Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01-20-2022 - PC Agenda Assembled v2_Redacted
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California Register in advance for this webinar: www.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. Thursday, January 20, 2022 5:30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers AGENDA NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public to follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov. This Special Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person as well as via telecommunication (Zoom) and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. This Special Planning Commission meeting will be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's website and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting but not participate. Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment at this meeting virtually are asked to register in advance at www.campbellca.gov/PCSignup After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting via Zoom. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers. If attending in person, face coverings and physical distancing will be required until further notice. Public comment for the Planning Commission meetings will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov by 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the PC. 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 December 14, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS 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. Planning Commission Agenda for January 20, 2022 Page 2 of 2 OLD BUSINESS 1.PLN-2021-12 Review the prioritized Housing Opportunity Sites and provide a recommendation to the City Council on which sites should be included in “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” and the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and provide feedback on key principles to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2022 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 City Clerk’s Office at ClerksOffice@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2117. CITY OF CAMPBELL Planning Commission Minutes 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY DECEMBER 14, 2021 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Special Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, December 14, 2021, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Ostrowski and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Acting Chair: Stuart Ching Commissioner: Adam Buchbinder Commissioner: Matt Kamkar Commissioner: Michael Krey Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Commissioner: Alan Zisser Commissioners Absent: Chair: Maggie Ostrowski Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Daniel Fama City Attorney: William Seligmann Recording Secretary: Corinne Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES None COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL REQUESTS Campbell Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2021 Page 2 None PUBLIC HEARINGS Acting Chair Ching asked if there were any disclosures from the Commission. There were none. Acting Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN-2021-193 Initiation of a Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN-2021-193) to allow the Planning Commission to grant a reduction to the required side-yard setbacks for properties within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, provided the staff report. Acting Chair Ching asked if there were Commission questions for staff. Commissioner Krey said it sounds very reasonable. He added that there is the big push for Objective Standards. How does this relate to that? Planner Daniel Fama explained that Objective Standards are for residential zoning. There remains wider discretion for other zoning districts. Commissioner Krey asked if this sort of concern comes up a lot. Planner Daniel Fama replied that there are three applications where applicants are looking at reduced setbacks. This request is not unreasonable per staff. Commissioner Krey asked whether such requests for changes associated with specific projects expected to occur or is it a fluke to have three such requests. Planner Daniel Fama replied that it is likely not a fluke. Commissioner Rivlin said he understands the significance between M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) zoning designations, but why are other existing zonings designations not included as well at this time. Planner Daniel Fama replied that what is being proposed for modifications is in response to impacted applications already in house for consideration. Commissioner Rivlin: • Said it seems unusual to see pre-emptive discussion on such proposed changes in a project specific situation. Campbell Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2021 Page 3 • Added it seems that these changes appear to be tailored for these three pending project applications. • Admitted that he hasn’t see that before, the adjusting of the code for them (applicants). Director Rob Eastwood: • Stated that there are two buckets. One is for broader issues ad the other is to deal with existing questions in Code. Those are smaller changes a more surgical approach can be used to just get those small changes done and then to pair the adoption of the changes together with these specific projects that are being brought forth to the PC for action. • Pointed out that the past practice in Campbell has been to rezone a site to P-D (Planned Development) to work out those issues. A better approach is to change the Code. • Suggested that the PC refrain from deliberations tonight since they will be discussing the proposed changes at a future meeting and should not articulate a specific position at this early stage of the text amendment process. • Advised that he has never before been within a jurisdiction where staff has to seek permission to initiate a minor text amendment. Commissioner Rivlin asked how this applies. Are we going to see this a lot just to make project review and approval easier? Commissioner Zisser said he shares Commissioner Rivlin’s concern. He asked if the concern for these three projects is the required setback by number of feet minimum or is it in regard to the half the wall height standard? Planner Daniel Fama suggested there be no specifics tonight to color the review of project later. Commissioner Kamkar said he is all for streamlining and making government more efficient. Director Rob Eastwood said it would accomplish that. The project came with an impediment based on existing setback standards. He added that the change(s) still provides discretion for the PC to consider specific circumstances by project. Commissioner Kamkar said he appreciates the concerns raised by Commissioners Zisser and Rivlin. Commissioner Buchbinder stated that he is enthusiastically supportive of things such as this. He asked what is the discretionary issue? Planner Daniel Fama said the pending applications are Site and Architectural Review Permits and/or Conditional Use Permits for new buildings. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if there is any reason why such changes cannot be approved at the Director level rather than the PC having the discretion to consider differences in Code in relation to rear setbacks. Campbell Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2021 Page 4 Planner Daniel Fama explained that there are no objective standards for these types of buildings. Findings for approval must be made but there is a tremendous amount of discretion on the PC’s part. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if it would be reasonable to include C-1 Zoning in these updates. Commissioner Krey: • Said the intent here is to achieve more efficiency and to streamline the process. • Adding that these proposed changes are coming in with three new projects. • Asked if there was a reason for the original (existing) setbacks. Planner Daniel Fama said that would require a deeper dive into the history of the development of those zoning districts. He added that they likely came from the General Plan Update done 20 years ago. Acting Chair Ching opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Acting Chair Ching closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Buchbinder said he is very much in favor of these changes. These standards are not well handled by the current Code. It seems there was no reason in the first place. What’s proposed is simple and he is very much in favor. Commissioner Krey said these changes represent common sense. The way it is now is silly. We need a side yard setback standard that works for everybody. Commissioner Zisser: • Said he is uncomfortable with changing standards for specific project applications but defers to staff. • Pointed out that the PC still has the opportunity to look at a specific proposed project and decide. He is good with that. Commissioner Rivlin: • Said this text amendment will be coming back to the PC for review and recommendation to Council. • Questioned the need to make changes just to two specific zones in response to two specific projects. • Stated the need for more recommendations from staff. Director Rob Eastwood advised that staff draft the Ordinance, bring it to PC for review and recommendation and then it goes to Council for approval and adoption. Commissioner Rivlin asked staff to further explain why these changes should not apply to other zonings or to explain why not. He agreed that there are still checks and balances available. Campbell Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2021 Page 5 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Buchbinder, the Planning Commission moved to initiate a Zoning Code Amendment (PLN-2021-193) to allow the Planning Commission to allow a reduction to the required side-yard setbacks for properties within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts, by the following roll-call vote: AYES: Buchbinder, Ching, Kamkar, Krey, and Zisser NOES: Rivlin ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None *** NEW BUSINESS 2. Election of 2022 Chair and Vice Chair Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Buchbinder, the Planning Commission selected Vice Chair Ching to serve as Planning Commission Chair for 2022; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Buchbinder, Kamkar, Krey, Rivlin and Zisser NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: Ching Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Rivlin, the Planning Commission selected Commissioner Buchbinder to serve as Planning Commission Vice Chair for 2022 and as Chair of the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) for 2022; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Buchbinder, Ching, Kamkar, Krey, Rivlin and Zisser NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None 3. Presentation by the in-coming Chair of the 2021 Chair Plaque to out-going Chair Ostrowski. (Due to the absence of Chair Ostrowski, this presentation item will be forwarded to the January 25th meeting.) Commissioner Krey: • Said he wanted to acknowledge the tremendous job Chair Ostrowski did in 2021. • Added that she has a knack for this stuff. • Pointed out that she also added to her family at the same time as serving as PC Chair. Chair Ching: • Seconded those comments. Campbell Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2021 Page 6 • Stated that Chair Ostrowski did an amazing job in very trying times and she did it with grace and humor. • Concluded that the Commission will present Chair Ostrowski with her gavel plaque at the next meeting. Chair Ching called for a brief break at 7:55 p.m. Chair Ching reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. *** COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT Director Rob Eastwood provided a brief oral report with the following comments: • Reported that the City Council will conduct a Special Council Meeting on December 16th, where they will undergo the same deliberations as the PC did at its Special PC Meeting held on December 9th. • Said that the Housing Opportunity Site Maps will go to Council this month (December) and to PC on January 20, 2022. • Reported that he has conducted final interviews of the applicants for both the Assistant and Associate Planner positions and offers have been made. • Stated that these additions will double the staff in Planning. Vice Chair Buchbinder: • Reminded that he had submitted a list of Code items needing update that was provided to Director Eastwood. • Added that he understands the current constraints of staffing at this time. Director Rob Eastwood: • Said that the need for major Code updates is being driven by the requirement for Objective Standards. • Reminded that the City Council formally adopts the work plan each year. • Added that he is open to Commissioners providing him with feedback on what Code changes are needed to add to the working list. Commissioner Zisser asked if there is SB-9 update. Director Rob Eastwood: • Reported that Council, at its meeting on December 7, 2021, adopted an Interim Ordinance for SB-9 that is in effect for 45 days. • Extended kudos to Senior Planner Daniel Fama, who wrote the Code and Ordinance on SB-9. • Pointed out that Campbell currently has the smallest Planning staff in the Bay Area (with two planners), Daniel’s work has become the template for the entire Bay Area and beyond. • Said that a final (non-Interim) SB-9 Ordinance will be brought to Council in January/February for approval and permanent adoption. Campbell Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14, 2021 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT The Special Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 (as the January 11, 2022, Regular PC meeting has been cancelled), at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. PREPARED BY: Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Report TITLE: Provide feedback on the Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Selection. (PLN-2021-12) RECOMMENDED ACTION Review the “Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites” and provide a recommendation to the City Council on which sites should be included in “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” and the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and provide feedback on key principals to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. BACKGROUND Based on direction from the City Council at its June 15, 2021, meeting, the City of Campbell is completing its Envision Campbell General Plan Update in combination with preparation of the Housing Element Update (“Campbell’s Plan for Housing”). This meeting is intended to facilitate feedback from the Planning Commission on the Housing Opportunity Sites Selection in Campbell’s Plan for Housing. Over the last few months, the City has been reviewing and prioritizing possible housing opportunity sites. In December 2021, staff presented a draft list of housing opportunity sites, selected based on State criteria, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements, earlier Commission and Council feedback, and overarching community development themes associated with the development of the housing opportunity sites. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the draft list of Housing Opportunity sites and provided detailed direction regarding sites to be considered and removed. As part of this feedback, the Council expressed support for distributing new housing citywide and expressed interest in exploring the use of school and church sites as part of the inventory and establishing densities that are compatible with the surrounding area (reference Attachment H – December 16, 2021). Following the meeting, staff contacted all property owners of potential Housing Opportunity sites to solicit their interest in developing housing in the next eight-years and held an informational meeting on January 5, 2022 (reference Attachment I – January 5, 2022 – Property Owner Meeting Notes). Using an online survey, staff received responses from 31 property owners 1 representing 39 properties regarding their interest in the use of their property for housing. 1 Staff received 32 responses, but one property owner/representative did not identify their property. Item: Category: Old Business Meeting Date: January 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 2 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Planning Commission meeting is to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Housing Opportunity Sites that should be included in Campbell’s Plan for Housing and provide feedback on key principals to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. Feedback provided by the Planning Commission will be considered by the City Council at its meeting of January 25, 2022, and undergo environmental review through preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, starting in late January 2022. Final Site Ranking Criteria Based on Council direction, staff added and removed sites from the Draft Housing Inventory resulting in a refined list of 169 potential housing sites. From this list, staff has created final site ranking criteria based on feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council comments to date, property owner interest, and applicable State criteria to identify the “best” sites for inclusion as follows: 1. Site Size: If the site is at least half an acre in size or the site includes abutting properties with common ownership that could combine to add up to half an acre in size then 1 point was awarded. About half of the sites are at least a half-acre in size. 2. Housing Unit Production Potential: If the site can provide at least 50 new housing units then 1 point was awarded. About one quarter of the sites could result in the construction of at least 50 units. 3. Good Location: If the site is within a ten-minute walking distance to public transit, outside of racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, or located in areas with higher amenities and resources, then 1 point was awarded. Most sites are in good locations for future housing. 