04-11-2023 - Planning Commission Regular Meeting AgendaREGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California
Register in advance for the Zoom webinar: https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. After registration, you will receive a confirmation email
containing information about joining the webinar. During the registration process, you will be asked if you would like to speak on any of the agenda items. Please provide detail on the items you would like to discuss.
April 11, 2023 7:30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers
AGENDA
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, using the link above. 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 or 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.
ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES March 27, 2023 and March 28, 2023 COMMUNICATIONS
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS ORAL REQUESTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning
Commission on matters of community interest 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.
STUDY SESSION
1. PLN-2022-37 Study Session to consider the Preliminary Application request of Robson Homes, LLC, for a 29-unit townhome housing development project, for property located at 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue. File No.: PLN-2023-37. Project
Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Agenda for April 11, 2023 Page 2 of 2
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2023 at 7:30 p.m.
This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person (as space allows while maintaining on-going face covering and social distancing).
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 Community Development Department, at planning@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2739.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
6:00 P.M. TUESDAY March 27, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission special meeting on Monday 27, 2023, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair
Buchbinder and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Adam Buchbinder Vice Chair: Alan Zisser
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski Commissioner: Davis Fields Commissioner: Stuart Ching
Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Director: Rob Eastwood
City Attorney: Bill Seligmann
Senior Planner: Stephen Rose Senior Planner: Tracy Tam Admin Analyst: Ken Ramirez
Consultants Present:
Opticos Roger Foreman M-Group Geoff Bradley, Asher Kohn, Karen Warner DeNovo Ben Richie ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
No minutes needed to be approved.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None
ORAL REQUESTS This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People
may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Adam Buchbinder read Agenda Item No 1 into the record as follows:
1. City Initiated PLN-2022-90 PLN-2021-12
Public Hearing to consider the following:
1. General Plan and Housing Element Updates (by
Resolution): The City of Campbell has prepared a
comprehensive update to the General Plan (Envision
Campbell - 2040 General Plan) and Housing Element
(Campbell’s Plan for Housing - 2023-2031 Housing
Element) which serve to identify the community’s
vision for the future and provide a framework that will
guide local government decision-making related to a
range of topics including land use, transportation,
community design, economic development, fiscal
sustainability, conservation and open space,
community services and facilities, safety, noise,
community health and wellness, and sustainability
over the related planning periods and beyond.
2. Zoning Map Update & Amendments to Campbell
Municipal Code (by Ordinance): The city has prepared
a new Zoning Map and amendments to the Campbell
Municipal Code, including Title 6 (Health and
Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and
Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) to
implement the new land uses, as well as goals,
policies, and programs, contemplated by the General
Plan and Housing Element. Associated with the code
updates, the city seeks to revise permitting procedures
and processes, retire the P-D (Planned Development)
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 3 and C-PD (Condominium Planned Development)
zoning districts, and establish Multi-Family
Development and Design Standards (MFDDS), and an
associated Form-Based Zone Map, for the regulation
of all multi-family and mixed-use development project
that build upon Campbell’s unique character and
conform with recent changes to State law that require
local jurisdictions to adopt objective standards and
streamline the review and permitting processes for
housing development.
3. Area Plans & Design Guidelines (by Resolution): To
rescind the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan
(SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan
(NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan
(CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low-Medium
Density Residential Projects and reestablish other
existing area and neighborhood plans.
4. Environmental Analysis (by Resolution): In
consideration of the above updates, the City of
Campbell, serving as Lead Agency, has prepared a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that
identifies that the proposed project will result in one or
more significant adverse environmental effects that
cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), notice is hereby given that, the city will
conduct a public hearing to consider certification of the
Final EIR for the proposed project (State
Clearinghouse #2022030566) with a statement of
overriding considerations finding that the project
benefits outweigh the potentially adverse effects of the
significant impact(s).
Director Eastwood provided an overview of the Special Meeting Structure as follows:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 4
Director Eastwood outlined the broad goals of the major efforts as follows:
Senior Planner Stephen Rose outlined the overview of the Special Meeting initiated by
the City as follows:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 5
Senior Planner Rose presented in detail key elements of the proposed 2040 General Plan, 2023 – 2041 Housing Element, Identified Campbell Technology Park, and Environmental Impact Report. 2040 General Plan Overview:
2023-2031 Housing Element Overview:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 6
Campbell Technology Park Recommendations and Alternatives:
Environmental Impact Report Overview:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 7
Commissioner Davis asked for more details about the submitted letter from Campbell Technology Park’s owner and for the City to provide more insight on the issue. Director Eastwood clarified that the site was preliminary identified as a possible corporation
yard for the City but wanted to retain the option of looking at the potential for different uses in the future. Indicated interest to retain the opportunity for potential development for a corporation yard in the future. Commissioner Ching asked what happened to the open space property on Virginia Avenue.
Senior Planner Rose indicated that the former water district property on Virginia Avenue would no longer be open space, as it would now be designated for housing.
Ostrowski asked whether area plans would be done away with and if there would be a provision for the San Tomas area within the General Plan. Senior Planner Rose clarified that the current General Plan will be repealed and plans and documents included as appendices will need to reestablished by separate action.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 8 Commissioner Krey asked whether normal for the EIR to state that we have unavoidable and unmitigable issues and whether all general plans self-mitigating?
Senior Planner Rose clarified that self-mitigating approaches within the General Plans speak to the sections. Mitigation efforts in play are added to address items. What this is saying is there are significant impacts but project benefits outweigh the impacts.
Commissioner Krey asked if the City was changing the parking standards? Senior Planner Rose indicated that the parking standards will be adjusted by the update, and broadly resulting in a reduction in parking standards for residential uses.
Commissioner (inaudible) asked why minor adjustments to existing residential densities were being made. Senior Planner Rose clarified minor adjustments in residential density due to new gross
counting now the corners of the property as opposed to counting to the centerline of the street. Commissioner Kamkar asked what the other property corrected on the land use map had
been? Open space area north of Hamilton Avenue and which other? Senior Planner Rose stated the other correction was at the southwest intersection of East Campbell and Union Avenue.
Commissioner Kamkar provided an opinion that the name of the standards should be multi-unit instead of multi-family. Commissioner (inaudible) asked how the form-based zones were adjusted.
Senior Planner Rose stated that form-based standards were adjusted to better align with the land use designations, placing less emphasis on existing context.
Vice Chair Zisser asked if the proposed zoning map (Fig. 18) on page 25 was the final iteration? Senior Planner Rose clarified that the zoning map will be discussed later in the meeting but designations will be carried forward and not changed.
Vice Chair Zisser asked if the Kohls parcel is designated as medium high density mixed use. Senior Planner Rose clarified that the idea was to accommodate residential components
within the parcel but to not allow wholesale redevelopment of the site. Vice Chair Zisser asked about for clarification on group home policy for more than 6 persons.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that current group home policy can be seen as discriminatory
per HCD review and will need to revisit the municipal code to provide for larger group home settings than we currently restrict without requiring a conditional use permit.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 9 Chair Buchbinder asked why if General Program L-U 1.15 allows the City to ignore zoning, do we need to keep the Campbell Tech Park zoned as R&D?
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the R&D designation was intended to limit the property from developing from housing.
Senior Planner Rose presented in detail key elements of the Multi-Family Development & Design Standards.
The following changes were noted with Form-Based Map:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 10
The following are changes for Commercial Ground Floor along the corridors to ensure that spaces are as leasable as possible without curtailing the housing supply:
The following Architectural & Building type standards would attempt to avoid boxy building and repetitious designs.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 11
Requirement for larger buildings to be divided to more discrete modules to reach eclecticism desired by the community and staff.
Developers advised building narrower townhomes (18 ft. to 16 ft.). intent is to prevent garage door façade and introduce genuine frontage for units.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 12
Many concerns with adjacency standards were modified with Form Based map.
No seven-story homes adjacent to single-family homes in Campbell. Adjacency standards better account for narrower/shallow lots. No longer mapping incompatible zones right next to each other.
Limits now match with adjacent buildings:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 13
Per City Council’s feedback, terminology was clarified. The Large Site standards encompassed the following:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 14
Commissioner Krey asked what the biggest difference in height would be next to a single-family home.
Roger Foreman (consultant from Opticos) stated that the immediate adjacent height would be limited at 2.5 stories.
Senior Planner Rose stated that protections were retained for single-family zone. Zone
mapped based on what it could be not what it is today. Commissioner Krey asked if the ground floor for mixed use can be leased?
Roger Foreman clarified that homes along yellow have allowance of 50% that can be leased
Commissioner Kamkar asked if 2.5 story adjacency standard would apply for a multi-family use in
one lot but if there a single-story building .
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 15
Roger Foreman, Opticos, clarified that it would go by multi-family land use. Commissioner Kamkar asked if the adjacency standards would apply if the designation is for single-family.
Roger Foreman confirmed that they would. Commissioner Fields asked how it was determined that Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards would fulfill the needs, how would Tier 1 work when Tier 2 wouldn’t. Also asked how 16 foot with minimum dimension of a space was determined.
