTON AVE
W RINCONAVE NMILTONAVESTEINWAY AVE
B RACEBRID
GECT
HOLLISAVE
CRONWELL DR
WHAMILTON A V E
WATSON DR
HACKAVELOVELLAVE
MONTEVILLA CT
WENDELL DRCROCKETT AVECOVENTRYDR
SMILTONAVETURNER WAY
MUNRO AVE
WA RWICK DR
DENVER DR
WESTVALLEYDRABBEY LNDOT AVE
DIVISION S
TWESTON DREHACIENDAAVEPALO SANTO DREL SOLYOAVE
ECHO AVECHAMBERLIN CT HUNT WAYJANEANNWAYSBASCOMAVE
S UM MERFIELDDRL
OYALTONDRLLEWELLYNAVEROBIN LNAPRICOT AVE
NORMANDY DRKUEHNIS DRRICHLEE DREMORY AVEAPRIL WAYSBASCOMAVEJEFFREY AV E ESTHER AVESBASCOMAVESHADY DALEAVE
ELCAMINITOAVE LENOR WAYMCBAIN AVE
HARDY AVEMONICA LNW ROSEMARYLN
FEWTRELLDRMONICA LNCATALPA LN
S
ANTOMASEXPYCAMPBE LLTECHN
O
LOGYPKWYSANTOMASEXPYSANTOMASEXPYS
AN
T
O
M
A
S
E
X
P
Y
.
July 28, 2023
General Plan 2040 LegendResidential Uses
Low Density Residential (<4.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<5.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<7.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low-Medium Density Residential (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium Density Residential (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Residential (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Mobile Home Park (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre) Commercial/Office Uses
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Professional OfficeIndustrial Uses
Light Industrial
Research DevelopmentMixed Uses
General Commercial/Light Industrial
Professional Office Mixed-Use (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Central Business Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
General Commercial Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
High Density Mixed-Use (34-45 Units/Gr. Acre)
Commercial Corridor Mixed-Use (45-60 Units/Gr. Acre)
Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use (57-75 Units/Gr. Acre)Public/Recreational Uses
Public Facilities
Open Space
*: Includes all non-vacant sites used in prior housing element and one vacant site included in two consecutive prior housingelements (136 Gilman Avenue).
Housing Element Reuse Sites
Reuse Overlay
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
§¨¦17
§¨¦17
V
A
NDUSE N LN ARCRDS WINCHESTER BLVDCAPRI DRCAMBRIANDR
DELL AVEELPATI O DR
UNION AVESAN
TO
MAS
EXPYMARILYNDRCARLYN AVEW HACIENDA AVE
PAYNE AVE
LLEWELLYN AVECENTRAL PARK D R
SWINCHESTERBLVDALMARIDA DRCREEK
SIDEWA
YHAZEL AVE N MIDWAY STLOT TIELNB ED A LP A R KC T CURTNERA VE
BURROWS RDEMOZARTAVE UNION
AVEAINSLEY PARK DRVIRGINIA AVEE RINCONAVE
CYPRESS LN
SMIDWAYSTSUNNYSIDE AVE
ECAMPBELL AVE GRACE AVEW CAMPBELLAVE
SONUCACTSSANTOMASAQUINORD PENNY LN
SHARPAVESUNBERR
Y
DRPEACHTREECTW LATIMER AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
ORCHARDCITYDR
HARRIETAVEPHANTOM AVEN 3RD STHARRIET