4. Property Owner Interest: If the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping their property for housing, then 1 point was awarded. Property owner responses indicating support or opposition to inclusion as a housing opportunity site is provided in Attachment F and notes from the January 5, 2022, property owner meeting have been included as Attachment I. 5. Protect Sales Tax Revenues: Based on Council feedback concerning potential displacement of Campbell businesses and resulting fiscal impacts, staff has identified sites that contain a top 100 sales tax generating businesses in Campbell. If the site does not contain one of the top sales tax generators in the City, then 1 point was awarded. If housing development would remove or replace the sales tax generating business, then 0 points were awarded. Only 8 of the 169 sites contain one of the top 100 sales tax generating businesses. Based on the number of points awarded from the criterion, the 169 potential housing inventory sites received scores ranging from 0 to 5. Staff is recommending that all sites Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 3 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection with a point score of three, or higher, continue to be considered as Housing Opportunity Sites, demarcated as “Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites” (reference Attachment “A”). Potential sites that have a score of less than 3 have been put into a Tier 2 category and are not being recommended to be included as a Housing Opportunity Site. The higher scoring sites identified as “Tier 1” represent 96 of the 169 final Housing Opportunity Sites and would provide for 5,610 housing units. As further discussed below, Staff is recommending that two City-owned sites (i.e., First Street Parking Garage and City Corporation Yard) and the four sites at the Campbell Technology Park be considered separately from the other Tier 1 sites as they have unique constraints that warrant additional discussion. Table 1 provides a summary of the Tier 1 housing opportunity sites, including the 829 units from the City-owned sites and Campbell Technology Park and the 4,781 units from all other Tier 1 sites. Table 1 – Housing Opportunity Site Summary Sites Units Campbell Technology Park 4 522 City-owned Sites 2 307 All Other Tier 1 Sites 90 4,781 Total Tier 1 Sites 96 5,610 As discussed in the November and December Planning Commission and Council meetings, staff is recommending that the Housing Opportunity Sites provide a minimum of 3,300 units, which includes a 30% buffer above Campbell’s RHNA requirements as recommended by HCD. Staff has also recommended a higher housing target of up to 5,000 housing units, that will provide more flexibility and options in ensuring housing production over the next eight years will meet RHNA requirements. The locations of these higher priority, Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites, and lower priority, Tier 2 Housing Opportunity Sites are contained in Attachment A. The previously considered site densities are contained in Attachment B. A spreadsheet summarizing the location, criteria ranking, and unit production calculations are included in Attachment C. In summary, staff is recommending that the City move forward with the list of 90 ‘All Other Tier 1 Sites’ housing opportunity sites as they represent the “best” sites for housing production based on the criteria listed above and Commission and Council direction, and will result in a housing production of approximately 4,800 housing units, which is substantially above the 30% buffer of 3,300 units. Further consideration of the additional 829 units that would be provided through inclusion of the two City owned sites and the Campbell Technology Park is listed below. Campbell Technology Park - Sites 214.1, 214.2, 214.3, and 214.4 Campbell Technology Park is a 17-acre site that consists of four properties and is located on Campbell Technology Parkway. The site contains four office buildings intended for Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 4 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection research & development uses within a campus setting. The Technology Park has a current General Plan Designation of Research and Development and a zoning designation of Planned Development Zoning. The owner of the Campbell Technology Park, Tim Pasquinelli, has cited difficulties in obtaining tenants for the current buildings onsite due to the geographic isolation of the property. He has submitted a letter of interest requesting that the Campbell Technology Park be designated as a Housing Opportunity Site. Staff has calculated that construction of residential development at the Campbell Technology Park at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre could yield approximately 522 new housing units The identification of Campbell Technology Park (“Technology Park”) as a potential Housing Opportunity Site was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in December 2021. Both the Commission and Council in general provided favorable feedback on the concept of housing at this site. The Technology Park was developed pursuant to an agreement with the Campbell Redevelopment Agency and is currently governed by City agreements that require the property be maintained as a Technology Park through 2030. The development of the site for housing would require modification of this agreement. Separately, based on staff recommendation and initial feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council, the City-owned Corporation Yard (Site 132), located at 290 Dillon Avenue, has also been identified as a potential Housing Opportunity Site. The site is geographically favorable for housing since it is surrounded by higher density housing and is close to both Campbell’s downtown and the Downtown Campbell light rail station. The use of a city owned site such as the Corporation Yard for housing presents an opportunity for the City to develop a higher percentage of affordable units that otherwise would not be produced on privately owned housing sites. The development of the Corporation Yard site for housing would first require the relocation of the Corporation Yard use to another feasible location. The Campbell Technology Park has been identified as a potential location for the relocated Corporation Yard due to its central location and adjacent light industrial uses. As access to the Campbell Technology is currently limited to McGlincy Lane, a second access through Cristich Lane, currently a private street, would provide better ingress and egress for City vehicles and employees. The modification of the Technology Park’s Redevelopment Agreement to allow the Campbell Technology Park to develop for housing could be done concurrently with the relocation of the Corporation Yard to the Technology Park. Staff recommends that the City continue discussions with the Technology Park owner regarding the feasibility of relocating the Corporation Yard to the Technology Park in tandem with the use of both sites for housing. An agreement could include a “land swap” and a discussion of the city’s objectives regarding affordable housing at the Corporation yard and the onsite and access improvements needed at the Technology Park for relocation of the Corporation Yard. Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 5 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection First Street Parking Garage – Site 3 Staff had earlier recommended the Commission and Council consider the use of the First Street Garage, owned by the City, as a potential Housing Opportunity site. Due to current agreements requiring that parking be maintained at the Garage, a housing project would need to retain the existing parking or the City would need to evaluate other replacement options such as providing replacement parking in another location Downtown. To assess the feasibility of an affordable housing project on the site of the First Street Garage, staff has started high-level/concept discussions with affordable housing developers on feedback on the feasibility of adding affordable housing to the site. Based on this feedback, this site may or may not continue to be considered as a feasible Housing Opportunity Site. Staff recommends that the City owned sites and the Campbell Technology Park continue to be included as housing opportunity sites for study within the Environmental Impact Report. Based on further feasibility studies and negotiations with the Campbell Technology Park property owner, the City Council can later decide if these sites should be included in the final adopted Plan for Housing. Additional Housing Opportunity Site Issues At the November and December Council meetings, Councilmembers asked questions regarding how Housing Opportunity sites would either allow or require mixed use development and if the designation of higher residential densities may result in housing projects that use density bonus provisions to exceed Campbell’s height limits. These issues are discussed further below. Mixed-Use In addition to finalizing the list of Housing Opportunity Sites, staff is requesting the Planning Commission and City Council provide feedback on key principals to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. In considering a mixed-use land use designation, the Planning Commission and City Council should consider whether it is appropriate to apply such a requirement as a mandate or as an option for a developer to consider. In practice, imposing a requirement to redevelop as a mixed-use project may make it more challenging for a site to redevelop for housing or lead to the creation of underutilized/vacant tenant spaces. While the City may explore ways to alleviate such impacts (i.e., limiting the amount, or depth, of commercial area, allowing vertical or horizontal mixed-use development) it is important to first identify sites where such use may be viable. To facilitate a review of the Housing Opportunity Sites, staff has identified several key principals to help guide locations in the City where mixed-use development may be required: 1. Density: Generally, sites with higher densities [between 45 and 75 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)]. 2. Larger Sites: Sites that total over half-an-acre in size. Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 6 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection 3. Pedestrian-Oriented: Sites that are within a 10-minute walking distance to light-rail or located between the Downtown and the Pruneyard. 4. Loss of Service: Sites with commercial services that should be maintained (if existing) or added (in areas where these services are lacking). Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission and City Council on these principles, staff will return with a list of Housing Opportunity Sites that should be designated for mixed-use development. Building Height The City Council has expressed a concern that higher residential densities could result in new housing projects utilizing state density bonus provisions to exceed the City’s 75-foot building height limit. To assess relationship between building height and density, staff evaluated affordable housing projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties at the higher densities (See Attachment G – 100% Affordable Housing Projects) which showed average unit sizes in the 400 square feet to 800 square and developed a simple calculator based on that research as illustrated in Table 2. The calculator assumes a lot coverage of 40% and an average unit size of 1,000 square feet for projects with a base density of 30 to 40 du/ac and a lot coverage of 50% and average unit size of 800 square feet for projects with a density of 60 to 75 dwelling units an acre. With these assumptions in place, the model predicts that even projects with a base density of 75 du/ac utilizing a state density bonus of 80% will have a low likelihood of exceeding the City’s 75-foot height limit. Table 2 – Building Heights in Relation to Lot Coverage & Average Unit Size In addition, there are a variety of tools can be developed to encourage projects to remain under the 75-foot height limit such as creating affordable housing overlays, restrictions on average unit sizes, requiring greater lot coverages, and establishing objective standards. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH Property Owner Outreach: As requested by the City Council, staff has reached out to potential opportunity site property owners to gauge their interest in redeveloping in two ways. The first was a virtual outreach meeting for opportunity site property owners that was held on January 5, 2022. The second was an online interest survey. During the Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 7 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection Property Owner outreach meeting, staff met with 25 property owners of their representatives to discuss how being a housing opportunity site could affect the use of their property and the activities of their current tenants. Most of the property owners/representatives were interested in redeveloping their properties for housing. In addition, as of Friday January 7th, the City has received 31 responses representing 39 properties. Property owner interest is captured in Attachment C – Housing Opportunity Site Data. Faith-Based Organization Outreach: On January 11, 2022, Councilmember Gibbons and staff held an informational meeting with faith-based organizations at City Hall. Staff provided an overview of Campbell’s Plan for Housing process, Assembly Bill 1851 which may permit housing development projects on religious sites, and an overview of the Below-Market Rate Housing Program. Staff sent a follow-up email requesting faith-based organizations to complete the property-owner survey to indicate their interest in housing redevelopment and provide helpful resources and links to materials. At this time, no additional responses to the survey expressing interest as a housing opportunity site have been received. School District Outreach: On January 10, 2022, Councilmember Gibbons and the Community Development Director met with the Superintendent of the Moreland School district to discuss the Plan for Housing and potential opportunities for district-owned property to be used as housing opportunity sites. The school district has indicated that they are not ready to move forward with redevelopment of one of their sites in the next eight years and as such, no school properties have been included as a Housing Opportunity Site. VTA Outreach & Coordination: Valley Transit Agency (VTA) has expressed written interest in developing housing at property it owns adjacent to the Winchester light rail station. The station site is identified as Site 168. Site 168 is a Tier 1 site on the recommended Housing Opportunity Site inventory and has a recommended density of 75 du/acre. VTA has initiated a public outreach process and created a webpage ( https://www.vta.org/winchesterdevelopment ) to begin its public outreach process. There is a virtual community outreach meeting planned for January 19, 2022, at 6:00 PM. Additional Sites Considered Based on direction from the Planning Commission and City Council, staff considered several sites that were not included in the final inventory (e.g., smaller commercial properties fronting on Union/Bascom, properties along Dillon, Gilman, and Railway Avenue). Generally, these sites were screened out due to their small lot size (less than ½ acre), presence of a higher tax-generating use, standing lease agreements, or fragmented ownership interest that would have proven challenging difficult to redevelop. Despite these sites not making the list, the feedback provided by the Planning Commission and Council on these sites helped staff make refinements to the Housing Opportunity List and include properties where a common owner held multiple adjacent properties. Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 8 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection NEXT STEPS Changes to Administrative Draft Envision General Plan When adopted, Campbell’s Plan for Housing will become part of the new General Plan. To ensure that the new General Plan is internally consistent, the Land Use and Community Design Elements will need to be adjusted to ensure that residential uses are allowed on all of the final Housing Opportunity Sites. This will be accomplished by either modifying the land use designation on the map or by modifying the written description of the land use categories. Changes to descriptions of the land use categories could include but are not limited to, the allowable uses, residential densities, floor area ratios, and when mixed use development (residential with ground floor retail and services) will be required. These changes will be incorporated prior to the preparation of the environmental impact Report for the Updated General Plan. The GPAC’s recommended General Plan Land Use Map in include Attachment D. Affordable Housing Program / Affordable Housing Overlay Zone One of the options being considered by staff to address implementation of the housing plan is the use of an Overlay Zone for affordable housing development. This would provide an opportunity to proactively incorporate and address provisions of the State’s density bonus provisions into a City program, providing specific direction to housing developers on Campbell’s preference for where and how a density bonus housing project is developed. As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element update process, the City is considering its current affordable housing programs and how they interface with recent changes to the State’s Density Bonus Program (Government Code Section 65915). The State’s program provides a framework for housing developments to seek a density bonus if a project includes certain baseline affordability requirements. To enable the density bonus, the program also includes the ability for an applicant to seek modifications to certain local development standards through concessions, incentives, or waivers. Local jurisdictions may adopt an ordinance clarifying local controls that may relate to the state’s process, or they may defer to Gov’t. Code Section 65915. The City of Campbell has established application procedures and parameters for waivers and additional concessions as noted in Zoning Code Chapter 21.20. The state density bonus program is voluntary for property owners and developers and is not mandated by either the state or the City of Campbell. If a local jurisdiction chooses to supplement the state’s program with added incentives or programs, state law does not prohibit this so long as the state law program is still an option to applicants. Furthermore, the state does not prohibit local jurisdictions from crafting separate competing density bonus programs that may be more appealing to developers. Current state law allows for up to a 50% density bonus for most projects depending on Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 9 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection the level of affordability and up to an 80% density bonus city wide for projects that are completely affordable. For properties within a half mile of major transit stations, the density bonus increases to “unlimited density” and height increases of three stories or 33 feet over what the city allows as the maximum. A key component of achieving compatibility between new density bonus projects and adjacent neighborhoods is to have clearly articulated objective standards that direct how new buildings can be designed. This can include both ground level setbacks as well as upper story setbacks from neighboring properties, both of which serve to facilitate transitions between building types. These standards can allow for compatible development between properties by addressing massing and privacy concerns. While density bonus projects can request a number of concessions and waivers of development regulations, they still must comply with most of the City’s development standards. Projects that seek density bonuses under the state’s program are also limited in the number of concessions they may request. Some cities have also established affordable housing overlay zones that prioritize local height limits in exchange for increased density and incentives. Additional incentives could include fee waivers, expedited processing, and infrastructure assistance. The Overlay Zone could apply to parcels included on the final adopted Housing Opportunity Sites List and Map. The Overlay Zone could also include density and objective design parameters from the approved Housing Element. Staff will be presenting options for potential adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to the Commission and Council in Spring 2022. By-Right Housing The Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Site inventory includes 26 sites that were included in the previous Housing Element (5th-cycle sites). The location of these 5th-cycle sites is shown in Attachment E. State law places several requirements on the re-use of Housing Opportunity sites from a prior Housing Element. To re-use a Housing Opportunity Site from a previous housing element, State law requires the City designate those sites for a minimum density of ‘30 units per acre’2 and allow housing to be ‘by-right’ development if at least 20% of the housing units are for lower income households. The city must adopt a program to allow the ‘by-right’ development through a rezoning action (either by amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance and/or amending the City’s Official Zoning Map) within three years of the approval of the Plan for Housing by HCD. As part of Campbell’s Plan for Housing, staff will explore establishing a housing overlay zone to accomplish “by-right” housing development. This would enable the city to set site- specific development goals/standards for new residential development on those sites. 