Roger Foreman clarified that the Economic Development consultant stated that a 16 and a half foot wide space is the minimim width for a space that a tenant could lease. This is how the minimum dimension was determined. Tier 2 standards were determined after the Economic Development consultant stated that only 50-70% of prospective tenants would look for a gold standard and some
tenants would be ok with lower ceilings and small spaces. . Senior Planner Rose stated that when you don’t build to the minimum sizes advised by the economic consultant that you will result in commercial spaces that are vacant.
Commissioner Ching asked if staff can provide for an example of a 16.5 ft width requirement. Senior Planner Rose clarfied that 16.5ft is width of the front space but the depth can be longer (like hair salon)
Commissioner Ching asked what the minimum width of townhomes and whether the 16.5 ft width minimum comes from.
Senior Planner Rose that 16ft minimum accomodates narrower widths like townhouses.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 16
Roger Foreman stated that developers brought floor plans for units and stated that 16ft was the minimum width that a unit would need to build. Commissioner Ching asked if the open space requirement is still 10%.
Senior Planner Rose stated that 10% is still the requirement. Commissioner Ostrowski asked about height of single-family adjacencies and how high they could be and how they account for fire access.
Senior Planner Rose stated that standards provide for needs from fire department about rear access requirements. Vice Chair Zisser asked about maximum height in single family adjacency. Expressed concern abount having narrow standards that will produce 16 ft wide, three story narrow homes with
tandum parking, resulting in massive narrow homes and propenderence of market rate, expensive homes in the future that do not fulfill the needs of the missing middle or lower-income people. Vice Chair asked what it would if somebody wants to redevelop a block of downtown and what the maximum height would be.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the maximum height would be 3 stories for single-family home adjacency and development in the downtown can be upto 4 stories in pre-density bonus scenario.
Chair Buchbinder asked if it is the intent to prohibit wrap buildings entirely by changing the depth
to 50 ft in required commercial spaces. Roger Foreman clarified that it is not the intent and minimum depth does not apply to entire façade.
Chair Buchbinder asked if there were no adjustment to open space requirements. Senior Planner Rose clarified that there was no change to open space requirements and that adjcacency standards apply to for the full run of properties.
Senior Planner Rose presented in detail key elements of the Code Amendments, Plans and Zoning Map, Multi-Family Development & Design Standards.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 17
t
Commissioner Krey asked if any other sites changed zoning besides Campbell tech Park.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that zoning is aligned with changes in land use designation. Chair Buchbinder asked if there were going to be future streetscape standards Senior Planner Rose stated that it was not a presently slated update.
Chair Buchbinder asked about the following Code References:
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 18 1) 21.36.130; requiring City to maintain LOSD operations which seem to contradict
our attempts to swith to VMT, why is that? 2) 21.23.100; attempts to legalize ADUs and solve problem for ADUs built one foot to close to one side. 3) 21.28.045; references AB2097 maps, are they available yet. 4) 21.36.070; appear to be getting rid of large family childcare homes.
Director Eastwood clarified the first point that under CEQA City can no longer look at LOS Senior Planner Rose clarified that ADU problem would be resolved with update, that maps are development with GIS team and would be available with effective date
ordinance, and that provisions applying special requirements to uses such as childcare homes be treated the same as other single-family home uses, so by deleting provisions within the city code would be accomplishing that. Chair Buchbinder closed public hearing for a 5 min break, public hearing would recommence at 7:54 PM.
Chair Buchbinder opened public hearing. Chair Buchbinder opened Public Comment on Item 1.
Jim Sullivan, member of the public, made 3 points, appears to be a gap on the density ranges between 16 to 18 acres. Noted City Council meeting moved to 4/18/23. EIR has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 19 Tim Pasquinglli stated that there was a discussion not about a land swap but about giving
up 3 acres. At the the time asked what he would received in return but did not receive a
response. 11 days ago was zoned all 4 parcels (17 acres) at 26 units per acre. Made repeated requests for the City to reduce that density. Planning a development on 26 units per acre. 10 days ago, without communication from staff, was told that they would be removing the 3 acres off the list and forcing them to build instead of 34 units per acre after
telling the City that 26 units per acre does not work. Stated that Mr. Eastwood received
information from apartment developers that high-density apartments would work well on that site. Completely disagree, offers received from developers asked to reduce density, not increase it. No interest in discussing a landswap or City corp yard. Understand that the city has an interest in building homes but not like this.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked Tim Pasquinglli why they are interested in developing lower density. Tim has been told by large developers that site does not do well for high density
apartments it does well for townhomes and can’t build townhomes at 26 units per acre.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked what is it specifically of the geometry of the site that prohibits a larger density development.
Tim responded that realistically 19-20 townhomes can be built on the acres. Planning to build an apartment building on remaining 3 acres. Been told that townhomes are a better product type. Per market analysis that was conducted. Commissioner Ching asked Tim if they were planning for 26 units per acre .
Tim stated that 14 acres were going to be for townhomes of townhouse. One single apartment building was going to be built on 3 acres to make up the density. Commissioner Kamkar asked if apartments are sold by buildings but townhomes
are sold individually. Tim confirmed that although he believes that is a developer question that that is correct.
Raj Pallela addressed the retiring and reestablishing of neighborhood plans. Had previosuly addressed changing the height limitations in neighborhood plans. Would have had a petition from people, if they knew there was not diversity in housing. Requesting that the commission not incorporate the changes.
Chair Buchbinder closed public comment. Commissioner discussion started. Commissioner Krey thinks that Campbell Technology Park project should be a separate
item to be discussed at a different time. In regards to General Plan and Housing element, believe that the City is paving the way for advances.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 20 Commissioner Kamkar believes that we should be open to special consideration,
regarding Campbell Tech Park. Sometimes bottom line can be affected in other ways.
Because it can produce so many units, should consider working with the developer and owner. Commissioner Ostrowski is wondering if there is another way that items at Campbel Tech
Park can be looked at to find a creative solution. Encouraged thinking a little bit outside
of the box. Senior Planner Rose clarified that the City’s corporation yard also functions as an equipment and storage yard, and provides storage for police.
Director Eastwood clarified that moving a corps yard is not a small deal. Looked at other sites like parking garages. Council mandated that this (Campbell Tech Park) was the only viable site for a potential City corp yard at this time.
Commissioner Ching observed disconnect with owner concerns and what were trying to
do. Would be uncomfortable pushing it through with that existing disconnect. Should explore the options for Campbell Tech Park site. Rezoning it as housing could be a benefit for the owner. Might not be the ideal outomce from what is being proposed. Keeping it at R&D would be a bad outcome for the city and the owner.
Commissioner Fields commented that an option might be a resolution or adopting as is. Have empathy of city staff but in favor of doing something. Concerned, however, of blocking the path of the city and the progress that has been accomplished given time-specific schedule.
Vice Chair Zisser apprecaites hearing from the owner. City has researched other possibilities and has not come up with other choices. Makes practical sense for the corp yard to be there. Public area should be more accessible for the city. Would like to see 400 units but not 200 condos with a private community with their own park rather than
something that would benefit a wide-variety of people with different incomes. Would like to see more negotiations between both parties. Believe it should be more of a community. Chair Buchbinder stated that there is an issue with something being rentable and something being constructable. Not in favor of supporting a working housing proposal to a
non working proposal. Chair Buchbinder recommended adjusting sections of general plan: 1) L-U. 9B and C-3F; discourages non-residential development in lieu of waiting for
the Hamilton Ave precise plan or gateway ordinance to be adopted. Suggest changing to when it is adopted or 2 years from now to not wait for something to happen that may not happen. 2) Would like add a process for residents to request speed reductions in non-arterials
nearby streets that produce excessive noise. Being able to address a significant driver of noise at a local level.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 21 3) CD 2-9; references reducing light pollution. Suggest including the Internation Dark
Sky Association’s Model Lighting Ordinance or it’s goals by reference. Has
different levels of intensity. 4) Want to add a policy to rely on design elements to enforce slow speeds rathen than just speed limit signs.
Chair Buchbinder asked for specific actions that would require straw polls to be included as recommendations for City Council. Senior Planner Rose clarified that the intent is following the adoption of what is currently
presented, they will follow up with other area plans.
Vice Chair Zisser stated that there are not a lot of parcels for a corporation yard. Director Eastwood clarified that there are not a lot of sites. Once you zone something it’s
a one way zone. Not the only parcel but would need to do a lot more due diligence to
look at other parcels. Below is a summary of key actions and suggested revisions:
1. Proposal to restore Campbell Tech Park’s 4-parcels to the original residential
zoning (4 Commissioners in favor, 3 opposed) a. Item was later discussed in the meeting, with greater clarity on the motion which was confused in its original presentation, and the Commission decided against this initial action.
2. Land Use Element (5 Commissioners in favor, 2 opposed) a. Amend action LU-9b. to sunset the period of time in which nonresidential uses will be discouraged in the event the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan is not established in a timely manner as follows:
i. LU-9.b Discourage the development of nonresidential uses within the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan area until the plan is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is less.