AVEDILLON AVEREDDING RDNSANTOMASAQUINORD SHEFFIELD CTWRINCONAVE
MONTEMAR WAY
GALE DR
CA
L
A
D
O
A
V
E
S1STSTUNNAMED
ST
LACO
RONACTBOISE DR
ROBWAY AVE
SHAMR
O
CK
DR
C IVIC CENTERDR
CA
M
D
E
N
A
V
E
W ESTMONT AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
NLEIGHAVEWALNUT DRSOBRATO CT
SMITHAVE
E M C G L INCYLNEDEN AVEMARAVIL
LACTW CAMPBELLAVE
POPE CT
SOBRATO WAY
FRIA R WAY
HE DEGARDAVE
BEDAL LN TIMBERCOVEDRMILLICHD
REVERETT AVEAPPLEBLOSSOMLNWHITWOOD
LN
PAYMANPLWHITEOAKSRDCOLLEEN
WAYW HAMILTON AVE
PEGGY CTDELLACTBUCKNAM CTHOLMESAVESOBRATODRSTONEHURSTWAYSAINTANTHONYS PLPAMLAR AVE
U N IO N PL
ELWO
O
D
D
R
HEDEGARD AVE
ESUNNYOAK S A V EERIE WAYFAIRLANDS AVE RAILWAYAVETHERESA AVECAMEODR
ROSE CT
MAGGIOCTCHALETWOODSCIR
STOKES
ST
AUDREY AVEVILLARITA DRCA
S
T
R
O
C
T
KIM CT
VIRGINIA CT GILMAN AVEE LATIMERAVE
DELLOMA DR
W SUNNYOAKS AVE HARRISONAVEKIM LOUISE DRGINDENDRC
AMDENAVESPRINGFIELDDR
N 2ND STDARRYL DRS IL A C C I DR
INSKIP DR
CAMDEN AVE
N
PETERDRINWOOD DRKENNEDY AVEDELPRADODR
HYDEDRELWOOD DRBUDD CTGWEN DRCENTURYDR FLAMINGO DRSALMARAVELONGFELLOWAVEW LATIMER AVE
SHELLEY AVE
PATIO DR
GAYAVEBETH WAY
ADRIEN DR
BUCKNAM AVE
VIA RANCHEROSAFFLE CTNELL
ODRLAWNDALE AVEDUNCANVILLE
CT
DRY
CREE KRDENSENADADR
WALDO RD DUNSTER DRKENNETHSTKIL
M
E
R
A
V
E OLY
M
PIA
AVECHRISTOPHERAVEBUDD AVE
HAZELWOOD AVE
LINDA DR NCENTRALAVEBISMARCK DR
N1STSTMANCHESTER AVENIDO DRBENT DR SPETERDRPEGGY AVEPAGE STDOVERWAYPAULA DR ST PAUL DREHAMILTONAVE
POPLARAVEADLERAVE BARBANO AVEDALLAS DR
SUNNYARBORCT S 4TH STCHAPMANDR
WPARRAVETRAILBLAZER PLMCBAIN AVE
ERIN WAYSALMARTERGRANT ST
MORRIS LN
MOREAVEYORKAVES WINCHESTER BLVDMITCHELLCTVICTORAVEGRAHAM DRFAWN CT HERBERT LNDECORAH LNSUPERIORDREHAMILTONAVE
VAN
D
E
L
L
W
A
YHICKORYCT SALICEWAYEBBE T S DR REGASDR
FILBERTWAYABBOTTAVEELAM AVE
K E ITHDR WELKER CTPECAN WAYDECARLI CT
ARNOTTWAYHARRISONAVE
KENNETHAVEJOHNKIRKCTFAIRBANKSAVE
CONNIE DR
NADINE DR
ALICE AVE CAMP IS IWAY
SALERNO DRBROWNINGAVE
LORETTALNRIDGELEY DR
OLD ORCHARD
RDWRENWAYLUCOT WAYCROCKETTAVE SHARMON PALMS LNLOST LAKE LNMARGARETLN
ROBNICK CT
WILTON DR
ABBOTTAVEW HAMILTON AVE
W RINCONAVE NMILTONAVESTEINWAY AVE
B RACEBRID
GECT
HOLLISAVE
CRONWELL DR
WHAMILTON A V E
WATSON DR
HACKAVELOVELLAVE
MONTEVILLA CT
WENDELL DRCROCKETT AVECOVENTRYDR
SMILTONAVETURNER WAY
MUNRO AVE
WA RWICK DR
DENVER DR
WESTVALLEYDRABBEY LNDOT AVE
DIVISION
S
TWESTON DREHACIENDAAVEPALO SANTO DRELSOLYOAVE
ECHO AVECHAMBERLIN CT HUNT WAYJANEANNWAYSBASCOMAVE
S UM MERFIELDDRL
OYALTONDRLLEWELLYNAVEROBIN LNAPRICOT AVE
NORMANDY DRKUEHNIS DRRICHLEE DREMORY AVEAPRIL WAYSBASCOMAVEJEFFREY AV E ESTHER AVESBASCOMAVESHADY DALEAVE
ELCAMINITOAVE LENOR WAYMCBAIN AVE
HARDY AVEMONICA LNW ROSEMARYLN
FEWTRELLDRMONICA LNCATALPA LN
S
ANTOMASEXPYCAMPBE LLTECHN
O
LOGYPKWYSANTOMASEXPYSANTOMASEXPYS
AN
T
O
M
A
S
EX
P
Y
.