2 Pending confirmation from Housing and Community Development (HCD). Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 10 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection Options for Rezoning Housing Opportunity Sites Following the adoption of the new General Plan and Plan for Housing, zoning amendments to the list of permitted uses and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance will be required to implement the new General Plan. The development and consideration of these amendments are targeted to begin during 2022 and be completed in 2023. These amendments may include: • Protections for Existing Uses: Provide criteria to allow existing non-residential land uses to continue to operate as a permitted use that could be modified and expanded until the site redevelops with residential uses. As opposed to the non-residential use becoming a legal non-conforming use. Generally, a legal non- conforming use cannot be modified or expanded. This approach could allow existing non-residential uses to continue until the property owner was ready to redevelop with housing. • Mixed-Use Development: Require mixed-use (residential over retail and services and/or horizontal mixed-use development) in specified areas consistent with the goals, etc. in the updated General Plan. While this would prevent residential-only projects in area where the City has determined that mixed use project a needed, it could also create potential conflicts if at some point in the future, outside factors change and a mixed use development is no longer feasible. The Plan for Housing Policies and Programs Following the identification of the preferred Housing Opportunity Sites, the identification of Plan for Housing policy options will become the main focus of this process. These will be presented to the Commission and Council at future meetings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the remaining sites and provide a recommendation to the City Council on which housing opportunity sites should be included in Campbell’s Plan for Housing and provide feedback on key principals to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. Prepared by: _________________________________ David Hogan, AICP, M-Group Project Manager Reviewed by: _________________________________ Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, M-Group, Principal in Charge Reviewed by: _________________________________ Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022 Page 11 of 11 PLN-2021-12 | Campbell’s Plan for Housing Opportunity Sites Selection Approved by: _________________________________ Rob Eastwood, AICP, Community Development Director Attachments: A. Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites B. Housing Opportunity Site Target Densities C. Housing Opportunity Site Data D. Preferred GPAC General Plan Land Use Map E. 5th Cycle Housing Opportunity Sites F. Public Comment G. 100% Affordable Housing Examples H. December 15, 2021 – Draft City Council Meeting Minutes I. January 5, 2022 – Property Owner Meeting Notes 32 214.2 188 132 49 94.2 119 339 31 214.3214.1 190.2 282 121 191 190.1 22139 36 30 214.4 5 168 179 28 94.193.297 192 190.3 93.1 95 244 186 247176 240 248241 174 40 242 180 249 175 20 42 91 89 250 239 34 251243 92.2 48 254 255 45 90 44 92.1 256 246 47 245 41 184 62 257 258 259 50 260 43 261 63 262 182 238 130 185 263 183 37 266 187 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 1 of 6 Central Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites Campbell Tech Park & City-Owned Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 1.2 4.2 17 1.1 12.2 94.2 202.1 19 202.2 212.1 136 279 3 219220 135 21 146 35 276 221 100.3 159 152 212.2 145 278 155 181 56 116 22 25 100.2 4.1 277 170 28 94.193.29793.1 33 95 143.2141 100.1 244 247 142 240 248241 242 249 13 20 154.2 9189 250 239 251 87 243 92.2 254 255 90 92.1 256 246 154.1 144 245 62257258 259 260261 63 262 238 263 153 266 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile Sheet 2 of 6 East Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites Campbell Tech Park & City-Owned Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 1.2 1.1 12.2 202.1 165 19 202.2 212.1 136 135 21 35 274 159 212.2 181 56 275 116 22 164 139 25 167 170 273 28 33 244 247176 174 249 13 20 9189 281 251 87 243 255 90 246245130 37 266 280 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 3 of 6 North Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites Campbell Tech Park & City-Owned Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 51 204 162 205 197 200 201 203 196 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile Sheet 4 of 6 Northwest Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites Campbell Tech Park & City-Owned Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 207 270269 12.1 268271 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile Sheet 5 of 6 West Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites Campbell Tech Park & City-Owned Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 18 209 10 11 723 272218.1 27 218.2 29 218.3 14.2 1514.116 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile Sheet 6 of 6 South Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites Campbell Tech Park & City-Owned Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 32 214.2 188 132 49 94.2 186 247176 119 240 248241174 40 180 249 175 3 20 42 89 250 239 34 39 31 214.3214.1 190.2 253 243 48 45 90 44 92.1 256 246 47 121 41 191 184 267 62 257 190.1 22 258259 139 50 36 260 43 63 30 214.4 182 238 5 168 179 130 185 264 28 94.193.2 265 97 183 192 37 190.3 266 93.1 187 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Potential Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 1 of 6 Central Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Other Parcels Light Rail Stations City Boundary 1.2 4.2 17 1.1 12.2 94.2 247 202.1 142 248241 19 202.2 249 212.1 136 13 279 3 219 20 220 135 154.2 9189 250 21 239 146 251 87 35 252 276 221 243 100.392.1 256 246 154.1 144 159 152 212.2 145 278 155 181 56 267 116 62257 22 258 25 100.2 260 261 63 4.1 238 277 170 153264 28 94.193.2 265 97 266 93.1 33 95 143.2141 100.1 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Potential Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile Sheet 2 of 6 East Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Other Parcels Light Rail Stations City Boundary 1.2 1.1 12.2 247 202.1 176 165 174 19 202.2 249 212.1 136 13 20 135 91 89 281 21 87 35 274 252 243 159 212.2 245 181 56 275 267 116 22 164 139 25 167 170 130 273 264 28 26537 33 280 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Potential Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 3 of 6 North Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Other Parcels Light Rail Stations City Boundary 200 201 203 51 204 162 196 205 197 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Potential Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile Sheet 4 of 6 Northwest Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Other Parcels Light Rail Stations City Boundary 207 268271 270269 12.1 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Potential Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile Sheet 5 of 6 West Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Other Parcels Light Rail Stations City Boundary 18 209 10 11 14.2 7 1514.1 23 272 27 218.2 29 218.3 16 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Potential Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile Sheet 6 of 6 South Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Other Parcels Light Rail Stations City Boundary Site No APN Address Max. Density Acres Units Use All of Site? (total site ac) Common name AFFH Score 1/2 mi. from LR Highest Opportu nity Area (TCAC) Map sheet number Reuse >0.5 ac Yield 50+ Units Good Location Property Owner Interest Not Displacing Sales Tax Top 100 Total Number 1 28804027 1901 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2310 75 2.00 150 8.61 PruneYard Center Offices 6 Yes Yes 6 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 4 28824059 1980 HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 30 1.00 30 6.14 First Congregational Church of San Jose 2 No Yes 2 No 1 0 1 1 1 4 5 30536012 2365 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 1.00 75 3.80 Safeway 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 7 40619036 700 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6814 20 0.51 10 Y Vacant Lot 2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 10 40622007 3303 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6813 30 0.92 28 Y car repair center (4 shops)2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 1 1 4 11 40622053 3375 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 30 0.57 17 Y car repair center (2 shops)2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 12.1 40401031 60 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2515 45 0.82 37 Y Goodwill store 2 No Yes 5 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 12.2 27933009 210 HARRISON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1410 45 0.66 30 Y Bill Hamilton Roofing 6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 17 28804028 1875 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2310 60 1.00 60 15.85 Bank of America (SE corner of PruneYard property)6 Yes Yes 2 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 18 40616041 1226 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 20 0.20 4 Y Single-family residence near Burrows and Hacienda 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 19 27946011 621 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2126 45 0.64 29 Y Harmony Birth Resources 6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 21 27946012 621 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2126 45 0.95 43 Y Personal Service Commercial at Campbell and Poplar 6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 22 27943055 471 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2128 45 0.67 30 Y Strip Commercial (Campbell Liquors & Deli)6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 23 40616042 1216 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6322 20 0.51 10 Y Single-family residence near Burrows and Hacienda 2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 1 1 4 25 27946049 573 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2103 45 0.12 5 Y Paul Arnold Construction, Inc.6 Yes No 3 Yes 0 0 1 1 1 3 27 40316096 1265 BURROWS RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6301 20 0.59 12 Y Single-family residence at SW Hacienda and Burrows 2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 1 1 4 28 27943020 56 FOOTE ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2115 45 1.41 64 Y Strip commercial at Campbell between Foote and Page 6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 29 40616083 1236 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6322 20 0.31 6 Y Single-family residence at SE Hacienda and Burrows 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 30 41202001 2470 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4807 75 0.61 46 Y Two story retail (insurance , enterprise rent-a-car)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 0 1 1 0 3 31 41202006 2290 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3429 45 0.62 28 Y Valley TMJ Center Single storey corner retail 6 Yes No 1 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 32 41202032 2460 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 2.39 179 Y Retail (summerwinds Nursery)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 0 3 33 27946048 579 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2103 45 0.12 6 Y GKI Construction & Development 6 Yes No 3 Yes 0 0 1 1 1 3 35 27933052 500 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0210 75 1.87 140 Y Staples 6 Yes No 1 No 1 1 1 1 0 4 36 41204016 2240 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424 45 0.15 7 Y Coach's restaurant corner lot 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 39 41205047 2120 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.33 15 Y Firestone Complete Auto Care Tire Shop corner lot 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 49 40407033 320 VIRGINIA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3910 20 2.17 43 Y San Jose Water Company Parcel 2 No Yes 1 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 51 30739037 700 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403 60 3.90 234 Y Three story retail/office building (American Barbell Club)2 No No 4 No 1 1 0 0 1 3 56 27935002 262 - 282 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0238 60 3.58 215 Y Single story commercial center 4 No No 1 No 1 1 0 0 1 3 93.1 41209040 136 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.28 21 Y Vacant lot 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 1 1 0 1 3 93.2 41209041 130 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.29 21 Y K.C Customs, Inc. construction company and others 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 94.1 41209042 100 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.28 21 Y Single story residentail? commetcial at the back 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 94.2 41209043 90 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.21 16 Y Single Family home or office 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 95 41209044 80 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3013 75 0.36 27 Y 1-Story Light Industrial (Pacific systems)6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 1 1 3 97 41209058 140 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.21 16 Y Commercial use 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 100.1 41210042 2029 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203 60 0.73 44 Y Shell Gas Station 2 No Yes 2 No 1 1 1 1 0 4 100.2 41210062 980 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2303 60 0.91 55 Y The Original Hick'ry pit 2 No Yes 2 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 100.3 41210063 2045 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203 60 0.76 45 Y Montebello Road Vintage Oddities retail store.2 No Yes 2 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 116 28224011 1475 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0624 60 3.54 213 Y Creekside Business Center 6 Yes No 2 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 119 41204014 2260 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424 45 0.51 23 Y Car wash, corner of Winchester and Kennedy 6 Yes No 1 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 121 30536013 2375 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 0.50 38 1.57 Retail Stripmall (Goodwill, Bank of the West) 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 135 28225001 971 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614 75 1.14 86 Y Confidance Landscaping 6 Yes No 3 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 136 28225002 877 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614 75 1.20 90 Y Advanced Home improvements 6 Yes No 3 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 139 27938087 45 3RD ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 45 0.20 9 0.64 Stacks Campbell corner lot 6 Yes No 3 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 141 28802011 1661 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 60 0.56 33 y BTM motors and pet care 6 Yes Yes 2 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 143.2 28802018 1657 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 60 0.35 21 Y Reed Animal Hospital 6 Yes Yes 2 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 145 28802030 1777 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0635 60 1.34 80 Y Retail strip mall, Metro PCS, Erik's Deli café, the Garrett 6 Yes Yes 2 No 1 1 1 0 0 3 146 28803015 1825 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2309 60 0.64 38 Y Sherwin-William Paints 6 Yes Yes 2 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 152 28808073 2060 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3207 45 1.11 50 Y Denny's Corner lot 2 No Yes 2 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 155 28809096 1970 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2307 45 0.50 23 Y Philz Coffee 2 No Yes 2 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 159 27930051 499 E HAMILTON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0208 75 1.23 92 Y Vacant site (Elephant Bar site)6 Yes No 3 No 1 1 1 1 1 5 162 30517017 251 LLEWELLYN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1940 20 5.54 111 Y Uplift Family Services (non-profit)2 No No 4 No 1 1 0 1 1 4 164 30521003 60 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505 60 1.21 73 Y Wells Fargo Bank 2 No No 3 No 1 1 0 0 1 3 165 30521012 1769 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107 60 1.50 90 2.76 The Home Church / Strip mall w. large parking lot 2 No No 3 No 1 1 0 1 1 4 167 30521022 1763 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107 60 1.50 90 3.49 The Home Church / Strip mall w. large parking lot 2 No No 3 No 1 1 0 1 1 4 168 41202003 2400 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 1.50 113 1.60 Winchester Light Rail Station 6 Yes No 1 No 1 1 1 1 1 5 170 27931006 525 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0211 45 1.49 67 5.59 Kohls (rear parking lot)6 Yes No 3 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 179 30533017 54 W RINCON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2808 20 0.18 4 y "54 Rincon" site 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 181 27932006 535 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1400 45 0.79 36 Y Single story retail (Contract flooring)6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 188 30534006 2325 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4058 45 0.54 24 Y strip mall, corner lot (El Greco Grill restaurant, retail, 7-11)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 190.1 30536004 2507 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-5311 75 1.56 117 1.56 Single story retail (small theatre, salon, laundromat)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 190.2 30536005 2523 S WINCHESTER BL, #A-#G CAMPBELL, CA 95008-5337 75 0.70 52 Y Single story retail (salon, ATM, beauty supplies)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 190.3 30539050 2565 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 1.73 129 Y Single story retail (Campbell motors, auto shops)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 191 30536008 2415 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4801 75 1.00 75 3.27 Retail Stripmall (Dollar Tree, Luigi's Pizza and Pasta) 6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 4 192 30536011 2345 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 0.31 23 Y Corner single storey retail (liquor store, smoke shop)6 Yes No 1 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 197 30739030 750 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403 60 0.70 42 Y US Bank 2 No No 4 No 1 0 0 1 1 3 202.1 27932010 600 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0233 75 3.87 290 Y Former Fry's site 6 Yes No 4 No 1 1 1 1 0 4 202.2 27932012 600 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0233 75 3.41 256 Y Former Fry's site 6 Yes No 5 No 1 1 1 1 0 4 204 30740040 816 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404 60 1.04 62 Y Single story retail (Oakmont Produce)2 No No 4 No 1 1 0 0 1 3 205 30740041 780 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404 60 0.91 55 Y Single story retail (Oakmont Produce)2 No No 4 No 1 1 0 0 1 3 207 30750083 100 N SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1620 60 1.60 96 9.22 Dollar Tree Shopping Center 2 No No 5 