3. Transportation Element (7 Commissioners in favor) a. Amend action T-3.e. as follows: i. T-3.e Consider implementation of traffic calming measures, including traffic calming design elements and devices, to ensure safe and
reasonable speeds in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the City’s adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTCP), as long as the measures do not impede emergency response, bicycle travel, or hinder the complete streets functionality of the roadway. Methods such as radar speed signs may be used to alert drivers on
streets where speeding is prevalent. Further, consider how traffic calming measures may be used to decrease excessive noise on non-arterial streets to achieve the goals of the city Noise Element.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 22
ii. City Attorney clarified that if reducing speeds in the 85th percentile it would make speeds unenforceable. 4. Noise Element (Note: Optional with amendment to T-3.e.) - (5 Commissioners in favor, 2 opposed)
a. Add the following action to explore the use of traffic calming to further the goals of the Noise Element: i. N-1.21 Consider the use of traffic calming measures, as provided for
by T-3.e., to reduce excessive noise on non-arterial streets. 5. Community Design Element (5 Commissioners in favor, 2 opposed) a. Amend action CD-2.9 to add a specific reference to the best practices
established by the International Dark-Sky Association:
i. CD-2.9 Require that lighting and fixtures be integrated with the design and layout of a project and that they provide a desirable level of security and illumination without creating glare and overflow on
adjacent properties or excessive artificial light at night (light pollution). Lighting should be directed downward and should be designed to preserve dark skies, and incorporate the best practices established by the International Dark-Sky Association, to the greatest extent feasible.
b. Amend action CD-3.f to sunset the period of time in which nonresidential uses will be discouraged in the event the City Gateway Policy or Ordinance is not established in a timely manner as follows:
i. CD-3.f Discourage development of nonresidential uses at Gateway locations until the City Gateway Policy or Ordinance is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is less. 6. Proposal to restore Campbell Tech Park’s 4-parcels to the original residential zoning was withdrawn by Planning Commission through a straw poll vote (2 commissioners in favor, 5 opposed)} 7. Implementation Element (Note: adjustment to PC recommendation to sunset related policy from 2 years to 6 to 10 years to align with the ‘medium’ priority timing) a. Amend the priority/timing related to LU-9a from medium to short to align with the sunset period separately established.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 23
Motion: Upon motion by Commission Krey and seconded by Commissioner Fields, the Planning Commission move to taking the following actions: 1) adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Programming Environments Impact Report (EIR) and adopt required findings with a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA; 2) adopt a Resolution,
recommending that the City Council adopt the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell); and 3) adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing). AYES: Fields, Ching, Ostrowski, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Buchbinder
NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
Chair Buchbinder opened public comment for Part 2.
Jim Sullivan spoke about the benefit to have different garage door widths. Request that commission have 3-story minimum on larger sites.Open civic spaces and park spaces
that are neighborhood inducing would not be possible with existing standards. Mark Field wanted to discuss the concept of parking ratios. Parking in higher density gets absorbed by communities with lower density. Recommends adjacency standards for parking ratios similar to adjacency standards to building heights. If you cant do it City has
to do it City will have to deal with issues in other areas if this is not done. Sarah Chaffin pointed out three areas that could be amended in plan; 1) T-5 neighborhood and T-5 Main street should have the same standards as T-5 main streets; 2) Instead of having yellow and orange tier just have the orange tier; and 3) PD zones
standard to be dropped from 50 to 25 units. Raj Pallela encourages Planning Commissioners to tour and visit developments in Santa Clara County and East Bay where developments are being constructed with 16 ft. wide.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 24 The immmediate adjacency standards should have 4 story minimums. Asked whether
the City knows how much space is needed for a Corporation yard. Parts of Campbell can
be repurposed for a site like a corporation yar. Matt Weber, developer with Ellis Partners, expressed concerns with Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements, as is not acieveable with small sites. 50 ft wiuld preclude wrap and podium
building. Prior draft had a 15ft minimum floor to floor. proposing 12x12ft floor to floor
minimum. Recommend that section 3.110, be reverted back to 30 ft. with no maximum width. depth minimum no maximum width. Sepearate section 7.040 states that you could only 50 ft. wide when some tenants want to have a wider width. Section7.30 subsection 3-5 requires 8 different types of architectural variety but that amount of architectural variety
would create inefficiencies and mismatched units, resulting in fewer units being built.
Recommend having an architectural variety of 2-3. Commissioner Krey asked for staff to confirm that issues were brought up and discussed with developers and recommendations kept input in mind.
Director Eastwood stated that Economic Consultant cautioned the City to not put too much ground floor retail in developments. Very important to build spaces that people will occupy.
Senior Planner Rose spoke and gave context to the issues brought up by Sarah Chaffin and her property’s unique situation. Roger Foreman clarfied that when you have multiple modules in single buildings there are a total of 8 differences that need to be introduced between those modules. In
response to Jim Sullivan’s comments, conditioning the zones by adjacency means that there are no longer blanket requirements in multiples zones. Commissioner Kamkar stated that there should be more leniency with setback issues with corner lots.
Vice Chair Zisser asked if issues from Matt Weber were clarified. Senior Planner Rose clarified that Mr. Weber was arguing for a lower clear height requirements, and that photographs provided for the Pruneyard as a desk item were
provided which indicate lower ceiling heights for leased spaces. Chair Buchbinder closed Public comment. Chair Buchbinder opened Commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Ostrowski recognizes that there will be situations that the City has not encountered. In agreement with having an appeal process for 25 units and above. Commissioner Fields in favor with the balance that the City is pursuing. Campbell has
struck a nice balance. Trying to strike a good mix. In favor of what we are proposing. Good place to start. Very supportive of plan. In favor of an iterative process that looks to
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 25 improve and the hard work from City staff. Not particularly in favor of 3-story town homes
that may not be ideal for older adults or families.
Commissioner Ching echoed Commissioner Fields comments. plan have considerable thoughts by the city. Overwriting recommendations of the cty at this stage is a tough thing to think about. City has spent a lot of time with consultants to get it right. Fully in suport
with staff’s recommendtaion.
Commissioner Kamkar in support of 16ft wide townhomes. Need to be open to 3 stories. Set 25 unit per acre as desirable density.Flexibility in meeting goals is important.
Commissioner Krey in favor of staff reommendations. Lowering limits to 25 units for
appeal in Campbell is fine. Would not being in favor of allowing up to 50% of ground floor in the yellow area. Vice Chair Zisser echoes Commissioner Ching and Field’s comments. Supports staff
recommendations. Acknowledges not always being able to meet everybodys particular
needs. Downtown works really well with dominantly retail space. Concerned about 50% where new development replaces storefronts. Three stories are not the missing middle. Developers building 16 ft. wide townhomes is not indicative or reflective of the need but rather the availability. Support what staff has developed. Agree with lowering limits to 25
units for appeal in Campbell. Chair Buchbinder states that lowering limits to 25 units for CB overlay is fine. Concerned with idea that useful commercial spaces preclude the possibility of prodicng a wrap building which is very common, very reasonable low-cost way to produce a lot of housing
with availability on the ground floor. Have to err on the side of building too much. Trusts the staff. Nothing in this city is going to be taller than 7 stories. Below is a summary of key actions and suggested revisions:
1. 21.14.040 CB (Community Benefit) overlay/combining zoning district.(6 commissioners in favor, 1 opposed) a. Lower the eligibility threshold from 50 to 25 units.
2. Non-Residential Ground Floor Requirement (6 commissioners in favor, 1 opposed) a. Amend Section 3.110.B.1 to exclude credit for lobbies, leasing offices, and amenities for properties located within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan Area, and further clarifying that where upper-floor
residential units within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan area require ground-floor access, a ground-floor lobby may be allowed provided that it is sized to meet the minimum requirements for such access. 3. Recommended adjacency limitations should not apply once you get about 3
stories, that is, that if you have something that’s 3 stories tall, and it’s adjacent to something that might be taller than that, you don’t have to setback or gradual that.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 26 a. (2 commissioners in favor, 5 opposed)
4. Town-homes and multi-family homes should have a minimum average width of 18 ft. instead of 16 ft. Individual homes can be 16 ft. but have a higher than average ceiling height.
a. (3 commissioners in favor, 4 opposed) 5. Recommend removing 2.5 story limitation in T-4 N.S neighborhoods to 3 stories. a. (3 commissioners in favor, 4 opposed)
Motion: Upon motion by Commission Kamkar and seconded by Commissioner Krey, the Planning Commission move to taking the following action: 1) adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Multi-Family Development and Design standards and an associated Form-Based Zone Map.
AYES: Fields, Ching, Ostrowski, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Buchbinder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
Chair Buchbinder opened public comment for Part 3.
Alan Ainsley Hicks long time community member stated that he was happy to see this resolve. Will be submitting an application later this year and hopefully add to the housing stock of Campbell. Thankful that the Planning Departmnet has helped make the governement more efffective.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 27 Raj Pallela request that the City not adopt the area plan of San Tomas neighborhood.
Believes commissioners are disconnect from reality. Emotions have no place in
economics. Urges that the City increase the number of units. More supply than the demand will help reduce home prices. Chair Buchbinder closed public hearing.
Planning Commissioners are in support of Code Amendments, Plans, and Zoning Map. Acknowledge that staff went through an exhaustive process to solicit feedback. Appreciatitive of public comments.