August 4, 2023
General Plan 2040 LegendResidential Uses
Low Density Residential (<4.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<5.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<7.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low-Medium Density Residential (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium Density Residential (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Residential (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Mobile Home Park (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre) Commercial/Office Uses
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Professional OfficeIndustrial Uses
Light Industrial
Research DevelopmentMixed Uses
General Commercial/Light Industrial
Professional Office Mixed-Use (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Central Business Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
General Commercial Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
High Density Mixed-Use (34-45 Units/Gr. Acre)
Commercial Corridor Mixed-Use (45-60 Units/Gr. Acre)
Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use (57-75 Units/Gr. Acre)Public/Recreational Uses
Public Facilities
Open Space
Reuse Overlay
Reuse Sites + Highest Density (1067 Low-Income Units / 29 Sites)
Option 1
Nonresidential Ground Floor RequirementTier 1Tier 2
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
§¨¦17
§¨¦17
V
A
NDUSE N LN ARCRDS WINCHESTER BLVDCAPRI DRCAMBRIANDR
DELL AVEELPATIO DR
UNION AVESAN
TO
M
AS
EXPYMARILYNDRCARLYN AVEW HACIENDA AVE
PAYNE AVE
LLEWELLYN AVECENTRAL PARK D R
SWINCHESTERBLVDALMARIDA DRCREEK
SIDEWA
YHAZEL AVE N MIDWAY STLOT TIELNB EDA LP A R KC T CURTNERA VE
BURROWS RDEMOZARTAVE UNI
ON AVEAINSLEY PARK DRVIRGINIA AVEE RINCONAVE
CYPRESS LN
SMIDWAYSTSUNNYSIDE AVE
ECAMPBELL AVE GRACE AVEW CAMPBELLAVE
SONUCACTSSANTOMASAQUINORD PENNY LN
SHARPAVESUNBERR
Y
DRPEACHTREECTW LATIMER AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
ORCHARDCITYDR
HARRIETAVEPHANTOM AVEN 3RD STHARRI
ET AVEDILLON AVEREDDING RDNSANTOMASAQUINORD SHEFFIELD CTWRINCONAVE
MONTEMAR WAY
GALE DR
CALA
DO AVE
S1STSTUNNAMED
ST
LACO
RONACTBOISE DR
ROBWAY AVE
SHAMR
O
CK
DR
C IVIC CENTERDR
CA
M
DE
N AVE
W ESTMONT AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
NLEIGHAVEWALNUT DRSOBR AT O CT
SMITHAVE
E M C G L INCYLNEDEN AVEMARAVIL
LACTW CAMPBELL AVE
POPE CT
SOBRATO WAY
FRIA R WAY