No 1 1 0 0 1 3 209 40310070 1440 ELAM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 20 2.15 43 Y Vacant Lot on Elam west of Smith Creek 2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 Att C - Housing Opportunity Site Data Tier 1 Sites Site No APN Address Max. Density Acres Units Use All of Site? (total site ac) Common name AFFH Score 1/2 mi. from LR Highest Opportu nity Area (TCAC) Map sheet number Reuse >0.5 ac Yield 50+ Units Good Location Property Owner Interest Not Displacing Sales Tax Top 100 Total Number 212.1 27933007 479 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1413 45 0.94 42 Y Light industrial/Retail (Quality First Home improvement)6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 212.2 27933008 423 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1413 45 0.77 35 Y Screen Solutions + Fastenal store 6 Yes No 3 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 218.1 40606009 1200 SMITH AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4558 20 0.12 2 Y Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 218.2 40606093 900 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422 20 0.12 2 Y Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 218.3 40606007 920 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422 20 0.25 5 Y Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 219 28802007 1627 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 60 0.23 14 Y Sherry Hand Yoga 6 Yes Yes 2 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 220 28802009 1645 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0630 60 0.35 21 Y Retail strip (Ethnic foods and personal service) 6 Yes Yes 2 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 221 28802008 1639 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 60 0.32 19 Y Retail strip (Ethnic foods and personal service) 6 Yes Yes 1 Yes 1 0 1 0 1 3 269 40401004 1380 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1615 45 0.46 21 Y Round Table Pizza 2 No Yes 5 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 270 40401036 1400 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2652 45 0.59 27 Y L&L Hawaiian BBQ 2 No Yes 5 No 1 0 1 0 1 3 272 40606006 930 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-442220 0.26 5 Y SFR south of Milk Farm Dairy 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 273 27937007 1750 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1108 60 0.27 16 Y Orale Baja Mex 2 No No 3 No 1 0 0 1 1 3 274 27937008 1740 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1108 60 0.21 13 Y BackAYard Caribbean Grill 2 No No 3 No 1 0 0 1 1 3 275 27937009 1708 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1108 60 0.14 8 Y Russian Café & Deli 2 No No 3 No 1 0 0 1 1 3 276 28808053 2050 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3270 45 0.34 15 Y 1-story service (cleaners - Haze)2 No Yes 2 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 277 28808079 2020 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3269 45 0.33 15 Y 1-Story health office 2 No Yes 2 No 0 0 1 1 1 3 278 41210044 2075 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203 60 0.21 13 Y Brady's Drum Studio 2 No Yes 2 No 1 0 1 1 1 4 279 41210045 2089 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203 60 0.72 43 Y 1 story commercial center 2 No Yes 2 No 1 0 1 1 1 4 282 41204017 32 SUNNYSIDE AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4117 45 0.10 5 Y Parking Lot for Coach's (Site 36)6 Yes No No 0 0 0 0 1 3 4,781 1 3 41207019 S 1ST ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0029 75 1.34 100 Y First Street Garage 6 Yes No 1 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 132 41208072 290 DILLON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 2.76 207 y Corp Yard 6 Yes No 1 No 1 1 1 0 1 4 214.1 41229011 675 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 30 4.98 150 Y Campbell Technology Park (Dasher)4 Yes Yes 1 No 1 1 1 1 0 4 214.2 41229010 695 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 30 3.74 112 Y Campbell Technology Park 4 Yes Yes 1 No 1 1 1 1 1 5 214.3 41229015 635 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 30 3.75 113 Y Campbell Technology Park 4 Yes Yes 1 No 1 1 1 1 1 5 214.4 41229012 655 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 30 4.90 147 Y Campbell Technology Park 4 Yes Yes 1 No 1 1 1 1 1 5 829 1 Att C - Housing Opportunity Site Data Tier 1 Sites Site No APN Address Max. Density Acres Units Use All of Site? (total site ac) Common name AFFH Score 1/2 mi. from LR Highest Opportunit y Area (TCAC) Map sheet number Reuse >0.5 ac Yield 50+ Units Good Location Property Owner Interest Not Displacing Sales Tax Top 100 Total Number 13 27933040 570 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0210 75 0.59 44 Y Shell Station at Hamilton/Salmar 6 Yes No 1 No 1 0 1 0 0 2 14.2 40622063 3245 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 30 0.23 7 Y Unoccuppied building)2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 15 40622057 3275 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 30 0.60 18 Y Automobile repair and Used car sales 2 No Yes 6 No 1 0 1 0 0 2 16 40622062 3265 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 30 0.22 7 Y Veterinary hospital 2 No Yes 6 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 50 40407032 No Address Number VIRGINIA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-270220 0.30 6 Y Vacant parcel south of San Jose Water Company parcel 2 No Yes 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 87 28225003 871 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614 75 0.24 18 Y Classic Car Wash Corporate office 6 Yes No 3 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 153 28809017 1980 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2307 45 0.47 21 Y US Bank corner lot 2 No Yes 2 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 20 27946050 565 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2103 45 0.13 6 Y Rage Salon 6 Yes No 3 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 34 41204015 2250 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424 45 0.26 12 Y California Wheels autostore, retail 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 37 41205033 2006 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3400 45 0.36 16 Y dry cleaners, subway, psycho donuts corner retail 6 Yes No 3 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 40 41205048 2110 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.19 9 0.34 VCA Winchester Animal Hospital 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 41 41205049 2100 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.16 7 Y Slabsides (Motorcycle retail store)6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 42 41205050 2096 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.09 4 Y Crossfit Standard Strength Gym. 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 43 41205051 2092 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.05 2 Y vacant lot used as parking 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 44 41205052 2082 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.06 3 Y Copy Co. Retail 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 45 41205053 2066 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 45 0.20 9 Y Euro Garage (Automobile services) corner lot 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 47 41205070 38 E RINCON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2917 45 0.27 12 Y single story retail (Rincon automative)6 Yes No 4 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 48 41205071 2140 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3422 45 0.28 13 Y Rotton Robbie gas station retail 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 62 41208047 176 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.40 30 Y Pacific Helix Distributing concrete Contractor 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 63 41208048 150 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 75 0.48 36 Y Strong Bodies fitness, gymnasium 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 89 41209032 57 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 75 0.10 7 Y Single family home 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 90 41209033 63 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 75 0.19 14 Y Single family home 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 91 41209034 71 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 75 0.29 22 Y 1-story light industrial 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 92.1 41209035 85 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 75 0.18 14 Y Two story warehouse 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 92.2 41209036 101 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 75 0.19 14 Y Single story warehouse Commercial 6 Yes No 1 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 130 41205032 2026 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3420 45 0.37 17 Y Blue Sky restaurant 6 Yes No 3 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 142 28802012 1667 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 60 0.33 20 Y Pacific Hand car wash 6 Yes Yes 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 154.1 28809056 1960 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2306 45 0.28 13 Y Taco Bravo restaurant 4 No Yes 2 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 154.2 28809057 1940 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2306 45 0.36 16 Y Weinerschnitzel restaurant 6 Yes Yes 2 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 174 30531051 2053 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419 45 0.17 8 Y strip center (hair salon, printing)6 Yes No 3 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 175 30531053 2065 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419 45 0.19 8 Y Salon (Retail)6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 176 30531069 2015 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419 45 0.53 24 Y ARCO gas station + Campbell Corner Store 6 Yes No 3 No 1 0 1 0 0 2 180 30533024 20 MISSION WY, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2817 45 0.34 15 y SFH residence 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 182 30533025 2175 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3425 45 0.47 21 Y Corner retail (CZ Glass / restaurant / barber/salon)6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 183 30533061 2195 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3428 45 0.22 10 Y Camelot / Viking Appliance Repair service (corner lot ) 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 184 30533081 2235 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3436 45 0.40 18 Y Retail strip mall (barber, cobbler, drapery, cleaners)6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 185 30533098 2205 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3428 45 0.23 10 Y Rxclusive high road to health (temporarily closed)6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 186 30534001 2245 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3436 45 0.37 17 Y Dairy Queen restaurant, corner lot 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 187 30534002 2265 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3426 45 0.27 12 Y Haley Pastry, retail shop 6 Yes No 1 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 196 30739028 770 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403 60 0.69 42 Y Social Security Administration 2 No No 4 No 1 0 0 0 1 2 200 30740037 450 MARATHON DR, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0918 60 0.77 46 Y single story medical offices (chiropractor, Sarah's care)2 No No 4 No 1 0 0 0 1 2 201 30740038 890 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0457 60 0.53 32 Y City Pizza, Subway Sandwiches, Smoke Shope, etc 2 No No 4 No 1 0 0 0 1 2 203 30740039 850 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404 60 1.92 115 Y Petsmart 2 No No 5 No 1 1 0 0 0 2 238 41209001 116 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.19 14 Y Roadsport (Car Dealer)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 239 41209002 90 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.19 14 Y 1 Story light industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 240 41209003 86 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.21 16 Y Academy of Fencing Masters 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 241 41209004 70 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.09 7 Y 1-story residence with parking in rear 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 242 41209005 64 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.18 14 Y Auto repair and single family 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 243 41209006 48 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.09 7 Y Vacant site 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 244 41209007 40 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.10 8 Y Parking for Float Station (?)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 245 41209008 36 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.10 8 Y Float Station (Health Spa)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 246 41209009 20 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007 75 0.19 14 Y Roadsport (Car Dealer)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 247 41209028 24 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.30 23 Y Vacant lot 6 Yes No 2 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 248 41209025 74 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.20 15 Y 1-story light industrial (Auto shop/parking?)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 249 41209013 35 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.10 8 Y 1-story professional service 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 250 41209020 139 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.25 19 Y Collection of retail and office 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 251 41209027 34 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.22 17 Y Single family residence 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 254 41209016 89 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.22 17 Y Digistor (1-story light industrial)6 Yes No 2?Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 255 41209014 61 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.31 23 Y Kirk's Mini Storage 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 256 41209019 131 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.15 11 Y 1-story light industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 257 41209057 457 SAM CAVA LN, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 75 0.14 11 Y Plants by POST 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 258 41209023 126 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.39 29 Y 1-storyLight Industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 259 41209024 88 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.21 16 Y Bay Mountain Air (1-story light industrial)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 260 41209022 132 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.14 11 Y 1-story light industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 261 41209017 103 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.10 8 Y 1-story light industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 262 41209026 60 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002 75 0.20 15 Y 1-story light industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 263 41209018 111 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.21 16 Y Performance Technologies (1-story light industrial)6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 266 41209015 75 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001 75 0.19 14 Y 1-Story Light Industrial 6 Yes No 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 271 40401035 1470 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1615 45 0.49 22 Y Unoccuppied building (1-story Bank - for sale)2 No Yes 5 No 0 0 1 0 1 2 280 30521001 100 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505 60 0.65 39 Y California Food Mart 2 No No 3 No 1 0 0 0 1 2 281 30521002 70 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505 60 0.61 37 Y PNC Bank 2 No No 3 No 1 0 0 0 1 2 144 28802029 980 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0615 60 0.41 25 Y America's Tire 6 Yes Yes 2 Yes 0 0 1 0 0 1 268 40401002 1450 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1615 45 0.32 14 Y Jack in the Box 2 No Yes 5 No 0 0 1 0 0 1 Attachment C Tier 2 Sites UV85 UV 17 UV17 UV85 Doyle Rd Foxworthy AveBascomAveEden AveW e s tmont Ave Stokes St Latimer Ave Knowles Dr Camden Ave Hacienda Ave DryCree k RdDarryl DrBudd Ave Central AveRo s s Av e P o t r e r o D r Woodard RdSaratogaAve3Rd StVallejo DrBucknall Rd M c GlinceyL n Rincon Ave Hurst AveGrimsby Dr H a r r is A v e Del l AveC u r tn e r A v e Capri DrAlmarida DrC entr a l P a rkD r WhiteOaks Av ePhelps AveMidwayStUni on AveVirginia AveDelMarAveNewJerseyAveBoynton AveWeston Dr1St StRobinLn Vanderbilt Dr White Oaks RdSanTo masAquinoRdSobratoDrTheresa AveHarrisonAveNorth la w nDrEl wood DrEnsenadaD rTopaz AveL i nda Dr LantzAveErinWayD allas DrSa lmarAvePazEmory AveSunnyoaks Ave Southwest ExpyQuito RdS A R A T O G ASARATOGA L O S G A T O SLOS G A T O S S A N J O S ESAN J O S E S A N J O S ESAN J O S E CITY OF CAMPBELLGENERAL PLAN UPDATE Preferred Land Use Map Legend Low Density Residential <3.5 Low Density Residential <4.5 Low Density Residential <6 Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mobile Home Park Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Central Commercial Professional Office Light Industrial Research and Development Commercial/Light Industrial Office/Low-Medium Density Residential Residential/Commercial/Professional Office Institutional Open Space Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay City of Campbell Surrounding Cities Unincorporated Santa Clara County January 14, 2020 LosGatosCreekSanTom asAquinasC reekLosGatosC r e e kLosGatosCreekHamilton Avenue Corridor These two areas changed from GeneralCommercial to Residential/Commercial/Professional Office. Camden and Winchester Blvd. Corridors These areas changed from GeneralCommercial to Neighborhood Commercial. South of Campbell Avenue This area changed from Commercial/High-MediumDensity Residential to Residential/ Commercial/Professional Office (RCPO). The Commercial/High-Medium Density Residential designation hasbeen eliminated due to its similarity and redundancywith the RCPO designation. Bascom Avenue Corridor - West This area changed from General Commercialto Residential/Commercial/Professional Office. Bascom Avenue Corridor - East This area changed fromGeneral Commercial toNeighborhood Commercial. ³0 1,000500 Feet 1:24,000 Sources: City of Campbell; Santa ClaraCounty. Map date: January 14, 2020. Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay This area has been identified for a future specificplan to allow for mixed-use, high density residentialdevelopment. The specific plan would addressconnectivity and access to the VTA station east ofSR 17, address infrastructure financing strategiesand requirements, design and land use, etc. 32 188 94.2 190.2 121 191 190.1 22 30 5 28 94.193.2 97 192 190.3 93.1 95 244 240 248241 242 249 20 91 89 250 239 251243 92.2254 255 90 92.1 256 246245 62 257 258259 260 261 63 262 238 263 266 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element 5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 1 of 6 Central Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 12.2 94.2 19 212.1 219 220 21 221 212.2 181 22 2528 94.193.29793.1 33 95 143.2141 244 142 240 248241 242 249 20 91 89 250 239 251243 92.2 254 255 90 92.1 256 246 144 245 62257 258259 260 261 63 262 238263 266 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element 5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse 0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile Sheet 2 of 6 East Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 12.2 19 212.1 21 212.2 181 22 252833 244249 20 91 8925124325590246245266 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element 5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 3 of 6 North Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element 5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse 0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile Sheet 4 of 6 Northwest Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element 5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse 0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile Sheet 5 of 6 West Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element 5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse 0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile Sheet 6 of 6 South Campbell Tier 1 Sites Tier 2 Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 1 Stephen Rose From:allen ishibashi Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:15 AM To:Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Subject:11/9/21 Housing Study Session Rob and Stephen, It took a while, but I got through all the material for tonight's study session and I wanted to let you both know that I think you did an excellent job on the staff report, and associated materials. I really like Option #3 and I think it makes the most economic sense (so units are actually developed). Of particular interest is the letter from the Campbell Technology Park, and how they have struggled financially (will soon be at 30% occupancy). I see that this letter just came in on November 4th but I am curious if you intend to add this site to the Housing Site Inventory maps? Although not perfect, this site does have a number of advantages as a housing site. Edith Morley Park is located directly across the street and because of my 5 years on the Parks Commission, I know this is the most underutilized park in all of Campbell. Thinking like a developer, the owner of this site could approach the adjacent mobile home park for a pedestrian access easement so that residents on this site could more easily access Union Avenue (but this is not necessary). Half the battle in developing new housing is a willing seller. The Pruneyard letter is also very good as this one of the best sites in the entire City for High Density housing (75 units/Ac). Thank you Allen From: To:Liz Gibbons; Paul Resnikoff; Anne Bybee; Susan M. Landry; Sergio Lopez Cc:Campbell City Managers Office; Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Subject:100% Affordable Housing Site in Campbell Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:40:25 AM Attachments:Site Map.pdf Mayor and Council Members, My name is Allen Ishibashi, I live in Campbell, and I attended the Study Session last night.Based on the study session, I understand that a 100% affordable housing development would be very helpful in meeting our next RHNA allocation and there appears to be strong Councilsupport for this. I believe that I have identified one of the best sites in Campbell for a 100% affordable housing development, and the City would have 100% control over its development(so it could actually happen). I want to give a little background on myself so that you understand that my opinion is wellgrounded. I started my career as a commercial real estate appraiser, then I worked for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency for 5 years (buying and selling development sites), and I haveworked for the Midpeninsula Open Space District for the last 10 years as their Sr. Real Estate Agent (I bought an industrial building in Campbell, a 40,000 SF office building in Los Altos,and I am selling our old headquarters in Los Altos to the County of Santa Clara for a 100% affordable development). I also have a master’s degree in public administration (mastersproject was on affordable housing), a California Real Estate Broker’s license, and I hold the Senior Right of Way Agent designation from the IRWA. The site that I believe would be most successful in the development of a 100% affordable housing development is the City’s 1st Street Parking Garage Property (APN: 412-07-019). Amap is attached. This site is approximately 1.34-acres and an affordable housing development could be developed above the existing garage (the existing garage and new housing would bestructurally independent). This garage is under utilized but it could be maintained and operated in essentially the same fashion as it is now. The beauty of real estate is you can be as creativeas you want to be to solve big problems. Please find a list pros and cons below: Pros: 1. The City could structure a deal where it sells the property to the County and keeps the public parking. One way this could occur is a condo map could be placed over theparking garage (Redevelopment did a deal like this in San Jose). 2. County has $800 million for the development of 100% affordable rental propertiesunder measure A and they are hungry for sites (you have leverage). 3. The new residents could also use the parking garage thus resolving one of themajor issues with 100% affordable developments (under-parked). 4. Depending on the structure of the deal, the City could make $6-$10 million on thesale. 5. The location could not be better, as it is adjacent to the light rail station and in avery walkable area. 6. The location would allow a very dense development and it would shadow to thenorth on an existing higher density development not the single-family houses. 7. The City could reserve residential units in the new building for City Staff (I didthis on the Los Altos deal I am doing with the County). 8. Property taxes would not be impacted as the site is already exempt. Cons: 1. Requires creative thinking and creative deal making. This is who I did the affordable housing deal in Los Altos with: Consuelo Hernandez, AICP Director, Office of Supportive Housing (408) 510-8595 consuelo.hernandez@hhs.sccgov.org If interested, I am willing to volunteer any time required to discuss this proposal and to help inany way that I can. Thank youAllen Ishibashi 1 Stephen Rose From:Bill Baron <bill@bsm-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:01 AM To:Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Cc:Bill Baron Subject:Campbell Housing--State of California Mandate Dear Mr. Eastwood & Mr. Rose: Once again, I very much appreciate the efforts being made by way of community outreach by both of you and the greater City of Campbell. I enjoyed participating in last night’s Community Meeting #2 regarding the future of housing in the City of Campbell. For years, our region—including the City of Campbell—has been and remains in a “housing crisis”. So much so that I’m not sure if our collective historic actions own up to the phrase “crisis”—or at least what it used to mean. Housing supply has been and remains far outpaced by demand/job growth. New housing production— of all types—is well below what has been otherwise identified as the target. The reasons for this are many. New statewide laws have recently been enacted that, in effect, demand action by local jurisdictions or else the state will force it. Ergo, a “state mandate”. According to the Regional Housing Needs Analysis (“RHNA”) as codified by the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”), the City of Campbell needs to smartly facilitate/deliver—not fantasize about— somewhere between 3,000 and 3,900 (30% increase recommended by city staff/consultants) housing units between 2023 and 2031—or else the State of California will do so for the City. By far better for the City of Campbell to navigate its own destiny as you are attempting to do. A few additional thoughts to those offered by me last night: 1. The City should consider a dramatic increase in its FAR to smartly marry/merge the City of Campbell’s 75’ Height Limit in logical areas along transit/traffic corridors (outside of the core downtown Campbell area) so as to maximize density while minimizing impacts to established Campbell neighborhoods. FAR should dramatically increase to 5:1 or 6:1 in lieu of considerably lower FAR’s. 2. The City should consider designation of sites/lands to be intensified within its current GP update and codify same with a certified EIR, and follow through with zoning or appropriate zoning overlay—Said differently, the City must set the table for development to occur and avoid/repel the notion/need for “specific plans” requiring additional studies/details/environmental review at a later time complicating delivery of housing objectives. To leave entitlement risk on the table does not smartly or timely facilitate delivery of housing units, rather injects real and unnecessary challenges. Let’s do—not dream. 3. The City should consider, in specifically identified areas where change or intensification of land use is appropriate, “up to” densities as identified below in lieu of more paltry densification ranges. The City of Campbell will never meet the state mandate at 20, 40 or 60 du/ac. See below for further thoughts: 2 Four or Five Story Over Podium Garage This four or five story building places residences on top of a garage podium. It efficiently uses the site up to the maximum height for “wood” construction. In most cases, it fits between 90 and 115 units per acre. 4 stories (Type VA) or 5 stories (Type IIIA) wood construction over garage podium and/or below grade garage Podium is directly beneath housing Allows for maximum density while still in wood construction Mid‐Rise Housing Mid‐Rise housing is a great option for very urban or transit sites and features seven to eight stories above a parking podium and/or below grade parking. In most cases this scenario achieves around 116 to 150 units per acre. Typically limited to 7 or 8 stories (Type I or III) metal or concrete construction below the High‐Rise code of 75ft (maximum floor level) Multilevel podium parking structure is directly beneath housing Allows for very efficient utilization of smaller sites The approach above, likely, include the primary criteria such that the City of Campbell can/will reach its state housing mandate objective between 2023‐2031. City leaders know well how they have fared in delivery of RHNA numbers through 2021—and the prospects for finalizing through 2023. Delivery of units remains well below the 933 units called for in the current RHNA. Times have changed. Indeed changed. The “housing crisis” must be met head on with truth, transparency joined with a will and determination to succeed. The alternative provided by state law is not a welcomed alternative. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the process. Regards, Bill Baron _____________________________________________ William B. Baron MANAGING PARTNER Brandenburg Properties 1122 Willow Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95125 408‐282‐4101 Direct 408‐279‐3678 Fax 408‐921‐2995 Cell bill@bsm‐group.com www.brandenburg‐properties.com CA Dept of Real Estate Broker Lic 01885632 Brandenburg Properties encourages water conservation. To learn more, visit: https://www.valleywater.org/saving‐water/resources‐gear 1 Stephen Rose From:Dean J. Rubinson <Dean@EllisPartners.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:41 AM To:Rob Eastwood; Tara Woodend; Stephen Rose Subject:Pruneyard Residential Rob, Per our chat during the meeting last night, we would like to add the new 4th parcel of the Pruneyard (currently entitled for office) to the list of potential residential development sites as part of the Housing Element process. What specific information do you need from us at this time? I’d love to have a brief call w you and/or Stephen to discuss the process in more detail. Thanks Dean 1 Stephen Rose From:Joe Burman <joe@burmancabinets.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:30 PM To:Planning Division Subject:RE: Campbell's Plan for Housing Hi Stephen: I appreciate you letting me know about the ZOOM meeting that I watched on Monday 10/25. I am a ZOOM beginner, so I did not participate. But, this format reminds me of the meeting the City of Campbell held at the Community Center in 2018?? Being a Campbell Homeowner and Business property owner on South McGlincy Lane, I am very interested in the General Plan and as to how this will affect my properties. Campbell plans to build about 3,000 housing units in the next 9 years, as mandated by the State of California for all cities. One of the participants (Jada) brought up the question as to how do all these Cities and the State of California propose to meet the water and power needs of these thousands of new homes? As you know, these resources are already strained to the point of restriction and possible allocation, along with bad roads, congestion and failing infrastructure. I would think that these questions need to be answered before any large scale housing development can begin. Thank You, Joe Burman From: Stephen [mailto:planning@campbellca.gov] Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:54 PM To: joe@burmancabinets.com Subject: Campbell's Plan for Housing View this email in your browser Campbell's Plan for Housing Hotel Parcel Retail Parcel Office Parcel Housing Opportunity Site 1 Housing Opportunity Site 2 From: To:Planning Division Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: PLN-2021–12 Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:52:22 AM Commissioners, For decades, my husband’s grandparents lived on Second and Grant, and Grandpa Field owned and operated thegeneral store in downtown, on Campbell Ave. My father-in-law grew up in Campbell, graduated Campbell HighSchool and eventually started his own family in Campbell as well. My husband’s first home, straight from thehospital, was at Grant and First, in the house where the chiropractor currently resides. I understand the Governor has recently passed 31 housing laws, and the state attorney general has created a strikeforce to enforce these laws. And Campbell has been given a highly ambitious, state-mandated allocation of 3,000housing units for 2023-2031, not including the buffer. Higher density housing must be planned for, and I am insupport of this. But I am writing to respectfully ask that you preserve Campbell’s charm, particularly in the lower densityneighborhoods and embrace a transit-oriented development approach as you make your final decisions on densityand location for the 3,000 housing units. Most cities on the Peninsula, the East Bay and even the 680 corridor in Dublin and Contra Costa County havealready made big strides in high density housing mixed with retail, office space, and public uses centered around ornear Cal Train and/or Bart. Now, some South Bay cities also have a number of transit-oriented projects in the works. A few examples include: 1. Milpitas’ Metro Specific Plan of 437 mostly industrial acres which calls for the development of 7,100 dwellingunits, office space, retail, and hotel rooms within walking distance to VTA and Bart, and the Great Mall. 2. Sunnyvale’s Lawrence Station Plan, which is moving closer to allowing 3,600 additional homes around CalTrain. Another 2,323 units were previously approved for this project. 3. San Jose’s 80 acre Google transit oriented development next to the Diridon Station called Downtown West,which is looking to build 4,000 homes with a mix of retail, public parks, and enough office space for 20,000 people. All are within walking distance to Cal Train, VTA, or future Bart. Campbell’s three VTA stations and nearby areas would provide much opportunity for transit oriented development. Again, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to preserve the character of Campbell, and plan for transitoriented developments just as other Bay Area cities have done - with higher density housing near the rail stations. Thank you, Carolyn Field 1 Stephen Rose From:Susan OBrien Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:31 AM To:Planning Division Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - STUDY SESSION 2 (PLN-2021-12) 11-09-2021 Hello Chair Ostrowski, Vice Chair Ching, and Planning Commissioners, My name is Susan O’Brien and I am a contract worker for the city, but I am writing these comments as a proud 26-year Campbell resident. City Planning Division staff should be commended for the excellent Staff Report explaining the various requirements and methodologies to achieve compliance with the State mandated housing allocation. The detailed report clearly identifies the various housing opportunity sites within our beautiful City and offers various options for compliance. As Planning Commissioners, determining where and at what intensity housing should be developed within our City may be one of the most important decisions of your tenure as Planning Commissioners. I recommend the Planning Commission support a combination of the following mapping strategies to be used as the preferred methodology for determining the housing opportunity sites most suitable to achieve compliance: Option #3 – Density Near Transit – I support this option because higher density housing options located near the existing Light Rail stations should reduce vehicular traffic within the City. With the development of the Google Village in San Jose over the next several years, location of high density development near our existing Light Rail stations will provide additional convenient and desirable housing options for the employees of the Google Village and other downtown businesses. Option #4 – Revitalize Shopping Centers – I support this option because this seems like a logical placement for mixed-use development. Providing housing over restaurants and retail shops at locations which have existing shopping centers will retain the retail tax base as well as provide the required housing and the convenience of shopping and dining on-site for the residents. It will also encourage redevelopment of older shopping centers to provide more current architecture trends and Building Code updates that will result in safer, more accessible buildings. Shared parking agreements between non-concurrent uses may also be an option to reduce required parking for such developments in order to maximize the floor areas of the retail, dining, and number of dwelling units available within the residential portions of the buildings. Option #5 – Housing Along Commercial Corridors – I support this option because of the convenience to amenities such as shopping and existing public transit. Increased densities for housing along commercial corridors could provide for mixed-use development opportunities as well as stand-alone multi-story residential structures. Potential Adjustment Factor: Medium-High Density – I support this adjustment factor to be considered in tandem with the Options #3, #4, # 5 that would allow for certain sites within the City to be developed at lower residential intensity. This would achieve the required housing allocation numbers yet still maintain the diverse housing options in areas that do not fit the criteria of Options #3, #4, and #5. 