Motion: Upon motion by Commission Ching and seconded by Commissioner Kamkar, the Planning Commission move to taking the following action: 1) adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council rescind the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA) Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low-Medium
Density Residential Projects and reestablish other existing area, streetscape, and neighborhood plans; and 2) adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing a new zoning map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Tule 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
AYES: Fields, Ching, Ostrowski, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Buchbinder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
None
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2023, at 7:30 p.m. This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to
participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person/
SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________________ Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________ Rob Eastwood, Secretary
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
March 28, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission regular meeting on Tuesday March 28, 2023, was called to
order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA,
by Chair Buchbinder and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair: Adam Buchbinder
Vice Chair: Alan Zisser
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski
Commissioner: Davis Fields
Commissioners Absent: Ching
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present:
Director: Rob Eastwood
City Attorney: Bill Seligmann
Senior Planner: Daniel Fama
Associate Planner: Larissa Lomen
Admin Analyst: Ken Ramirez
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
PC & HPB Special Joint Study Session meeting - February 28, 2023
PC Regular Meeting – February 28, 2023
All approved
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 28, 2023 Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
Supplemental piece of information was provided by Vice Chair Zisser regarding Item 1.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
ORAL REQUESTS
This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission
on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People
may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Buchbinder opened for public comment
Hearing none, Chair Buchbinder closed public comment.
Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLN-2022-145 Public Hearing to consider the request of TOPA Architecture
to allow the exterior façade alteration, including repainting and
the removal of existing awnings, of an existing commercial
building listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory as
a designated structure of merit, commonly known as the B.O.
Curry Building, for property located at 415 E. Campbell
Avenue in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District.
The applications under consideration include Tier 1 Historic
Resource Alteration Permit and Site and Architectural Review
Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-145. Staff is recommending that
this item be deemed Categorically Exempt from CEQA.
Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing
to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner:
Larissa Lomen, Assistant Planner.
Associate Planner Lomen presented staff report to allow the exterior façade alteration,
including repainting and the removal of existing awnings, of an existing commercial
building listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory as a designated structure
of merit, commonly known as the B.O. Curry Building.
Planning Commissioners complemented Associate Planner Lomen on the report and
were in favor of the project.
Vice Chair Zisser presented a graphic representation of proposed paint color of
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 28, 2023 Page 3
building and displayed the contrast of what the building may have looked like
previously.
Applicant Geno Catalano stated that they will ensure that project and painting of the
building will be done correctly.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Ostrowski, seconded by
Commissioner Fields, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 4665 approving a Site and Architectural Review
Permit and Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration permit to allow the
exterior façade alteration, including repainting and the removal of
existing awnings, of an existing commercial building listed on the
Campbell Historic resource Inventory as a Designated Structure of
Merit, commonly known as the B.O. Curry Building, for property
located at 415 E. Campbell Avenue in the C-3 (central Business
District). File Non.: PLN-2022-145., by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Ostrowski, Krey, Buchbinder, Kamkar, Zisser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ching
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows:
2. PLN-2019-00058 Public Hearing to consider the request of Terra Firm
Development for property located at 911 S. McGlincy Lane to
allow construction of an approximately 5,350 square-foot
industrial building with a requested increase to the allowable
floor area ratio (FAR), elimination of the side and rear
setbacks, and a reduction to the required landscaping area;
and retention of overhead frontage utility lines. The
applications under consideration include a Site and
Architectural Review and a (Utility) Variance. File No.:
PLN2019-58. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed
Categorically Exempt from CEQA. Planning Commission
action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior
Planner.
Disclosure Vice Chair Zisser and Commissioner Krey visited the site.
Senior Planner Fama presented report to allow construction of an approximately 5,350
square-foot industrial building.
Planning Commissioners had minimal questions regarding project having zero foot
setback. In support of staff recommendation.
Planning Commission confirmed that they will deny variance without prejudice.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 28, 2023 Page 4
Applicant spoke and stated that the warehouse is storage for business.
Chair Buchbinder closed public comment.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner
Fields, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4666
approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow
construction of an approximately 5,350 square-foot industrial
building with a requested increase to the allowable Floor Area Ratio
(FAR), elimination of the side and rear setbacks, and a reduction to
the required landscaping area, on property located at 911. S.
McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. File No.:
PLN-2019-58., by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Ostrowski, Krey, Buchbinder, Kamkar, Zisser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ching
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner
Fields, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4667
denying without prejudice a variance to allow retention of existing
overhead utility lines to serve a proposed development on property
located at 911 S McGlincy Lane, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Ostrowski, Krey, Buchbinder, Kamkar, Zisser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ching
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows:
3. PLN-2022-79 Public Hearing to consider the request of Joma Studio
Architects for property located at 24-28 E. Campbell Avenue
to allow construction of a 3-story, approximately 8,000
square-foot mixed-use building, consisting of ground-floor and
2nd-level (mezzanine) commercial/office space, and three 1-
bedroom upper-level apartment units. The application under
consideration includes a Planned Development Permit. File
No.: PLN-2022-79. Staff is recommending that this item be
deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City
Council Meeting Date: May 2, 2023. Project Planner: Daniel
Fama, Senior Planner
Senior Planner Fama presented staff report to allow construction of a 3-story,
approximately 8,000 square-foot mixed-use building, consisting of ground-floor and
2nd-level (mezzanine) commercial/office space, and three 1-bedroom upper-level
apartment units
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 28, 2023 Page 5
Planning Commissioners confirmed with Senior Planner Fama that parking could not be
required on this type of project.
Senior Planner Fama confirmed that the narrow sidewalk will be broadened and become a
standard commercial sidewalk of 10 feet..
Dan Sarkisian, neighbor, stated that he does not see much parking incorporated in the project
and wants to know where tenants of the property will be parking.
Architect, Anthony Joma. Feel stated that in lieu fee can work in their case. Would like to
keep mass similar to the adjacent building. Have integrated a separate residential entry to the
building. Would like to maintain commercial continuity. Would like to maintain street character
and façade.
Planning Commissioners asked applicant what lot is being shared; whether the parking
agreement is for business; quantity of parking stalls; and where the tenants will park.
Applicant Payman Farzaneh clarified that the lot where the Subway is located will be shared
with the business, per the parking agreement, and that the four stalls located at the rear of the
property will be for tenants.
Chair Buchbinder closed public comment.
Planning Commissioners were in support of project and proposed design. Were glad to hear
there was a parking agreement in an area where there is not much available parking.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Zisser, seconded by Commissioner
Kamkar, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4668
recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development
Permit to allow construction of a 3-story, approximately 8,000 square-
foot mixed use building, consisting of ground-floor and 2nd level
(mezzanine) commercial/office space, and three 1-Bedroom upper
level apartment units, for property located at 24-28 E. Campbell
Avenue. File No.: PLN-2022-79., by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Ostrowski, Krey, Buchbinder, Kamkar, Zisser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ching
ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
1. During Spring of 2022, Cal Poly students presented a Campbell Development Plan,
students applied for a planning award and were awarded. Email last spring for cal
poly. Applied for planning award and were awarded.
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 28, 2023 Page 6
2. City Council will be considering items from 3/27/23 PC Special Meeting on April 18,
2023 at 4pm.
3. There was an appeal on 68 Page St. City Council continued the item. Item will
come back to City Council on May 3rd.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Buchbinder, seconded by
Commissioner Krey, the Planning Commission agreed to agendize
discussion of a declaration of Shelter Crisis according to California
Government Code 8698.4, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Ostrowski, Krey, Buchbinder, Kamkar, Zisser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ching
ABSTAIN: None
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission regular meeting adjourned at 8:45p.m. to the next Regular
Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, April 11, 2023, at City Hall, Council
Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA.
SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
To: Chair Buchbinder and Planning Commissioners Date: April 11, 2023
From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: Preliminary Application Study Session
File No.: PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study session is to present preliminary plans for a 29-unit townhome
development. Review of the preliminary plans is limited to the overall project design concept and
is not considered a substitute for formal project review. The preliminary application process
provides an opportunity for the Planning Commission (and the public) to provide feedback during
the early stages of the planning process in order to facilitate preparation of a formal application.
Comments provided to the applicant on the preliminary application, however, are advisory in nature
and are not binding on the formal application.
Pre-Application Requirements: Not all projects require a pre-application prior to formal application
submittal. This proposal triggers the requirement for a pre-application on the basis that the overall
project building area exceeds the 20,000 gross square-foot pre-application threshold (±79,000 gross
sq. ft. proposed) established by Section 21.41.020.A. of the Campbell Municipal Code.
Separately, having declared their intent to submit the pre-application under the provisions of the
California Crisis Act (SB 330 / SB 8), the applicant’s pre-application also serves to vest (“lock in”)
the permit process and land use regulations (including development standards) at the time of
submittal as discussed in greater depth in the related discussion topics below.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: P-D (Planned Development)
General Plan Designation: Medium to High Density Res. and/or Commercial (14-27 units/gr. acre.)