HE DEGARDAVE
BEDAL LN
ECAMPBELLAVE
TIMBERCOVEDRMILLICHD
REVERETT AVEAPPLEBLOSSOMLNWHITWOOD
LN
PAYMANPLWHITEOAKSRDCOLLEEN
WAYW HAMILTON AVE
PEGGY CTDELLACTBUCKNAM CTHOLMESAVESOBRATODRSTONEHURSTWAYSAINTANTHONYS PLPAMLAR AVE
U N IO N PL
ELWO
O
D
D
R
HEDEGARD AVE
ESUNNYOAK S A V EERIE WAYFAIRLANDS AVE RAILWAYAVETHERESA AVECAMEODR
ROSE CT
MAGGIOCTCHALETWOODSCIR
STOKESST
AUDREY AVEVILLARITA DRCASTRO CT
KIM CT
VIRGINIA CT GILMAN AVEE LATIMERAVE
DELLOMA DRW SUNNYOAKS AVE HARRISONAVEKIM LOUISE DRGINDENDRC
AMDENAVESPRINGFIELDDR
N 2ND STDARRYL DRS IL A C C I DR
INSKIP DR
CAMDEN AVE
N
PETERDRINWOOD DRKENNEDY AVEDELPRADODR
HYDEDRELWOOD DRBUDD CTGWEN DRCENTURYDR FLAMINGO DRSALMARAVELONGFELLOWAVEW LATIMER AVE
SHELLEY AVE
PATIO DR
GAYAVEBETH WAY
ADRIEN DR
BUCKNAM AVE
VIA RANCHEROSAFFLE CTNELL
ODRLAWNDALE AVEDUNCANVILLECT
DRY
CREE KRDENSENADADR
WALDO RD DUNSTER DRKENNETHSTKILMER AVE OLY
M
PIA
AVECHRISTOPHERAVEBUDD AVE
HAZELWOOD AVE
LINDA DR NCENTRALAVEBISMARCK DR
N1STSTMANCHESTER AVENIDO DRBENT DR SPETERDRPEGGY AVEPAGE STDOVERWAYPAULA DR ST PAUL DRS 4TH STEHAMILTONAVE
POPLARAVEADLERAVE BARBANO AVEDALLAS DR
SUNNYARBORCT
CHAPMANDR
WPARRAVETRAILBLAZER PLMCBAIN AVE
ERIN WAYSALMARTERGRANT ST
MORRIS LN
MOREAVEYORKAVES WINCHESTER BLVDMITCHELLCTVICTORAVEGRAHAM DRFAW N CT HERBERT LNDECORAH LNSUPERIORDREHAMILTONAVE
VANDELL WAYHICKORYCT SALICEWAYEBBE T S DR REGASDR
FILBERTWAYABBOTTAVEELAM AVE
K E ITHDR WELKER CTPECAN WAYDECARLI CT
ARNOTTWAYHARRISONAVE
KENNETHAVEJOHNKIRKCTFAIRBANKSAVE
CONNIE DR
NADINE DR
ALICE AVE CAMP IS IWAY
SALERNO DRBROWNINGAVE
LORETTALNRIDGELEY DR
OLD ORCHARD RDWRENWAYLUCOT WAYCROCKETTAVE SHARMON PALMS LNLOST LAKE LNMARGARETLN
ROBNICK CT
WILTON DR
ABBOTTAVEW HAMILTON AVE
W RINCONAVE NMILTONAVESTEINWAY AVE
B RACEBRID
GECT
HOLLISAVE
CRONWELL DR
WHAMILTON A V E
WATSON DR
HACKAVELOVELLAVE
MONTEVILLA CT
WENDELL DRCROCKETT AVECOVENTRYDR
SMILTONAVETURNER WAY
MUNRO AVE
WA RWICKDRDENVER DR
WESTVALLEYDRABBEY LNDOT AVEDIVISION STWESTON DREHACIENDAAVEPALO SANTO DREL SOLYOAVE
ECHO AVECHAMBERLIN CT HUNT WAYJANEANNWAYSBASCOMAVE
S UM MERFIELDDRL
OYALTONDRLLEWELLYNAVEROBIN LNAPRICOT AVE
NORMANDY DRKUEHNIS DRRICHLEE DREMORY AVEAPRIL WAYSBASCOMAVEJEFFREY AV E ESTHER AVESBASCOMAVESHADY DALEAVE
ELCAMINITOAVE LENOR WAYMCBAIN AVE
HARDY AVEMONICA LNW ROSEMARYLN
FEWTRELLDRMONICA LNCATALPA LN
S
ANTOMASEXPYCAMPBE LLTECHN
O
LOGYPKWYSANTOMASEXPYSANTOMASEXPYS
AN
T
O
M
A
S
E
X
P
Y
.