2 As the Planning Commission, the recommendations you will make to the City Council tonight will help set the tone for future development trends of our City. Let’s grow our city in a responsible way and maintain the charm and character that makes us unique. Thank you for your service. Susan & Mike O’Brien Campbell Technology Park LLC 1960 The Alameda #150 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 260-1520 November 16, 2021 City of Campbell - City Council 70 N 1st Street Campbell CA 95008 Dear Mayor Gibbons and Honorary Members of the City Council, On behalf of CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PK LLC, we request that the Campbell Technology Park (635, 655, 675 and 695 Campbell Technology Parkway) be considered for a Housing Opportunity Site as part of the Housing Element update. During our ownership the park has only been fully occupied once and that was only for a few months. Historically we have operated somewhere between 70-75% occupancy and are currently at 67%. We have been notified by a tenant that they do not intend to renew their lease which will take us down to 64% early next year. Additionally, we have leases expiring in 2022 that if not renewed will take us to 30% occupancy. Compared to other office parks in Silicon Valley the property does not have a competitive/compelling offering. We have believed for some time that a higher and better use would be on the horizon for the property and now is the perfect time to re-envision the site for residential uses. We feel the scale of our site (17 acres) could offer the potential for multiple product types and densities, proximity to an existing park and a willingness to participate now in proceeding with an application. We look forward to submitting a formal application for housing upon being listed on the City’s Housing Opportunity Site Inventory Map and General Plan Land Use Plan. Sincerely, Tim Pasquinelli F&F CAMPBELL, LLC 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard San Diego, California 92126 (858) 271-4682 FAX (858) 271-4682 November 17, 2021 City of Campbell City Council 70 N 1st Street Campbell CA 95008 Dear Mayor Gibbons and City Councilmembers: On behalf of F&F Campbell LLC, I appreciate Staff’s consideration of 600 E. Hamilton Ave. (formerly Fry’s Electronics) as a potential Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element update. We strongly support guidance of Transit-Oriented Development density at 85 du/ac or higher. The scale of our subject site, and proximity to transit, offer a unique opportunity to provide a substantial amount of much needed housing at an underutilized property – while helping the City meet RHNA goals. Since the vacation of Fry’s Electronics, we have evaluated numerous iterations of schematic housing plans as well as plans for other uses. We look forward to working with the City to further develop our design documents at the conclusion of the Housing Element update if appropriate uses and densities are adopted. Lastly, I am encouraged to see that the Commission recommended that additional meetings with housing developers be conducted to test assumptions about development feasibility. We are happy to participate in this dialogue going forward. Sincerely, Brett Feuerstein Brett Feuerstein Managing Member F&F Campbell, LLC sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 3 SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES November 20, 2021 City of Campbell 70 North First St. Campbell, CA 95008 Mayor and City Council of Campbell Via: lizg@campbellca.gov; paulr@campbellca.gov; anneb@campbellca.gov; susanl@campbellca.gov; sergiol@campbellca.gov Planning Commission Via: Planning@campbellca.gov Economic Development Specialist, Michael Thomas Via: michaelt@campbellca.gov Cc: cityclerk@cityofcampbell.com (Please forward the attached Sierra Club letter to the Housing Element Project Manager) Subject: General Plan Revisions - Housing Element The Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Currently, all cities in California are required to update their current Housing Element to meet the new 2023 - 2031 RHNA requirements. This is an impactful process, and we offer the following comments and observations for your consideration. 1. Cities are contributing to an imbalance between jobs and housing that is unsustainable. We recognize the new RHNA goals are much higher than the previous RHNA goals and most cities are struggling to see how to meet these higher goals; however, as this process is unfolding, many cities are also simultaneously approving large office and R&D developments within their jurisdiction which will bring thousands of new jobs into the community without considering the impact of those jobs on the new RHNA goals and the city's existing jobs/housing balance. 2. Jobs/Housing Fit: Cities are not providing for a sustainable "jobs/housing fit" within their city. An unsustainable jobs/housing fit means that the majority of homes within the city are not affordable to the majority of employees who work in the city, and conversely, the jobs in the city do not pay enough to cover the cost of housing in the city. This causes difficulty in hiring and retaining employees, higher worker costs, more traffic congestion, more air pollution, less time with family, and less time participating in community recreational activities and events. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 3 3. Many cities are not coordinating plans for new commercial development with their Housing Element. Cities are not coordinating the expected number of new jobs with the expected number of new housing units that will be needed to house those new employees and the impact those new jobs will have on city-wide housing prices, housing availability, and income inequality. 4. RHNA numbers are not reflecting the anticipated housing need in relation to the real numbers of jobs that each city is approving. Despite large increases in the RHNA goals, the disconnect is so vast that, even if the city were to fully meet it's 2023-31 RHNA goals, it could still be far short of a sustainable jobs/housing balance. 5. Probability of development: “p(dev)" While “Probability of Development” for each lot is a required part of a Housing Element, many cities are not considering and documenting the probability [ "p(dev)”] that those lots can in-fact be developed. 6. Commercial development proposals should be required to specify anticipated number of jobs created. If commercial developers do not include an estimate of number of jobs expected in their proposed development, the city staff should a) Use a rule of thumb1 to estimate the number of jobs and the potential impact on the city's overall jobs / housing ratio. b) Add this to a running total of the cumulative number of jobs and housing in the city, using a consistently updated excel sheet or equivalent data record in order to track the balance. c) Evaluate what impact those jobs will have on the projections in the Housing Element. 7. Sea level rise and wildfires should be a consideration in the Housing Element. Sea Level Rise and wildfires have increasingly serious financial consequences for taxpayers. The new Housing Element should either not allow or discourage permanent housing in areas highly vulnerable to flooding, potential inundation from ground water rise, and wildfires. Below we note some ways to maintain a jobs / housing balance. a) Require developers of large commercial projects to actually provide the number of housing units needed either on-site or off-site to balance the jobs generated by their development. b) This can be in partnership with a for-profit or non-profit housing developer or be built by the commercial developer itself. c) Increase current commercial impact fees as they are not sufficient to meet this need. d) Require the needed housing to be built simultaneous with building the commercial development. e) Change some commercial zoning to residential zoning or mixed-use/housing. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 3 of 3 Summary • The 2023-31 RHNA goals do not reflect the real anticipated housing needs in many cities based on the real numbers of commercial development and jobs that each city has in its pipeline and is expected to approve during the new RHNA time frame. • The goal of the Housing Element needs to be aligned with the actual number of jobs in the development pipeline, not just the RHNA numbers. • The Housing Element should, in addition, include a “jobs/housing fit” goal, not just numerical jobs:housing balance. • If cities approve zoning changes that are not likely to produce any real new development, those revisions should not count toward the new RHNA goals. We recognize that this Housing Element is particularly challenging and are very appreciative of the effort that the city is putting into it. Therefore, we offer this only in the hope that this information may serve to be useful in your process. Respectfully Yours, Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Cc: Chair and Members of the Campbell Planning Commission Mayor and Members of the Campbell City Council James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 1 Rule of Thumb: Per our research, a good rule of thumb is a new office building will generate about one job per every 150 square feet of floor space and a new R&D or Biotech campus will generate about one job per 300 to 400 square feet of floor space. These jobs will in turn require a jobs/housing ratio of 1.5 jobs per housing unit or less to maintain a sustainable jobs / housing balance. Note: Calculating the jobs/housing ratio based only on office and R&D square footage covers the housing needed for those new jobs, but does not factor in the multiplier effect where each new office and R&D worker, creates more jobs for the lower income service workers who support that new employee (e.g., grocery clerk, Amazon driver, restaurant worker, etc.). A method of calculating this multiplier effect should also be built into the Housing Element as each office project approved simultaneously creates demand for additional low income and affordable level housing. F&F CAMPBELL, LLC 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard San Diego, California 92126 (858) 271-4682 FAX (858) 271-4682 November 17, 2021 City of Campbell City Council 70 N 1st Street Campbell CA 95008 Dear Mayor Gibbons and City Councilmembers: On behalf of F&F Campbell LLC, I appreciate Staff’s consideration of 600 E. Hamilton Ave. (formerly Fry’s Electronics) as a potential Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element update. We strongly support guidance of Transit-Oriented Development density at 85 du/ac or higher. The scale of our subject site, and proximity to transit, offer a unique opportunity to provide a substantial amount of much needed housing at an underutilized property – while helping the City meet RHNA goals. Since the vacation of Fry’s Electronics, we have evaluated numerous iterations of schematic housing plans as well as plans for other uses. We look forward to working with the City to further develop our design documents at the conclusion of the Housing Element update if appropriate uses and densities are adopted. Lastly, I am encouraged to see that the Commission recommended that additional meetings with housing developers be conducted to test assumptions about development feasibility. We are happy to participate in this dialogue going forward. Sincerely, Brett Feuerstein Brett Feuerstein Managing Member F&F Campbell, LLC 1 Stephen Rose From:Mark Dunkle Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:38 PM To:Planning Division Subject:Re: Community Meeting Tomorrow! I attended the Workshop tonight. I would like to suggest that the various densities that are proposed in the density models) be translated into the average unit size, # of bedrooms & bath, and cost to rent. I would to see more evidence that the proposed densities are in fact affordable for the demographic that these plans propose to support. I think that a new model of 200 units per acre for singles and couples ought to be incorporated in the discussion for transit-oriented areas. Regards, Mark V Dunkle Campbell Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), President mdunkle@CampbellCERT.org Website: campbellcert.org Call sign: KJ6ZWL On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:59 AM Campbell Planning <planning@campbellca.gov> wrote: 2 View this email in your browser To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Campbell's Plan for Housing (Community Meeting Reminder - Wednesday, December 1, 2021) To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Please join us for a Community Meeting on Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Site Selection. This meeting will be held virtually on zoom by clicking the 'Attend Here' link below. This is a once-in-a-decade chance to shape the future of our community and help plan for how roughly 3,000 new required housing units will be built in Campbell. Community Meeting Wednesday, December 1st, 6:30 PM Attend Here Nuestra encuesta ahora ha sido traducida al español. Responda la encuesta haciendo clic en el siguiente enlace: Toma el cuestionario To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Take a Survey 3 Learn More View this email in your browser Copyright © 2021 City of Campbell, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: City of Campbell 70 N 1st St Campbell, CA 95008-1458 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. %atteoni (§OH'Leacuhgt'm'an IAWYERS December 2, 2021 Nt'irman E. Matteoni Peggya M. 0"Laugbli+i Bradley M. fIatteimi Barton G. Heclitma+i Hon. Mayor Liz Gibbons and Members of Campbell City Council Hon. Chair and Members of the Campbell Planning Commission Campbell City Hall 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Gerrv Houlilian Re: Draft Housing Opportunity Site Maps Dear Ms. Mayor, Chair and Members of the City Council & Planning Commission: Our office represents Lack Properties, a California general partnership. Lack Properties is the owner of 730- 750 Camden Avenue, Campbell (APN 412-01-020). The property is 65,340 square feet in size and is improved with two commercial/light industrial buildings of 25,572 square feet. The property is surrounded on its northern, eastern, and southern boundaries by a lumber yard operated by Economy Lumber Company. The buildings are well-maintained and almost fully occupied. The current tenants are Slaughterbeck Floors, Inc.; J.T. Masters, Inc.; Brett Hassett; Los Gatos Alarm; The Argonaut US, Inc.; Professional Cleaning Systems, Inc.; Cal's Garage Doors; C2 Earth Inc.; and Fish Builders. All of the tenants are small businesses, many of whom have operated in Campbell for decades. Cal Garage Doors has been at this location since 1994 and Slaughterbeck Floors since 2000. Recently it has come to my client's attention that the City of Campbell has identified its property as a potential opportunity site for housing in the 6'h Cycle Housing Element. It is our understanding that the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Map now being finalized will include the property at 730-750 Camden Avenue and that this map will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at the City Council meeting of December 16, 2021. I am writing to request that 730-750 Camden Avenue be removed as a potential housing site from the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Map and that the City undertake no further actions to convert this property to a housing site. While my client and I certainly understand the City's need to [848 The AlamedaI San Jose, CA 95126t ph. 408.293.4300 7, [ 2 fax. 408.293.4004 ffl A www.matteoru.com Hon. Mayor Liz Gibbons and Members of Campbell City Council Hon. Chair & Members of the Campbell Planning Commission December 2, 2021 Page 2 identify additional housing sites, this property is not suitable for such designation; nor will its inclusion help the City to satisfy its housing allocation target for the 2023-2031 planning period as required by state law. First, the property is already fully developed and rented out to multiple commercial/light industrial tenants, whose leases have years to run and which in some cases include options to extend the lease terms beyond 2031. Therefore, the property would not be in a position to be redeveloped into housing until well after 2031. State law requires that the City's housing element include an inventory of land that has a realistic and demonstrated potential for development into housing during the eight-year planning period. See Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(3). Clearly this property does not satisfy that requirement. In addition, one of the City's acknowledged priorities in housing site selection is that the property be near services and amenities. According to the City of Campbell's screening methodology, this property does not have access to schools, meaning it is not within walking distance of a public school. Nor are there any accessible parks within walking distance. The closest park is on the other side of San Thomas Expressway, an impossible walk. And the next closest park, John D. Morgan, is more than a half mile from the property, which would be more than a ten-minute walk for parents and young children. As the City Council Report of November 17, 2021 acknowledged, "Lower income households offen lack access to personal vehicles or can only afford one that is most often used by the primary wage earner. This means that other household members would need to walk (or take transit)... to access parks and other recreational facilities." To build multi-unit low-income housing on this property would be to place low-income families in a neighborhood surrounded by concrete and without ready access to schools and parks. Moreover, because of the size of the property and its location, the property is limited in the number of housing units that can be built thereon. The lot is only 1.5 acres and is surrounded on three sides by a lumber yard, which is to remain an industrial use under the current proposed plan (except potentially for a small section along the south). Any residential project developed on my client's property would have to incorporate significant setbacks and screening along its shared boundaries with the lumber yard, especially along the northern boundary where the lumber yard has a building that sits just yards from the shared property line. This limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on this property. Thus, designating this property as residential will not help the City to achieve its housing goals or satisfy its State mandated obligations. Rather, the City should focus on larger sites which can more easily be redeveloped into housing. For example, the 1 7-acre Campbell Technology Parkway Hon. Mayor Liz Gibbons and Members of Campbell City Council Hon. Chair & Members of the Campbell Planning Commission December 2, 2021 Page 3 property which the owner is interested in redeveloping into a residential project. The owner of that property has advised the City that its current commercial use is underutilized and in danger of dipping to a 30% occupancy rate. The property is immediately adjacent to a park and could easily support a mixture of residential units. Also, the owner of the Pruneyard office parcel has requested that the City consider its multi-acre parcel as a potential housing opportunity site. The City is already including the Pruneyard retail property as a potential housing opportunity site; thus, it makes sense to also include the office parcel. The Campbell Technology Parkway property and the Pruneyard office parcel have a realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment into housing units in the next eight years. Thus, the City should include them as potential housing sites, not 730-750 Camden Ave which has no realistic chance of being redeveloped into housing before 2031. Finally, it is critical to the City's economic vitality that it maintain land use policies that allow the continued existence of commercial and light industrial uses such as those of the existing tenants of this property. The City should not take any steps to terminate the existing uses at this property. Slaughterbeck Floors, the tenant at 730 Camden Ave, was originally located elsewhere in Campbell but was forced to relocate to this site in 2000 due to the taking of its prior leasehold for the light rail project. It was extremely difficult for Slaughterbeck to find a suitable replacement property and it can only be assumed that a further relocation of this business as well as the relocation of the other existing tenants' businesses within the City of Campbell would be near impossible. In sum, 730-750 Camden Ave is not appropriate for a residential development and the City of Campbell should not designate this property as a potential opportunity site for housing, rezone the property to residential, or adopt any other land use policies that interfere with its current commercial/light industrial uses. Bradley Matteoni BMM: jlc Cc: Lack Properties Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Stephen Rose, Senior Planner 1 Stephen Rose From:Carolyn Field Sent:Sunday, December 5, 2021 1:36 PM To:Planning Division Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT / PLN-2021-12 Dear Planning Commissioners, After reviewing the agenda for the December 9, 2021 meeting, I have the following comments: 1. Community Center. Please protect the Community Center. 