Area Plan(s): SOCA – Sub Area 3 (5 southerly parcels)
East Campbell Avenue Master Plan (northern most parcel)
Proposed Density: 20 units/gr. acre (12 to 20 units/gr. per SOCA1)
Lot Area
Gross Lot Area: 63,266 acres (1.45 acres) square-feet
Existing Net Lot: 49,593 square-feet (current)
New Lot Area: 49,023 square-feet (post-dedication)
1 For project sites between 1.0 and 1.25 acres, the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan establishes an allowable
density range of 12 to 20 units per gross acre. As the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan is included as part of the
General Plan, this limitation supersedes the otherwise allowable density of up to 27-units per acre established by the
land use designation.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Division
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 2
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
Building Height: 39 feet, 3 stories
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.59
Building (Lot) Coverage: 53%
Building Floor Area: 78,818 square-feet (across 9 buildings)
Parking: 58 covered stalls | 9 surface stalls
Project Site: The project site is an approximately 1.14 acre (49,593 square-feet) assemblage of six
parcels. Five of the six parcels are located along Gilman Avenue, with the sixth taking access from
Dillon Avenue. Two of the parcels are developed with single-family homes. The remaining
properties are developed with defunct commercial/industrial uses. The project site would be
bordered by the pending Cresleigh Home's Parkview project to the north and west.
Land Use Context: The entirety of the project site is designated by the General Plan as Medium to
High Density Res. and/or Commercial (14-27 units/gr. acre). The majority of the site is within the
boundaries of the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) Plan, with the northerly most Gilman Avenue
parcel falling within the East Campbell Avenue Master Plan (ECAMP), as shown, below. The
project would result in a density of 20 units/gr. acre. While this is below the density of maximum
of the aforementioned land use district, the SOCA Plan itself limits the density to no more than 20
units/gr. acre for project sites greater than one acre, but smaller than 1 ¼ acres. Only project sites
exceeding 1 ½ acres are permitted to construct to the maximum density of 27 units/gr. acre.2
2 This limitation does not conflict with California Government Code § 65589.5—which specifies that where the
general plan and zoning ordinance do not match, a project is only required to comply with the general plan—because
the SOCA Plan was adopted as part of the General Plan.
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 3
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Housing Crisis Act (Vesting Pre-Application): The Housing Crisis Act, originally adopted as SB
330 in 2019 and amended by SB 8 in 2021, is a broad law that contains various components, among
which is a vesting pre-application process (reference Attachment 1 – SB-330/SB-8 Summary
Sheet). This particular provision, in association with related changes to the Permit Streamlining Act,
allows a developer to submit preliminary plans to the city that vest ("lock-in") zoning code
standards, General Plan policies, and building/fire codes that are in effect at the time of submittal.
This proposal is eligible for an SB-330 pre-application because it constitutes a "housing
development project," since it will result in the development of two or more residential units on a
property currently designated for housing.
After submitting the pre-application, the developer has up to 180 days to submit a formal
application. Upon submittal, the city must inform the developer within 30 or 60 days, depending on
the number of units in the project, if the project is consistent with all objective standards. The city
must then render a decision on the application within 60 days after making its CEQA determination,
and construction of the project must commence within 2 ½ years following the date the project
receives final approval from the city. Any changes to the formal application must not increase the
number of residential units or square footage of construction by more than 20% of that shown on
the pre-application plans to avoid triggering a requirement for a new pre-application3. Additionally,
the housing development project may not result in a net loss of residential units, and any "protected"
units (those occupied by lower-income households) that are demolished, must be replaced with
equivalent units with affordable rents and relocation benefits provided to displaced tenants.
Undermining of the 2040 General Plan/Housing Element: The applicant's stated intent of submitting
the preliminary application is to avoid having to comply with the pending 2040 General Plan (and
by extension the new Multi-Family Development and Design Standards). The 2040 General Plan
will rescind the SOCA Plan and designate the entire project site as Commercial Corridor Mixed-
Use (45-60 Units/Gr. Acre)4. Under this new designation, a project would need to provide a
minimum of 51 units, up to a maximum of 68 units. In comparison, the applicant proposes only 29
units, or less than half the number of units that would be required under the 2040 General Plan.
Although this preliminary application was submitted under the auspices of the Housing Crisis Act
(reference Attachment 2 – SB-330 Checklist) staff has informed the applicant that the City is
investigating whether the proposal may be in conflict with State law. Specifically, the opening
provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, contained in Government Code § 66300(f), indicates that it "shall
prevail over any conflicting provision of this title or other law regulating housing development in this
state to the extent that this section more fully advances the intent specified in paragraph (2)," where
paragraph 2 explains that the Legislature's intent was for the law "to [be] broadly construed so as to
maximize the development of housing within this state." However, the law's preliminary application
provisions (GC § 65859.5(o)) are being used by the applicant to minimize housing development.
Staff does not believe that allowing developers to lock in lower densities was the intent of the
legislature when it created the SB-330 preliminary application process, particularly when it has the
effect of undermining the City's ability to satisfy its RHNA obligation as required by the new
Housing Element. As such, staff will contact the State Department of Housing and Community
3 The limitation on adding units or floor area after pre-application submittal does not apply to units or area gained
through exercise of a Density Bonus.
4 The density of the new General Plan is measured on existing lot area, not include adjacent public right-of-way.
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 4
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
Development (HCD) to discuss the City's concern that the SB-330 preliminary application process
is being used to undermine its new Housing Element. If the City secures HCD support, it may
determine that the submitted preliminary application failed to vest the project—because of
inconsistency with State law—such that the applicant will be unable to proceed with the project.
DISCUSSION
Proposal/Site Layout: The preliminary application materials show the 29 townhome units divided
across nine buildings, ranging from 2-units (duets) to 5 units per building (reference Attachment 3
and 4 – Project Plans and Description). The majority of the units would take access from Gilman
Avenue via a centrally-located two-way driveway, and exit the property by that driveway or a one-
way driveway located at the north side of the property site. The four townhome units along Dillon
Avenue building would take vehicular access directly from the public street by their own private
driveway (which conflicts various standards, as discussed, below).
Architectural Design: The preliminary plans depict the anticipated design of the residential
townhome buildings that would be largely characterized by the inclusion of a series of gabled and
hipped rooflines, inset balconies, and multiple wall insets and projections, as shown on the elevation
drawing, below. The primary body material is depicted as stucco accented with vertical siding.
Roofing is predominantly composition, with elements of standing seam metal. In consideration of
the project design, there are limited “objective” design standards applicable to design of the
townhomes as discussed in the following section.
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 5
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
Parking: Under the recently adopted State Law AB-2097, the City "shall not impose or enforce any
minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development
project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit." As a result, the project is not
subject to a parking requirement since the site is well within ½ mile of the Downtown Campbell
Light-Rail Station. Nonetheless, the project would include 58 covered stalls in garages and 9 surface
stalls (not including the driveways) or 2.3 stalls/unit.
BMR Housing: The project would be subject to a 15% affordable housing requirement under the
City's inclusionary requirements, which requires provision of low- and moderate-income priced
below-market-rate (BMR) units. With a total of 29 units, the project must provide 4 BMR units; two
(2) low-income units and two (2) moderate-income units. In the event the project pursues a density
bonus, the project may be required to provide a greater number of BMR units, or at a greater level
of affordability, than indicated.
CEQA: Staff anticipates that this project will be found Categorically Exempt from environmental
review under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-
Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies and
zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses.
ANALYSIS
Compliance with Objective Standards: Staff has performed a preliminary assessment of the project's
compliance with objective standards (as listed by document and section number/page), and
identified the following deficiencies:
A. SOCA Plan: Project Design – Residential Entries (Pg. A1-7):
"Entries to residential units along a public street shall be oriented to the street."
The residential units located along the Dillon Avenue parcel are oriented inwards, so that
their entries do not face the public street, inconsistent with this standard.
B. ECAMP: Part V (Development Standards & Design Guidelines), Development
Standards – Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses (Page 30):
"…Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses shall be those set forth in the C-3 zoning
district."
As noted, the most northerly Gilman Avenue parcel is within the boundaries of the East
Campbell Master Avenue Master Plan (ECAMP), and therefore is subject to its restrictions
and requirements. With regard to land use, the ECAMP stipulates that the allowable uses are
only those specified by the C-3 Zoning District (recognizing that most properties within the
plan area are designated by the General Plan as Central Commercial, which corresponds to
C-3 Zoning District).
The applicable C-3 Zoning District land use table (CMC Sec 21.10.060.C, Table 2-11a -
Land Use Table — Master Plan Areas), indicates that the only allowable residential use is
"apartments," which by definition does not include "townhomes" (CMC Sec. 21.72.020A).
As such, this one parcel may not be developed with a residential use expressed as a
townhomes.
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 6
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
C. ECAMP: Part V (Development Standards & Design Guidelines), Rear Setbacks (Page 31):
"South Block 2 (Between Dillon Avenue and Gilman Avenue): Minimum setback shall be
10 feet."
The subject Gilman Avenue parcel would be developed with a rear setback of only 2 ½
feet, which does not comply with this 10-ft standard.
D. Zoning Code: On-site maneuverability (CMC Sec. 21.28.080.B.2):
"Except for one and two-family dwellings, parking areas shall provide suitable on-site
maneuvering room so that vehicles do not back out into the street."
The residential units located along Gilman Avenue would have garages that require residents
to back-out directly onto street, which is prohibited since townhomes are not considered
"one and two-family dwellings" (i.e., single-family homes and duplexes).