September 26, 2023
General Plan 2040 LegendResidential Uses
Low Density Residential (<4.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<5.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<7.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low-Medium Density Residential (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium Density Residential (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Residential (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Mobile Home Park (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre) Commercial/Office Uses
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Professional OfficeIndustrial Uses
Light Industrial
Research DevelopmentMixed Uses
General Commercial/Light Industrial
Professional Office Mixed-Use (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Central Business Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
General Commercial Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
High Density Mixed-Use (34-45 Units/Gr. Acre)
Commercial Corridor Mixed-Use (45-60 Units/Gr. Acre)
Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use (57-75 Units/Gr. Acre)Public/Recreational Uses
Public Facilities
Open Space
Reuse Overlay
Nonresidential Ground Floor RequirementTier 1Tier 2
Option 2
Reuse Sites + Lowest Density (1039 Low-Income Units / 27 Sites)
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
Æb
§¨¦17
§¨¦17
V
A
NDUSE N LN ARCRDS WINCHESTER BLVDCAPRI DRCAMBRIANDR
DELL AVEELPATI O DR
UNION AVESAN
TO
MAS
EXPYMARILYNDRCARLYN AVEW HACIENDA AVE
PAYNE AVE
LLEWELLYN AVECENTRAL PARK D R
SWINCHESTERBLVDALMARIDA DRCREEK
SIDEWA
YHAZEL AVE N MIDWAY STLOT TIELNB ED A LP A R KC T CURTNERA VE
BURROWS RDEMOZARTAVE UNION
AVEAINSLEY PARK DRVIRGINIA AVEE RINCONAVE
CYPRESS LN
SMIDWAYSTSUNNYSIDE AVE
ECAMPBELL AVE GRACE AVEW CAMPBELLAVE
SONUCACTSSANTOMASAQUINORD PENNY LN
SHARPAVESUNBERR
Y
DRPEACHTREECTW LATIMER AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
ORCHARDCITYDR
HARRIETAVEPHANTOM AVEN 3RD STHARRIET
AVEDILLON AVEREDDING RDNSANTOMASAQUINORD SHEFFIELD CTWRINCONAVE
MONTEMAR WAY
GALE DR
CA
L
A
D
O
A
V
E
S1STSTUNNAMED
ST
LACO
RONACTBOISE DR
ROBWAY AVE
SHAMR
O
CK
DR
C IVIC CENTERDR
CA
M
D
E
N
A
V
E
W ESTMONT AVE
E HAMILTONAVE
NLEIGHAVEWALNUT DRSOBRATO CT
SMITHAVE
E M C G L INCYLNEDEN AVEMARAVIL
LACTW CAMPBELLAVE
POPE CT
SOBRATO WAY
FRIA R WAY
HE DEGARDAVE
BEDAL LN TIMBERCOVEDRMILLICHD
REVERETT AVEAPPLEBLOSSOMLNWHITWOOD
LN
PAYMANPLWHITEOAKSRDCOLLEEN
WAYW HAMILTON AVE
PEGGY CTDELLACTBUCKNAM CTHOLMESAVESOBRATODRSTONEHURSTWAYSAINTANTHONYS PLPAMLAR AVE
U N IO N PL
ELWO
O
D
D
R
HEDEGARD AVE
ESUNNYOAK S A V EERIE WAYFAIRLANDS AVE RAILWAYAVETHERESA AVECAMEODR
ROSE CT
MAGGIOCTCHALETWOODSCIR
STOKES
ST
AUDREY AVEVILLARITA DRCA
S
T
R
O
C
T
KIM CT
VIRGINIA CT GILMAN AVEE LATIMERAVE
DELLOMA DR
W SUNNYOAKS AVE HARRISONAVEKIM LOUISE DRGINDENDRC
AMDENAVESPRINGFIELDDR
N 2ND STDARRYL DRS IL A C C I DR
INSKIP DR
CAMDEN AVE
N
PETERDRINWOOD DRKENNEDY AVEDELPRADODR
HYDEDRELWOOD DRBUDD CTGWEN DRCENTURYDR FLAMINGO DRSALMARAVELONGFELLOWAVEW LATIMER AVE
SHELLEY AVE
PATIO DR
GAYAVEBETH WAY
ADRIEN DR
BUCKNAM AVE
VIA RANCHEROSAFFLE CTNELL
ODRLAWNDALE AVEDUNCANVILLE
CT
DRY
CREE KRDENSENADADR
WALDO RD DUNSTER DRKENNETHSTKIL
M
E
R
A
V
E OLY
M
PIA
AVECHRISTOPHERAVEBUDD AVE
HAZELWOOD AVE
LINDA DR NCENTRALAVEBISMARCK DR
N1STSTMANCHESTER AVENIDO DRBENT DR SPETERDRPEGGY AVEPAGE STDOVERWAYPAULA DR ST PAUL DREHAMILTONAVE
POPLARAVEADLERAVE BARBANO AVEDALLAS DR
SUNNYARBORCT S 4TH STCHAPMANDR
WPARRAVETRAILBLAZER PLMCBAIN AVE
ERIN WAYSALMARTERGRANT ST
MORRIS LN