1.5 acres with a max of 90 housing units this cycle then becomes five+ acres in the next housing cycle. With all the added housing units planned for in Campbell, a community center is going to become especially vital. Additionally, housing on even 1.5 acres, would look odd and out of place on the site. The Community Center is the heart of the City and should be protected. 2. Campbell Technology Park. This site can be made less remote by adding both a pedestrian walkway over Highway 17, connecting to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, and a pedestrian walkway to Union Avenue adjacent to the mobile home park, providing easy access to the Pruneyard. Density should be increased beyond 30 units/acre and a variety of housing units planned: townhomes, and mixed use with multi-story housing over retail. 3. Gravel Lot next to Ainsley House. Please do not plan for housing here. This lot will be in hot demand for all the extra cars at the library, from all the extra planned housing units. Further, Ainsley house is a treasure that must be protected - not diminished by housing directly next door. 4. Adjust the Density Categories. Pink: 20-45 units/acre. No change. Purple (housing along commercial corridors): change from 60 to 45-60 units/acre. I am concerned about the purple sites identified on the map along Winchester, particularly directly next to side streets Sunnyside, Catalpa, and Cherry. Housing units built directly next to a residential neighborhood should be townhomes of no more than 45 units/acre, not 60 units. Residential neighborhoods should not have structures towering over them, eliminating privacy in backyards, etc. Blue (revitalize shopping centers): same as above, change from 60 to 45-60 units/acre. If directly next to a residential neighborhood, should be no more than 45 units/acre fir same reasons stated above. Gold (density near transit): 75 units/acre. No change. 5. Apply Potential Adjustment Factor. An adjustment factor that may be considered in tandem with Options 3, 4, or 5 would be designating any identified housing opportunity sites not located in areas considered in Options 3, 4 or 5 for medium density residential development (20-units per acre). This would allow for the identification of more housing opportunity sites spread throughout the city but allow certain sites to be developed at lower residential intensity, if they are not located in the TOD areas, shopping centers, and commercial corridors as described under Options 3, 4, and 5. 2 Please apply the Potential Adjustment Factor of 20 units/acre to all opportunity sites that fall into this category, where they are not located in the TOD areas, shopping centers, and commercial corridors. There is one site on the maps that did not receive this designation: #162 on Llewellyn (planned for max 30 units/acre) There are other housing sites in southwest Campbell that fall in to this category, and have been appropriately planned for at 20 units/acre. These sites are #7, #209, and #218. All sites in Campbell that fall into the Potential Adjustment factor category should be treated the same. Please adjust to 20 units/acre for #162, as was done for southwest Campbell. 6. Community Development Themes. Excellent ideas….I particularly like Theme #1 - one mile long promenade from Pruneyard to Community Center, with ground floor retail/commercial and residential above. I also like Theme #3 - TOD urban village around Winchester VTA. And I appreciate Theme #6, where opportunity sites are designed to fit into the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments. Respectfully, Carolyn Field From: To:Planning Division Subject:For Public Comment PLN-2021-12 Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:47:10 AM Dear Planning Commissioners, I support all identified housing sites (the more the better), and as the sites cangenerate about 4,000 units over our State mandated allocation we can be moreflexible by allowing a density range that includes a lower density level too. Allowingdevelopers greater flexibility to determine what density level is appropriate for aspecific site, is a powerful tool so they can develop what the market supports, and itassures that development applications will actually occur (as the Bay Area is planningfor over 440,000 units, developers will pick the most profitable sites). Sites in existinglow density residential neighborhoods that are served exclusively by narrowresidential streets should not have a density over 20 units an acre, as townhomesshould be developed at these sites (as per council direction on the “missing middle”called out in the staff report). Campbell and the Bay Area are losing families with kids at alarming rates (elementaryschools are closing) and if given the choice, families with kids will prefer single familyand townhome type developments and they are clearly willing to move out of thearea to find these (my wife and I know over 15 families that moved out of the areafor single family homes out of the Bay Area); therefore, we need the balance of bothhigh density near light rail/walkable neighborhoods and low density development inexisting car served neighborhoods. High density housing has a synergistic effect onwalkable, light rail served areas and the opposite effect on existing car served lowdensity neighborhoods. The City controls 50% of the pie when it comes to thedevelopment of housing, the other 50% is a willing seller and willing developer and ifwe don’t allow flexibility on the density levels, developers will seek more profitablesites in other cities. Almost all public comments at past Planning Commission, CityCouncil, Community Meetings and the survey support higher density developmentsnear light rail and near downtown and lower density development in the existing carserved residential neighborhoods. This makes sense from a basic urban planningperspective and it also supports lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Uplift Family Services Site at 251 Llywellen Avenue (site #162) is a good exampleof this, as it is located in a car served low density residential neighborhood and servedexclusively by narrow residential streets. This site currently has a willing seller, awilling developer (Pulte Homes), a reasonable density proposed (around 20 units anacre) that matches the neighborhood character (still 4-6 times more dense than thesurrounding neighborhood), and strong neighborhood support, so the PlanningCommission and City should support this townhome development as we need thistype of housing now. Finally, as a member of the City's Park and Recreation Commission, I strongly opposeany housing on the Community Center property. The Community Center is anincredible asset and it will be in even higher demand once these new housing unitsare constructed. The City's downtown properties are much more appropriate forredevelopment. Thank you for your considerationAllen Ishibashi (3rd generation Campbell resident) For Public Comment – Item #1 – December 9, 2021 Planning Commission Hello Chair Ostrowski, Vice Chair Ching, and Planning Commissioners, My name is Susan O’Brien and I am a contract worker for the city, but I am writing these comments as a proud 26-year Campbell resident. I want to thank you for your service and the time and effort you have taken to analyze the staff recommendations for the General Plan and Housing Element Update. I want to thank City staff and the consultants for their thorough analysis of housing opportunity sites and their careful consideration of the various housing densities identified for each site throughout the City. I generally agree with the staff analysis and assigned densities of the identified opportunity sites, but offer the following recommendations: • Please remove the Community Center (Site 150) from the list of opportunity sites. The Community Center is such a great resource to our residents and non-residents. As the housing mandate will increase the population of our City with densified housing and reduced open space, our Community Center and its open space will become an even more valuable asset to our residents. • Please consider housing opportunity sites at the Greylands office center (directly across the street from Campbell Park on Campbell Avenue). The portals under Highway 17 were constructed to facilitate pedestrian access from the Downtown to the Pruneyard. The Cresleigh development currently underway is the beginning of the revitalization of this stretch of Campbell Avenue. When I envision Campbell, I see Campbell Avenue between the downtown and the Pruneyard as the ideal location for mixed-use development and an extension of the historic downtown to the more contemporary Pruneyard. The light rail station and Campbell Park are conveniently located to serve the transportation and recreation needs of housing along this corridor. • Please consider the higher density limit (45 du/acre rather than the 30 du/acre currently assigned) as the minimum density for Site 214 (Campbell Technology Park). Although the development of this large site will require access and traffic mitigation measures, it is an ideal location for the “missing middle” housing types at a higher density than currently assigned. The Edith Morley City Park located directly across from this site will provide a convenient open space for residents of that site. Please accept the staff recommendations with consideration of the above requests. The City staff has managed to take the State housing mandates and allocate the various housing sites and densities throughout the City in a fair and equitable manner. With a small, but mighty staff, and a compressed timeframe – I express my gratitude to the City staff for doing their best to “Keep Campbell – Campbell”. Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays! Susan & Mike O’Brien From:Scott Connelly To:Rob Eastwood Cc:Stephen Rose Subject:Site 49 & 50 on Inventory List Date:Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:19:25 PM Hi Rob & Stephen, We own the old SJ Water site (site #49) on Virginia Ave. it is our intent to expeditiously work to develop this site. I think it’s really important for any density range that you end up with for “any site” in Campbell where attached townhomes are appropriate (we think our site is appropriate for attached townhomes), that the density range be realistic. There was a Commissioner tonight that stated “townhomes can be built between 20-30 du/ac”. It's our belief (and that of many other developers) that a standard range for attached townhomes is between 18-22 du/ac. One a site that is perfectly square and with some design help, a developer might be able to get to 24 du/ac. Otherwise, if you get higher than that density, you end up with extremely skinny, tandem parked-garage product and b/c of the skinniness of the unit, developers will often need a 4th story flat to make it pencil. We would respectfully ask that Staff consider the low end of the density range at 18 du/ac (we could make 20 du/ac work as well). Thank you kindly. Have a nice evening. Scott ConnellyValley Oak Partners, LLC734 The Alameda | San Jose, CA 95126T 408.640.0383 | F 408.282.9797scott@valleyoakpartners.com | http://www.valleyoakpartners.com This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use thistransmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is notintended to waive any applicable privileges. From:Scott Connelly To:Stephen Rose Subject:Site Inventory List Date:Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:11:12 PM Hi Stephen…I wanted to point out to you that sites 200, 201, 203, 204 & 205 on the Inventory list from tonight’s meeting…that is the PetSmart shopping Center at Daryl & Hamilton. That is a GREAT site and it’s blighted, but there are 5 separate owners in the center and the only way it could ever be developed is that if they all sold or came together with one vision. Because it’s a single retail center, it is likely there are CCR’s with reciprocal easements, etc…that would prevent only a portion of the site from being developed. If one buyer could buy the entire site, then that buyer could terminate the CCR’s, but that is unlikely unless all owners decided to sell. You guys refined your Inventory list like CHAMPS! Such a great job, taking out sites that won’t be accepted by the State. Great work…keep it up. Scott ConnellyValley Oak Partners, LLC734 The Alameda | San Jose, CA 95126T 408.640.0383 | F 408.282.9797scott@valleyoakpartners.com | http://www.valleyoakpartners.com This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email areintended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use thistransmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges. From:Bill Baron To:Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Cc:Bill Baron Subject:500 E. Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, CA Date:Friday, December 10, 2021 7:43:04 AM Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Rose: Good Morning. I was travelling last night and unfortunately was unable to connect to the continuing community conversation about Campbell’s GP Update and in specific, its envisioned updated Housing Element. I have participated in the recent past, however. That said, I was connected via text chain with a good friend, Scott Connolly, who I asked to share information with the city on our behalf. Below codifies what Scott shared, in part, with you last night. Brandenburg Hamilton LP is the owner of the above described property—perhaps better known as the “Staples” property. Staples’ lease expires no later than mid-June 2026 and there are no further options for Staples to extend the Lease. We’re prepared to have this site considered for high density residential—and designated as such in your RHNA 6 Cycle that runs from 2023 to 2031. We share this in hopes that the following is further considered: High Density Residential (up to 75 d/u/gross ac) designation. This largely follows strong community input of placing density along established commercial/traffic corridors and in proximity to light rail/transportation services. Whether or not such high density occurs at this location—time will tell—it is clear to us that this location is not suitable for a lower density designation accommodative to townhouses, for example; and Do not require, rather encourage, commercial uses on ground floor. The notion of “mixed use” is novel but also equally challenging. Moreover, “100% replacement” of existing commercial square footage should be avoided at all costs. To the extent that commercial square footage is visioned, it should be commercial square footage that works in the market place—that produces viable, leasable space. We understand the temptation of sales tax receipts for the city, however, mandating something that doesn’t get built and/or mandating something that sits vacant is not the goal here. We encourage the city to allow the market to dictate what, if any, commercial is integrated into a future visioned project. Again, encourage. Don’t mandate; and Height to be up to the voter mandated 75’ height limit, subject to state law override (just a matter of law); and A commensurate FAR identification that provides flexibility to achieve housing objectives, not limiting them; and Remove roadblocks for activation of the city’s housing needs. This includes elimination of a “specific plan” concept for the area of Hamilton/17 Should you need any further information, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Bill Baron _____________________________________________ William B. Baron MANAGING PARTNER Brandenburg Properties 1122 Willow Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95125 408-282-4101 Direct 408-279-3678 Fax 408-921-2995 Cell bill@bsm-group.com www.brandenburg-properties.com CA Dept of Real Estate Broker Lic 01885632 Brandenburg Properties encourages water conservation. To learn more, visit: https://www.valleywater.org/saving-water/resources-gear Taj Trust, Sanjay Jasuja, trustee 7960B Soquel Drive Suite # 110, Aptos, CA 95003 Sanjay.jasu@gmail.com 650-533-7579 12/13/2021 City Clerk C/o Rob Eastwood Community Development Director City of Campbell 70 First St. Campbell, Ca 95008 Re. Property Address: 1282 - 1300 White Oaks Road, Campbell, Ca 95008 for RHNA Dear Mr. Eastwood, Firstly, I want to welcome you as the new Community Development Director, for the City of Campbell. I write to you as a trustee of Taj Trust, the current property owner of 1.87 acres at the above property I would like this property to be considered as a potential site for housing in this round of the housing element update. Myself and my neighbors at 1320 White Oaks Rd & 1340 White Oaks Rd are seeking the same rezone to allow for a residential builder to provide the city with new housing opportunities. If our properties are appropriately rezoned there is an interested party ready to start the process of bringing additional new housing to the city. Thank you for your time and consideration, we appreciate your cooperation and look forward to helping the City reach its RHNA allocation goal. Sincerely, Email: cityclerk@cityofcampbell.com RobE@campbellCA.gov C. C. Senior Planner, Stephen Rose at stephenr@campbellca.gov. demonstrate From:Adam Buchbinder To:Planning Division Subject:Site inventory ideas. Date:Tuesday, December 14, 2021 7:07:35 PM Hi! I realize that it's a tad late for this, but I wanted to send in a few site inventory ideas for downtown. Site 139, 43 3rd St, contains housing above Stacks, doesn't it? I have some concerns aboutlisting existing rental housing on our sites list; we should make sure we address displacement concerns in our policies and programs. Apart from that, I walked downtown and noted the following sites which looked like goodcandidates for our inventory, especially since they're close to Downtown Campbell station and not adjacent to any R-1 housing, so they could be developed at 75-100 du/ac: 422 E Campbell Ave, which is vacant one-story commercial space very close to the train station.416 E Campbell Ave, which is adjacent one-story commercial space (though it's occupied by retail at the moment).412 E Campbell Ave, which also appears to be vacant. 257-259 E Campbell Ave, which is a small one-story building occupied by office space,unlikely to make use of much walk-in traffic. 