E. Zoning Code: Driveway width and length – Multi-family dwellings, and nonresidential
uses (CMC Sec. 21.28.090.B.2):
"Driveways for all uses, except single-family and two-family uses, shall be governed by
Table 3-2 (Off-Street Parking Dimensions) and Figure 3-7 (Illustration of Parking
Dimensions) except that in no case shall a one-way driveway be less than ten feet in width
and a two way driveway be less than twenty feet in width."
TABLE 3-2 FIGURE 3-7 (abridged)
Off-Street Parking Dimensions Illustration of Parking Dimensions
Minimum Uni-Stall Parking Space Dimensions
Angle
(A)
Stall
Width
(B)
Stall
Length
(C)
Stall
Depth
(D)
Aisle Width
(One Way Aisle)
Total Module
Width (F)
0° 8′6″ 22′ 8′-6″ 12′ 29′
30° 8′6″ 18′ 16′-6″ 15′ 48′
45° 8′6″ 18′ 18′-9″ 15′ 52′-6″
60° 8′6″ 18′ 19′-9″ 16′ 55′-6″
90° 8′6″ 18′ 18′ 25′* 61′
* Two-way aisle dimension.
This section, in combination with Table 3-2 and Figure 3-7, requires that two-way drive-
aisles with 90° (perpendicular) parking stalls be at least 25-feet wide, to provide adequate
backup distance for vehicular maneuvering. However, the proposed site plan would provide
an interior 20-ft wide private roadway, inconsistent with this standard.
In the past the City has allowed projects to satisfy this requirement with a 20-ft private
roadway, if interior driveways are at least 5-feet in length, so that a 25-ft backup distance
can be provided (20-ft roadway + 5-ft driveway). Arguably, this practice is inconsistent with
a strict reading of this standard, however it is how the City's has historically interpreted this
provision, such that is reasonable to apply to this project. Therefore, to comply, the site plan
will either need to show a 25-foot wide roadway or provide 5-foot interior driveways.
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 7
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
F. Zoning Code: Relationship to the Public Right-of-Way (CMC Sec. 21.28.080.B.4):
"No garage or carport shall be closer than twenty-five feet to a public right-of-way."
The residential units located along Gilman Avenue would have garages that are only 18-
feet from the public right-of-way inconsistent with this standard.
G. Zoning Code: Driveway separation – Multi-family and nonresidential development
[driveways] (CMC Sec. 21.28.090.A.2):
"Where two or more driveways serve the same or adjacent multi-family or nonresidential
development, the centerline of the driveways shall be separated by a minimum of fifty feet.
Exceptions to this standard shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer."
The residential units located along Gilman Avenue would have driveways that are right next
to each other, much less than the required 50-feet, inconsistent with this standard.
H. Zoning Code: Parking space dimensions – Residential uses (CMC Sec. 21.28.080.C.1):
"The minimum dimensions for residential parking spaces shall be nine feet by twenty feet."
Several uncovered parking stalls are less than 20-feet in length, inconsistent with this
standard.
Formal Application: The formal application for the project would need to remedy the above
identified conflicts, and as a result, will require significant revisions to the site plan. However, it is
not clear how the project could resolve the inability of the most northerly Gilman Avenue parcel to
accommodate townhome use, with the exception of asserting the use of a concession under the
State's Density Bonus law. Through use of a Density Bonus, an applicant can seek "waivers" that
eliminate and/or reduce development standards (e.g., setbacks) that would physically preclude the
construction of the project at its permitted density,5 and as well as "concessions" that reduce or
modify regulatory requirements or other development standards, in order to achieve an identifiable
and actual cost reduction for the project6. However, the City would likely not be amendable to any
waiver or concession request that would allow driveway access as shown onto Dillon Avenue, since
such a configuration could result in a specific, adverse and unavoidable impact on public health and
safety.
To qualify for Density Bonus concessions and/or waivers, the applicant would need to offer an
increased number of BMR units and/or increased the affordability of the already required four (4)
BMR units, as necessary to achieve the required number of concessions.
OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The preliminary materials have also been reviewed by other stakeholder departments. Comment
sheets from the City's Public Works Department (Land Development Division) and the County Fire
District, are attached as Attachments 5, for the record.
5 Unlimited waivers must be granted irrespective of the BMR percentage or level of affordability.
6 Up to four "concessions/incentives" may be provided depending on the BMR percentage and level of affordability.
PC Study Session Memorandum – April 11, 2023 Page 8
PLN-2023-37 ~ 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
NEXT STEPS
The formal application for this project will be processed as a Planned Development Permit. The
application will require review by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC),
recommendation by the Planning Commission, and a decision by the City Council.
Attachments:
1. SB-330/SB-8 Handout
2. SB-330 Checklist
3. Preliminary Project Plans
4. Project Description
5. Departmental Comment Sheets
1
SUMMARY OF HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019 SB 330 and SB 8
Introduction
The Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) established the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA) and was signed on October 9, 2019 and went into effect on January 1, 2020. On September 16, 2021, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) was signed into law which made some clarifications and updated SB 330, extending the HCA from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030. These laws were passed to address the current “housing crisis” in the State with three general aims: 1) increase residential unit development; 2) protect existing housing inventory; and, 3) expedite permit processing. Both SB 330 and SB 8 make numerous changes to the existing legislation such as the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act.
The HCA Does Not Apply to All Jurisdictions
The HCA applies only to “affected” jurisdictions, which is any city or county that is located in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. Any jurisdiction with a population less than 5,000 and not located within an urbanized area is exempt. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed a list of “affected cities” and census designated places within unincorporated counties (“affected counties”).
Not All Housing Development Projects Are Subject to HCA
HCA defines a “housing development project” as a project that proposes:
residential units only;
mixed-use development in which at least two-thirds of the square footage is residential; or
transitional, supportive, emergency, or farmworker housing.
SB 8 expands the definition of a “housing development project” to include projects with one single dwelling unit and ADUs; however, the Court of Appeal ruled that the HAA does not apply “to building an individual single-family home” (Reznitskiy v. County of Marin, 2022, 1st App. District Case No. A161813). SB 8 also includes projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals (Gov. Code §65905.5 (b)(3)).
2
HCA Gov. Code
Receipt of a density bonus increase, including associated incentives/concessions, and waivers, does not constitute a valid basis for finding a project inconsistent with applicable plans and standards. §65905.5(c)(1)
Prohibits a jurisdiction from downsizing property for housing unless the jurisdiction “concurrently” up-zones other property to increase enough permitted density and makes sure there is no net loss in residential capacity city-wide.
§66300(b)(1)(A) and (i)
Retroactively “freezes” residential zoning standards to what they were on January 1, 2018.§66300(b)(1)(A)
Does not allow jurisdictions to enforce moratoriums or growth control measures on new housing development.§66300(b)(1)(B) and (D)
Prevents jurisdictions from imposing or enforcing new design standards on housing projects that are not “objective.”§66300(b)(1)(C)
Imposes anti-demolition provisions by having jurisdictions require developers: 1) “replace” demolished protected rental and affordable housing units; 2) offer relocation benefits to displaced tenants; and, 3) offer displaced tenants a right of first refusal for a comparable unit in the new housing development.
§66300(d)
Establishes a preliminary application process for housing developments and allows developers to lock in city ordinances, policies, and development fees prior to filing a complete application.§65589.5(o)
Establishes a new application checklist for housing development projects and requires jurisdictions to post this application on their website. §§65940 and 65943
Establishes completeness review requirements for housing development projects. Jurisdictions cannot ask the applicants to provide additional information not listed on application checklist. In addition, when jurisdictions determine that an application is incomplete, the agency is required to write an incompleteness letter but cannot include items not expressly listed on the jurisdiction’s checklist.
§65943
Reduces time an agency has to approve/disapprove an application under the Permit Streamlining Act for a housing development project subject to an environmental impact report (EIR) from 120 days to 90 days.§65950
Prohibits an agency from holding more than five hearings in connection with review of a proposed housing development project (more below).§65905.5
Requires the agency to make any required historic site determinations applicable to the project at the time when application is deemed complete.§65913.10
Key Provisions of the HCA
3
Consistency with “Objective Standards”
The HCA rules that cities and counties are prohibited from denying a housing development project or reduce its density based on a subjective design standard. A project can only be reviewed against “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies,” and can only be denied if certain findings described in Gov. Code §65589.5(j) are met. SB 330 clarified the term “objective standards” and is consistent with SB 35, which states that “objective standards” involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official (Gov. Code §66300(a)(7)).
New Preliminary Application
Local agencies are required to compile a checklist and application form for preliminary applications (Gov. Code §65941.1(b)). The HCD also provides a standardized form that applicants may use if the local agency has not prepared its own form. The intent of this process is to make the development review process faster and provide clarity and certainty to an applicant by identifying what application materials are required and by locking in the development requirements, standards, and fees at the time a complete application is submitted. By doing so, the City is prohibited from applying new ordinances, policies and standards to a development with a complete preliminary application. In addition, the local government is not required to provide a formal determination about whether the preliminary application is “complete,” rather the preliminary application is considered “deemed complete”. An application must be “deemed complete” if it contains all of the information required by Gov. Code §65941.1.
Public Hearing Limit
The five public hearing limit applies to a housing development project that complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete (Gov. Code §65905.5(a)).