MOREAVEYORKAVES WINCHESTER BLVDMITCHELLCTVICTORAVEGRAHAM DRFAWN CT HERBERT LNDECORAH LNSUPERIORDREHAMILTONAVE
VAN
D
E
L
L
W
A
YHICKORYCT SALICEWAYEBBE T S DR REGASDR
FILBERTWAYABBOTTAVEELAM AVE
K E ITHDR WELKER CTPECAN WAYDECARLI CT
ARNOTTWAYHARRISONAVE
KENNETHAVEJOHNKIRKCTFAIRBANKSAVE
CONNIE DR
NADINE DR
ALICE AVE CAMP IS IWAY
SALERNO DRBROWNINGAVE
LORETTALNRIDGELEY DR
OLD ORCHARD
RDWRENWAYLUCOT WAYCROCKETTAVE SHARMON PALMS LNLOST LAKE LNMARGARETLN
ROBNICK CT
WILTON DR
ABBOTTAVEW HAMILTON AVE
W RINCONAVE NMILTONAVESTEINWAY AVE
B RACEBRID
GECT
HOLLISAVE
CRONWELL DR
WHAMILTON A V E
WATSON DR
HACKAVELOVELLAVE
MONTEVILLA CT
WENDELL DRCROCKETT AVECOVENTRYDR
SMILTONAVETURNER WAY
MUNRO AVE
WA RWICK DR
DENVER DR
WESTVALLEYDRABBEY LNDOT AVE
DIVISION
S
TWESTON DREHACIENDAAVEPALO SANTO DRELSOLYOAVE
ECHO AVECHAMBERLIN CT HUNT WAYJANEANNWAYSBASCOMAVE
S UM MERFIELDDRL
OYALTONDRLLEWELLYNAVEROBIN LNAPRICOT AVE
NORMANDY DRKUEHNIS DRRICHLEE DREMORY AVEAPRIL WAYSBASCOMAVEJEFFREY AV E ESTHER AVESBASCOMAVESHADY DALEAVE
ELCAMINITOAVE LENOR WAYMCBAIN AVE
HARDY AVEMONICA LNW ROSEMARYLN
FEWTRELLDRMONICA LNCATALPA LN
S
ANTOMASEXPYCAMPBE LLTECHN
O
LOGYPKWYSANTOMASEXPYSANTOMASEXPYS
AN
T
O
M
A
S
EX
P
Y
.
August 4, 2023
General Plan 2040 LegendResidential Uses
Low Density Residential (<4.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<5.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low Density Residential (<7.5 Units/Gr. Acre)
Low-Medium Density Residential (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium Density Residential (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Residential (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Mobile Home Park (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre) Commercial/Office Uses
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Professional OfficeIndustrial Uses
Light Industrial
Research DevelopmentMixed Uses
General Commercial/Light Industrial
Professional Office Mixed-Use (8-16 Units/Gr. Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (18-25 Units/Gr. Acre)
Medium-High Density Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
Central Business Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
General Commercial Mixed-Use (26-33 Units/Gr. Acre)
High Density Mixed-Use (34-45 Units/Gr. Acre)
Commercial Corridor Mixed-Use (45-60 Units/Gr. Acre)
Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use (57-75 Units/Gr. Acre)Public/Recreational Uses
Public Facilities
Open Space
Reuse Overlay
Nonresidential Ground Floor RequirementTier 1Tier 2
Option 3
Reuse Sites + Lowest Impact to Nonresidential Req (1029 Low-Income Units / 17 Sites)
Title 21 - ZONING
Chapter 21.14 OVERLAY/COMBINING DISTRICTS
Page 1 of 2
21.14.050 BRH (By-Right Housing) overlay/combining zoning district.
A.Purpose. The purpose of the By-Right Housing (“BRH”) overlay/combining district is to promote the
development of housing on sites locally identified to satisfy the City’s lower-income Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) shortfall pursuant to State statues (Gov. Code 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i)).
B.Eligibility. Sites included in the BRH overlay/combining district shall satisfy the following criteria:
1.Density. Permit a minimum density of 20 units per acre.
2.Minimum Unit Count. Permit a minimum of 16 units per site.
C.Development standards. The following development standards shall apply to sites where the BRH
overlay/combining district is applied.
1.Residential projects. Sites shall be permitted to develop exclusively as residential uses.
2.Mixed-Use projects. Mixed-use projects shall be required to allocate a minimum of 50% of the
total gross floor area to residential uses.
D.Permit process. Housing development projects with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-
income households shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.39 (Ministerial Approvals).
E.Establishment of district. The BRH overlay/combining district shall be established by ordinance. In
addition to the procedures and findings set forth in Chapter 21.60 (Amendments – General Plan, Zoning
Code, and Zoning Map Amendments) the decision-making body must also find that the project meets the
eligibility requirements set forth in Section 21.14.050.B. (Eligibility) and specify the characteristics of the
project that were used to make such determination.
21.14.060 RS (Reuse Sites) overlay/combining zoning district.
A.Purpose. The purpose of the Reuse Sites (“RS”) overlay/combining district is to promote housing
development on Housing Opportunity Sites used in one or more previously adopted Housing Elements
consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, Housing Element, and State statues.
B.Eligibility. Sites included in the RS overlay/combining district shall consist of the following:
1.Non-vacant Housing Opportunity Sites used in the previously adopted and current Housing
Element; and
2.Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites used in the two previously adopted and current Housing
Element.
C.Permit process. Housing development projects with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-
income households shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.39 (Ministerial Approvals).
D.Establishment of district. The RS overlay/combining district shall be established by ordinance. In addition
to the procedures and findings set forth in Chapter 21.60 (Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Code, and
Zoning Map Amendments) the decision-making body must also find that the project meets the eligibility
requirements set forth in Section 21.14.060.B. (Eligibility) and specify the characteristics of the project
that were used to make such determination.
Attachment D
Page 2 of 2
21.14.070 AH (Affordable Housing) overlay/combining zoning district.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (“AH”) overlay/combining district is to promote the
development of affordable housing, by providing incentives to projects that voluntarily elect to comply
with all of the requirements of this Section. The incentives granted by the AH overlay may be combined
with incentives granted by State Density Bonus Law pursuant to Sections 65915 to 65918 of the California
Government Code.
B. Eligibility. Sites included in the AH overlay/combining district shall satisfy one or more of the following
criteria:
1. [Placeholder]; and
2. [Placeholder];
C. Requirements. Housing development projects pursuing one or more incentives set forth in Section
21.14.070.D. (Incentives) shall abide with all of the following requirements:
1. Shall not use State Density Bonus Law, and/or similar State or Federal law, to alleviate the
project from any of the requirements of the AH overlay/combining district; annd
2. [Placeholder];
D. Incentives. The following incentives shall be provided to qualifying projects:
1. [Placeholder]; and
2. [Placeholder];
E. Establishment of district. The AH overlay/combining district shall be established by ordinance. In addition
to the procedures and findings set forth in Chapter 21.60 (Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Code, and
Zoning Map Amendments) the decision-making body must also find that the project meets the eligibility
requirements set forth in Section 21.14.070.B. (Eligibility) and specify the characteristics of the project
that were used to make such determination.
ITEM NO. xx City of Campbell -- Community Development Department
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Planning Commission Date: October 10, 2023
From: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Community Development Director’s Report
I. Recent City Council Meetings At the October 3, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council considered the following items of interest to the Planning Commission:
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Denial of a
Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to Allow Reconstruction of a
Shell Gasoline Service Station with an Expanded Convenience Store Including Off-Site
Alcohol Beverage Sales, a Drive Through Carwash, and 24-Hour Operational Hours; and
a Tree Removal Permit Removal of All On-Site Trees, for Property Located at 570 E.
Hamilton Avenue. File No.: PLN-2022-44 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended
Action: The City Council continued the public hearing to November 7, 2023 at the request of
the applicant.
Other Related Activities –
• Downtown Campbell Semi-Permanent Parklet Program – Parklets for four downtown restaurants are expected to complete construction in the next month– Flights, Aquis, Katie Blooms, Trattoria 360.
• Environmental Programs Specialist Recruitment – The City has hired Tiffany Hudson
to fill the position. Tiffany will start on Monday, October 16th.
• Housing Manager Recruitment– The City is recruiting for a Housing Manager to support
implementation of its 6th Cycle Housing Element and the City’s Housing Programs. Oral
Board interviews of candidates was completed on October 5, 2023.
• Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan – The City published a Request for Proposals to hire a
Consultant to support preparation of the Plan, the deadline to submit is October 25, 2023.