Under the statute, as clarified by SB 8, the definition of “hearing” covers a broad range of meetings of a board, commission, council, department, or subcommittee, including “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting, including any appeal, conducted by the city or county,” with respect to the project (Gov. Code §65905.5). In addition, SB 8 clarifies that meetings related to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915) are considered a hearing under the five public hearing limit.
“Hearing” does not include a hearing to review a legislative approval required for a proposed housing development project, including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, a specific plan adoption or amendment, a planned community adoption or amendment, or a zoning amendment.
4
Step 1: Preliminary Application (Gov. Code §65941.1)
Applicant submits preliminary application form and pays permit processing fees.
No affirmative determination by the local government regarding the completeness of a preliminary application is required, simply that the applicant had submitted all required application materials.
The purpose of the preliminary application is to establish “vesting” of applicable objective planning, zoning, and subdivision criteria at the time of submittal.
Step 2: Full Application
Applicant submits full application within 180 calendar days of preliminary application submittal. If applicant fails to file full application, then the “vesting nature” expires. The full application is the materials required for the land use entitlement being sought (e.g., development plan, tentative map).
Application contains all information required by the local government application checklist pursuant to Government Codes §§65940, 65941, and 65941.5.
If revision of a project changes the number of units or square footage of construction by 20% after submitting the preliminary application, then applicant is required to submit a new preliminary application (Gov. Code §65941.1).
Application Process: From Preliminary Application to Project Approval
Below are steps and the accompanied provisions dictating the timeline of the application process:
5
Step 3: Completeness Review (Gov. Code §65943)
The agency has 30 days to determine application completeness in writing. If complete, agency sends applicant a notice confirming completion. If incomplete, agency provides applicant a list of incomplete items in writing. If this notice is not sent within 30 days, the application is deemed complete.
For incomplete applications: applicant has 90 days to correct deficiencies and submit the material(s) needed to complete the application.
• When the applicant resubmits, the local agency has 30 days to evaluate. If application is still incomplete, the agency must specify items and specific information that is needed to complete the application.
• If the applicant does not submit the necessary items within 90 days or a formal application is not received within the 180-day period from application acceptance, then the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect (Gov. Code §65941.1[d][2]).
• When applicant resubmits and the application is still incomplete in the third review, an appeals process must be provided.
The agency may not subsequently request any new information that was not on the initial list.
Step 4: Consistency Review
After the full application is deemed complete, the agency then reviews the entire application for consistency with applicable objective standards (Gov. Code §65589.5).
The agency identifies and provides specific provisions and explanations why the agency considers the housing project to be inconsistent or non-compliant with identified provisions.
• For projects with 150 units or less, the agency has 30 days to review after the full application is deemed complete.
• For projects with 150 units or more, the agency has 60 days to review after the full application is deemed complete.
Step 5: Hearing Process
When a full application is deemed complete and the proposed project complies with applicable standards, the agency can conduct a maximum of five hearings.
The agency must make a final decision on a housing development project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report (or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or an environment impact report (EIR) for a housing development project or 60 days from the determination by agency that the housing development project is exempt from CEQA) (Gov. Code §65950).
If the project is not approved, then the application is subject to judicial review under the Housing Accountability Act.
The housing development project must begin construction within 2.5 years following the date of final approval or the applicant will lose all vested rights received at the time the preliminary application was submitted (Gov. Code §65589 [o]).
6
• Agency can conduct up to a maximum of 5 hearings
• Final decision must be made within 90 days after EIR certification (60 days after adoption of an MND or after a project is determined to be exempt from CEQA).
• Once application is “deemed complete,” agency has 30 days to review application for consistency with applicable standards. For projects with 150 units or more, agency has 60 days.
• Applicant has 180 to submit full application or vesting rights expire.
• Application contains all information required by application checklist.
• Agency has 30 days to determine completeness and notify applicant.
• If incomplete, applicant has 90 days to correct deficiencies.
• If the application is incomplete by third review, an appeal process must be provided.
• Applicant submits preliminary application.
• Establishes vested rights of applicable rules on day of submission.
Resources/Links:
HCD – Statutory Determinations for Limiting Jurisdiction’s Abilities to Restrict
Development: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/statutory-
determinations
HCD’s Memo: www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-
haa-final-sept2020.pdf
HCD’s SB 330 Standardized Form: www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/accountability-enforcement/docs/SB 330 Preliminary Application
Template_Final.docx
HCD’s SB 330 Affected Cities and Counties Interactive Map:
cahcd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.
html?id=5a63b04d7c494a6ebb 2aa38a2c3576f5
HCD’s List of Affected Cities:
www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/docs/affected-cities.pdf
HCD’s List of Affected Counties:
www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/docs/affected-counties.pdf
SB 330 Bill Provision:
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_
id=201920200SB330
SB 8 Bill Provision: www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB8
Preliminary Application
Full Application Submittal
Completeness Review
Hearing Process
Consistency Review
2
1
3
4
5
SB 330 Summary Timeline of Application Process
SCAG DEVELOPMENT STREAMLINING TOOLS | HCD REAP GRANT PROGRAM 7
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What if the project changes after the preliminary application is submitted?
If the revisions change the number of residential units or square footage by 20% or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive/concession, waiver or similar provision, then the applicant loses vested rights and the local government can apply current development standards, rather than those standards in place at the time of the preliminary application (Gov. Code §65589.5[o][2][E]). In addition, the applicant will have to file a new preliminary application.
If the revisions do not change the project in this way, the local government must still apply the standards in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted.
Can a local government deny a housing development project?
HCA strengthens the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5) which states that a housing development project that complies with the objective standards of the general plan and zoning ordinance must be approved by the agency, unless the agency is able to make written findings based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record that either: 1) the local government has already met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement; 2) there is an impact to the public health and safety and this impact cannot be mitigated; 3) the property is agricultural land; 4) the approval of the project would violate State or Federal law and this violation cannot be mitigated; or, 5) the project is inconsistent with the zoning and land use designation and not identified in the general plan housing element RHNA inventory.
“Objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.
Can a local government change land use plans or development standards that result in residential reduction of density or intensity?
No, HCA restricts the adoption of land use or zoning amendments that would result in the reduction of allowed residential density or intensity of land uses than what is allowed under the regulations in effect on January 1, 2018, per Gov. Code §66300(b)(1). This government code section defines “less intensive use” to include, but is not limited to: reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing. Furthermore, the local government is further prevented from establishing moratoriums or other restrictions on housing projects and cannot place new caps on the number of land use approvals or permits that will be issued for housing projects.
The purpose of this material is to provide guidance, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This guidance does not alter lead agency discretion in decision-making, independent judgment and analysis, and preparing environmental documents for project or governmental action subject to CEQA requirements. This material is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion.
See
Following
two pages
Order Number: 0131-625050ala
Page Number: 8
First American Title
Page 8 of 17
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Campbell , County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED MAY 20, 1977 IN BOOK 397 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 16,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5 FEET, AS GRANTED IN THE DEED FROM JOSEPH
HERR, ET UX, TO THE CITY OF CAMPBELL FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND TO BECOME A PORTION
OF GILMAN AVENUE; RECORDED JULY 25, 1977 IN BOOK D021 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 133.
PARCEL TWO:
PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED MAY 20, 1977 IN BOOK 397 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 16,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5 FEET, AS GRANTED IN THE DEED FROM PETER
MOOSMAN, ET UX, TO THE CITY OF CAMPBELL FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND TO BECOME A
PORTION OF GILMAN AVENUE; RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1977 IN BOOK D105, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,
PAGE 279.
PARCEL THREE:
ALL OF PARCEL A, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF
THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 14, 1971, IN
BOOK 286 OF MAPS, PAGE 17.
APN: 412-09-026 (PARCEL THREE)
412-09-035 (PARCEL TWO) and
412-09-036 (PARCEL ONE)
Order Number: 0192-6924420
Page Number: 6
First American Title
Page 6 of 13
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Campbell , County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
LOT 41, BLOCK 2, AS DELINEATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "RUCKER'S ADDITION", FILED
FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ON MAY 20TH, 1895 IN BOOK "F" OF MAPS, AT PAGE 39.
PARCEL TWO:
LOTS NUMBERED THIRTY-NINE (39) AND FORTY (40) IN BLOCK TWO (2) AS SHOWN UPON THAT
CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "MAP OF RUCKER'S ADDITION IN THE TOWN OF CAMPBELL, BEING A PART
OF SEC. 35, T. 7S., R. 1W., M.D.M," WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MAY 20, 1895, IN VOLUME
"F" OF MAPS, PAGE 39.
PARCEL THREE:
LOTS 36, 37 AND 38, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN AND DELINEATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED,
"MAP OF RUCKER'S ADDITION IN THE TOWN OF CAMPBELL, WAS FILED MAY 20, 1895 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN VOLUME "F"
OF MAPS, PAGE 39.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5 FEET AS GRANTED TO THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ON
AUGUST 22, 1977 IN BOOK D090 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 533.
APN: 412-09-032(Affects Parcel One) , 412-09-033(Affects Parcel Two) and 412-09-034(Affects Parcel
Three)
Last two pages of
document
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 7 of 8
Property Owner of Record ☐ Same as applicant ☐ Different from applicant
Name (if different from applicant)
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number
City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code
Telephone ___________________________ Email
Optional: Agent/Representative Name
Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number
City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code
Telephone ___________________________ Email
Optional: Other (Specify Architect, Engineer, CEQA Consultant, etc.)
Name
Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number
City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code
Telephone ___________________________ Email
Primary Contact for Project: ☐ Owner ☐ Applicant ☐ Agent/Representative ☐ Other
☐
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 8 of 8
PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT
Before the application can be accepted, the owner of each property involved must provide a signature to verify the Preliminary Application is being filed with their knowledge. Staff will confirm ownership
based on the records of the City Engineer or County Assessor. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the agent for service of process or an officer of the ownership entity so authorized may sign as stipulated below.
•Ownership Disclosure. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, a
disclosure identifying the agent for service or process or an officer of the ownership entity mustbe submitted. The disclosure must list the names and addresses of the principal owners (25percent interest or greater). The signatory must appear in this list of names. A letter ofauthorization, as described below, may be submitted provided the signatory of the letter isincluded in the Ownership Disclosure. Include a copy of the current partnership agreement,
corporate articles, or trust document as applicable.
•Letter of Authorization (LOA). A LOA from a property owner granting someone else permissionto sign the Preliminary Application form may be provided if the property is owned by apartnership, corporation, LLC or trust, or in rare circumstances when an individual property
owner is unable to sign the Preliminary Application form. To be considered for acceptance, the
LOA must indicate the name of the person being authorized to file, their relationship to the owneror project, the site address, a general description of the type of application being filed and mustalso include the language in items 1-3 below. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCsor trusts, the LOA must be signed by the authorized signatory as shown on the Ownership
Disclosure or in the case of private ownership by the property owner. Proof of Ownership for the
signatory of the LOA must be submitted with said letter.
•Grant Deed. Provide Copy of the Grant Deed if the ownership of the property does not matchlocal records. The Deed must correspond exactly with the ownership listed on the application.
•Multiple Owners. If the property is owned by more than one individual (e.g., John and JaneDoe, or Mary Smith and Mark Jones) signatures are required of all owners.
1.I hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the herein previously described property located in_______________________________ which is involved in this Preliminary Application, or have
been empowered to sign as the owner on behalf of a partnership, corporation, LLC, or trust as
evidenced by the documents attached hereto.2.I hereby consent to the filing of this Preliminary Application on my property for processing by theDepartment of ____________________________ for the sole purpose of vesting the proposedhousing project subject to the Planning and Zoning ordinances, policies, and standards adopted
and in effect on the date that this Preliminary Application is deemed complete.
3.Further, I understand that this Preliminary Application will be terminated and vesting will be forfeitedif the housing development project is revised such that the number of residential units or squarefootage of construction increases or decreases by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increaseresulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision,
and/or an application requesting approval of an entitlement is not filed with ____________________
within 180 days of the date that the Preliminary Application is deemed complete.4.By my signature below, I certify that the foregoing statements are true and correct.
Signature Signature
Printed Name Printed Name
Date Date
PLAN 1A PLAN 1B PLAN 2 PLAN 2X PLAN 3A PLAN 3B PLAN 4A PLAN 4B PLAN 5A PLAN 5B
First Floor 163 163 182 179 390 390 447 447 168 168
Second Floor 700 700 778 788 909 909 905 905 650 650
Third Floor 700 700 837 794 952 952 970 970 619 619
TOTAL 1563 1563 1797 1761 2251 2251 2322 2322 1437 1437
Garage 579 659 647 479 471 511 511
Balcony 92 92 103 103 137 137 102 102 86 86
Porch 0 0 0 0 113 113 138 71 35 38
Porch and
Balcony per
Unit 92 92 103 103 250 250 240 173 121 124
No. of times
plotted in site
plan
2 times 1 time 2 times 2 times 4 times 2 times 4 times 2 times 6 times 4 times
Balcony per
Building 184 92 206 206 1000 500 960 346 726 496
Grand Total
of Porches
and
Balconies for
ALL Buildings 4716
TOWNHOMES DUET
AREA TABULATION
GILMAN
2/16/2023
Notes
Including stair
Excluding air space at stair well
Liveable or Conditioned Space
To outside walls / both garages of
plan 5
Sum of porch and balconies for ALL
buildings
BLDG
PERMIT No.
079923PLAN
REVIEW No.
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:
This project shall comply with the following:
The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2019 edition, as adopted by the City of Campbell
Municipal Code (CMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).
The scope of this project includes the following:
Preliminary review for a new sub-division comprised of 19 townhouse units and 5 residential duplex
units.
Plan Status:
Preliminary review of plans. All comments having BOLD font reflect areas that were observed in the
preliminary review that will need to be addressed prior to planning permit approval.
Preliminary Plan Review Comments:
1. Fire sprinklers will be required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing
buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections
903.2.1 through 903.2.18.
2. The plans will need to show that all building are within 600 feet of a hydrant from an
approved route.
3. A fire flow letter will need to be provided from San Jose Water confirming the required fire
flow. Fire flow will be evaulated once final floor area calulations are provided and
construction type.
4. Ground ladder rescue access will be required: Ground-ladder rescue from second and third
floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. Climbing angle of seventy five
degrees shall be demonstrated on the plans and maintained. Landscaping shall not be allowed to
interfere with the required access (CFC Sec. 503 and 1029 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2).
-Plans will need to identify all egress windows/balconies.
-Elevation diagrams will need to be provided showing access to emergency egress
windows/balconies.
-Diagrams will need to show proper clearance at the ground level and climbing angles of 75
degrees to each window.
-No landscaping, trees, fences, or buildings shall obstruct ladder access.
City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE
SEC/FLOOR
R-3/U
OCCUPANCY
LOAD
N/A
AREA
Robson Homes
ApplicantName
GILMAN AVENUE SITE DEVELOPMENT
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
2OF1
DATE
3/29/2023CBL
Flanagan, Caleb
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
N/A
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
Gilman Ave Campbell
BLDG
PERMIT No.
079923PLAN
REVIEW No.
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
5. Fire apparatus access roadway will be required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-
weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches,
minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside, 30 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%.
Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.
-Correct turning radii will need to be shown 50 feet outside / 30 foot inside
-Turning radii and width will need to be improved on the North / North-East part of the parcel
that exits to Gilman Ave
-Full unobstructed width of 20 feet will need to be shown
6. Fire department turnaround will be required: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess
of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet
outside and 23 feet inside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be 5%. Installations shall conform
with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. [CFC Section 503.2.5].
-Show a compliant turnaround on the plans
-Turnaround cannot be obstructed
7. Fire lanes will be required: Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a
fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. The entire 20 foot fire
apparatus access roads shall be marked as fire lanes. Signs or other approved notices shall be
posted.
-Fire lanes will need to be shown on the plans
8. Fire rating: Wall(s) will need to be rated between the two townhouse buildings due to lack
of separation distance
This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire
Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate
or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any
addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance [CFC, Ch.1,
105.3.6].
City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE
SEC/FLOOR
R-3/U
OCCUPANCY
LOAD
N/A
AREA
Robson Homes
ApplicantName
GILMAN AVENUE SITE DEVELOPMENT
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
2OF2
DATE
3/29/2023CBL
Flanagan, Caleb
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
N/A
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
Gilman Ave Campbell
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM CITY OF CAMPBELL
TO: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner DATE: 3/9/23
FROM: Roger Storz, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: DRC APPLICATION
Site Address: 57-101 Gilman Avenue & 60 Dillon Avenue
For File No(s): PLN-2023-37
Project Description: Preliminary proposal for a 29-unit townhome/duet residential development
on a 1.1 acre assemblage.
Applicant: Robson Homes
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Street Improvements: The proposed street improvements shall match the ten (10) foot
sidewalk already approved for the adjacent Cresleigh Homes project. Also, streetlighting
will need to be evaluated along the project frontage as there are some gaps in the existing
lighting.
2. Overhead Utilities: It is assumed that the existing utility pole in front of 57 Gilman Avenue
will be removed with this development as it is currently only serving the existing house.
3. Stormwater Treatment:
a. The updated C.3 requirements of the City’s new Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)
for Stormwater Treatment go into effect on July 1, 2023. As this project has applied
for an SB 330 Preliminary Application, this project will continue to be subject to the
existing MRP 2.0 requirements. If this project does not maintain compliance with the
requirements of the SB 330 Preliminary Application, then it will be subject to the new
MRP 3.0 requirements which lowers the impervious area threshold to 5,000 square
feet, including any necessary off-site improvements. This would require additional
stormwater treatment facilities to treat the run-off from the off-site impervious
areas being created / reconstructed.
b. The submitted plans appears to show preliminary stormwater treatment facilities but
lack any detail for a meaningful review and comments.
c. The storm main constructed by the Cresleigh project in Gilman Avenue will need to
be extended to provide drainage of the on-site stormwater facilities.
d. If the stormwater from 60 Dillon Avenue cannot be routed to the Gilman frontage,
then a storm main extension in Dillon Avenue will be required. This parcel is
between two existing storm drain mains in Dillon Avenue, one coming from East
Campbell Avenue and one coming from Sam Cava Lane.