220 E Campbell Ave, the Rocket Fizz location. (I had vaguely heard that a smallgrocery would be moving in; failing that, it's a vacant building.) I hope this helps. Thanks! Adam Buchbinder 1 Stephen Rose Subject:RE: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us (Dropdown) From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 6:18 PM To: Campbell City Managers Office <cmoffice@campbellca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us (Dropdown) WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate. Contact Us (Dropdown) First Name Diane Last Name Loughran Address1 Address2 Field not completed. City CAMPBELL State CA Zip 95008 Phone Number Email Address Whom would you like to contact? City Council Question / Comment Thank you for taking the time to review my feedback regarding the Housing Element proposed for Campbell over the next 8 years. I want everyone to be able to own and home and live where they work. Home ownership is awesome. It took me 25 years to be able to make that happen for myself. I believe that with thoughtful and careful planning we can continue to have the community we all love living in. I live near site 162 that is proposed for 30 units per acre. I would like you to consider 20 units per acre. This area is in a single family neighborhood with the potential for ADUs and multi units built on existing home sites. Also, there is density already with 100 townhome units in Fairmeadow on W Latimer Ave and across the street on W. 2 Latimer is a 3 story Condo complex and on the other side from that property is rental apartments next to the Expressway. Our neighborhood has small streets where the parking is completely full overnight. There is no access to public transportation. Density is better placed near light rail and main arteries. Building mixed use on sites with shopping and restaurants near public transportation and walkability makes sense. Our downtown has become such a popular destination. I'm sure building there would be very successful. I would also like you to remove the Campbell Community Center from any proposed site for housing. We will need that for increased population. It would be a shame to lose our old town charm on that site. Thanks for your time and all the hard work that you have already done and will be doing over the next few years. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1 Stephen Rose From:Stephen Rose Sent:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 5:41 PM To:Stephen Rose Subject:RE: There's a new message in your inbox From: Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:20 PM To: Planning Division <planning@campbellca.gov> Subject: There's a new message in your inbox You have a new message. You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I have a single family home that was zoned by the city as Professional (did not request the professional zoning, was told that the city did it). I do not plan on building professional office space but would like to consider an ADU and junior ADU unit behind the single family home. This way the tenant can remain in the home and my son and or new tenant would be able to move into the back ADU/junior ADU if I am allowed to build both. Would the city consider a mixed zoning classification instead of the Professional zone it gave it (did not request the professional zoning) and would the mixed zoning allow me to explore building an ADU/junior ADU before the city's deadline, please? Thank you. 2 View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 3 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:16 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Would like more information View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 4 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:03 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Thank you for providing the postcards and engaging the community as you have. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 5 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 12:18 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Yes! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 6 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 8:49 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Interested in learning more View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 7 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:58 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Thank you for the mailer, it was helpful to be in the know and provide feedback via survey. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 8 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:21 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Would be great if your meetings were on zoom View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 9 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:12 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: One of Campbell's charm is her vistas. I would ask you to refrain from turning our town into concrete canyons with huge monolithic modular building obstructing views and blocking sunshine. Thank you. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 10 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:47 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Does the Planning Commission have an email address? I ask because I have a question. It is this: I would like a written statement regarding the size of my property at Campbell, 95008. I understand that it is sub- dividable, but in the past I have been only given estimates. To discuss proposals from developers I really need an accurate measure with the signature of a planning department person. A map showing the dimensions would be also be useful. … View Message 11 © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 12 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:26 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I’m very interested to hear about transportation improvements to support the larger population. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 13 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:51 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I WANT TO BE INVOLVED View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 14 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 15, 2021 3:51 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". .net wrote: I don’t actually live or own property in Campbell, but I have ties to the city and would like the updates. Faith King View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 15 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:35 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: As a Campbell resident and M-Group employee (non-planner) I am looking forward to following Campbell Housing Element process. Thank you for all your work in making our community a great place to live. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 16 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:07 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Affordable housing options for all would be great! Include Section 8 and low- income housing. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 17 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:18 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Jin Pak wrote: Hello! I believed that I am enrolled with Program. This is Mr. Jin S. Pak and There will be Lottery Drawing for Campbell Housing On Oct 15th 2021. I would like to know what is Results. If all Possible! Please! Call me at Sincerely, Mr. Pak View Message 18 © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 19 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:39 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Michiru Michelle Lovatt wrote: Great news! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 20 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:02 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I support adding more housing to Campbell, especially at the two lowest segments of the income spectrum. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 21 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:49 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Thank you! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 22 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:15 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Patricia Van Etta wrote: I’m in need of a home for myself and my two disabled children I myself am disabled we have been homeless since august 2018 View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 23 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Monday, October 11, 2021 10:44 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I would like to be informed of all meetings associated with the Update to the Housing Element 2023-2031 View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 24 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Monday, October 11, 2021 9:50 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: My wife and I are long-time residents of Campbell on Queens Ct. We strongly support initiatives that provide affordable housing for our teachers, nurses, police, firefighters, and all front-line workers, as long as those developments are located in neighborhoods which have the infrastructure to support them (close to mass transit, sufficient parking, adequate common spaces such as parks, throughput for increased traffic, etc.). For those reasons (and those reasons alone) we are opposed to the… View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA 25 Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 26 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Sunday, October 10, 2021 4:56 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Wondering if things like utilities/water supplies etc will also be discussed? Thanx. Barb Robinson View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 27 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Sunday, October 10, 2021 7:12 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Thanks! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 28 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 9:40 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Malissa Wilson wrote: I am excited about the housing projects and hope to be placed on any available low income housing waiting lists. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 29 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 6:02 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Looking forward to participating in the process View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 30 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 5:48 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Kate Garrison wrote: How do I get on the list for low income housing? View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 31 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 11:29 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Just want to hear what you have to say. Thanks -- Lee Penning View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 32 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 8:28 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Debbie Walker wrote: Housing that accepts sec 8. Low income senior housing. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 33 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 7:16 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Jin Pak wrote: Please! I nned yr support. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 34 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 4:55 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I would like developments that have character and not too urban looking. Those belong in San Jose and San Francisco. The area between Poplar and Payne should be mixed use 3-5 stories. Mediterranean style View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 35 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 3:22 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Hi I would like learn more about the housing plan in Campbell. Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 36 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 2:57 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Thank you for this invite! ͣͤͥͣͤͥ͢͢ View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 37 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 11:42 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Mohammad Issa Ibrahimi wrote: I would like to be notified of the opportunities in this regard. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 38 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 8:13 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Rachel Leota wrote: Updates please View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 39 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 7:40 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Thank you for reaching out. Is there still a City newsletter published periodically for residents? When was the last time the City completed a statistically valid resident satisfaction survey of services and priorities? View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 41 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:41 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Please notify me of upcoming meetings for the Campbell General Plan. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 42 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:38 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Trysta Obee wrote: Please send me updates View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 43 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:33 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Joan Paz wrote: Hello, Please keep me posted on availability of housing at Campbell. Thanks, Joan Paz View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 45 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:23 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Katherine Lanning wrote: I would love to be part of this program View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 46 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:19 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Ka Siu Wong wrote: would like to know how Campbell going to develop its land View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 47 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:13 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Decheng Wu wrote: Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 48 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:10 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Nora Rivas wrote: Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 49 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:07 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Phillip Vo wrote: Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 50 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:04 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Sally Banh wrote: I’m interested to know the updates View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 51 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:00 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Bethelhem Woldie wrote: I am looking for affordable housing ownership. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 52 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 4:58 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: I am excited to learn more about Campbell's plan for hosting. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 53 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 4:57 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: It would be great if you could send email reminders before each of the planned meetings. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 54 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 4:38 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wrote: Please be considerate of the neighborhood when approving high density housing. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy SUMMARY TABLE EXAMPLES OF 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING Examples of 100% Affordable Projects 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 City Project Status Type/Average Unit Size Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking spaces per unit Belmont Firehouse Square Under Construction Family Housing Average Unit Size: 735 s.f. 66 .72 92 2.44 4 stories 53 ft. .71 Burlingame The Village Under Construction Workforce & Senior Average Unit Size: 647 s.f. 132 .84 132 3.75 5 stories 61 ft. 1.1 Foster City Alma Point Complete 2016 Seniors up to 50% AMI Average Unit size: 588 s.f. 66 .52 127 3.05 4 stories 60 ft. .59 Mountain View 1701 W. El Camino Real Under Construction Up to 60% AMI + Veterans Aver. Unit size: 430 s.f. 67 .49 137 2.31 5 stories 55 ft. .46 Palo Alto Wilton Court Under Construction 30-60% AMI + adults with developmental disabilities Aver. Unit Size: 367 s.f. 59 .46 127 2.0 4 stories .69 Redwood City Arroyo Green Complete 2021 Seniors up to 50% AMI Average Unit Size: 559 s.f. 117 1.36 86 2.36 4 stories 81 ft. 6 in. .50 San Mateo Kiku Crossing Approved Family up to 80% AMI Average Unit size: 820 s.f. 225 2.41 93 4.2 7 stories 74 ft. .73 San Mateo Peninsula Station Complete 2010 Individuals & Families: 30 to 50% AMI Average Unit Size: 996 s.f. 68 1.0 68 1.95 4 stories 62 ft. 1.7 Sunnyvale 1178 Sonora Court Pending Family up to 80% AMI Average Unit Size: not available 176 1.26 140 3.9 7 stories 75 ft. 5 in. EXAMPLES OF 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING Examples of 100% Affordable Projects 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 2 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Belmont Firehouse Square Under Construction Family Housing 66 .72 92 2.44 4 stories 53 ft. .71 Avg. Unit Size: 735 s.f. Burlingame The Village Under Construction Workforce & Senior 132 .84 132 3.75 5 stories 61 ft. 1.1 Avg. Unit Size: 647 s.f. Conversion of public parking lot into affordable housing. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 3 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Foster City Alma Point Complete Senior Housing 66 .52 127 3.05 4 stories 60 ft. .59 Avg. Unit Size: 588 s.f. Mountain View 1701 W. El Camino Real Under Construction Up to 60% AMI + Veterans 67 .49 137 2.31 5 stories 55 ft. .46 Avg. Unit Size: 430 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 4 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Palo Alto Wilton Court Under Construction 30-60% AMI + adults with developmental disabilities 59 .46 127 2.0 4 stories .69 Avg. Unit Size: 367 s.f. Redwood City Arroyo Green Complete 2021 Senior Housing 117 1.36 86 2.36 4 stories 81 ft. 6 in. .50 Avg. Unit Size: 559 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 5 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size San Mateo Kiku Crossing Approved Family up to 80% AMI 225 2.41 93 4.2 7 stories 74 ft. .73 Avg. Unit Size: 820 s.f. San Mateo Peninsula Station Complete 2010 Family Housing 68 1.0 68 1.95 4 stories 62 ft. 1.7 Avg. Unit Size: 996 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 6 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Sunnyvale 1178 Sonora Court Pending Family up to 80% AMI 176 1.26 140 3.9 7 stories 75 ft. 5 in. Not available CITY COUNCIL MINUTES City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL Thursday, December 16, 2021 – 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street NOTE: This Special meeting of the Campbell City Council was conducted pursuant to the Brown Act. This meeting was recorded and can be viewed in its entirety at: https://campbellca.gov/agendacenter and https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell. CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Campbell convened in session this special day of December 16, 2021. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Elizabeth 'Liz' Gibbons Mayor Present Paul Resnikoff Vice Mayor Present Anne Bybee Councilmember Present Susan M. Landry Councilmember Present Sergio Lopez Councilmember Present UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Review and Provide Feedback on the Administrative Draft Envision Campbell General Plan Update and Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Selection (PLN-2021-12) Recommended Action: Review the Planning Commission’s recommendation and provide direction on the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Inventory for the City’s Housing Element Update (“Campbell’s Plan for Housing”). Community Development Director Rob Eastwood presented the Staff Report dated December 16, 2021 stating the focus for this meeting is on location and density which will drive the Environmental Impact Review beginning in January 2022 with the deadline date being December 2022. Councilmember Bybee stepped out of the room at 5:41 p.m. and returned at 5:44 p.m. Senior Planner Stephen Rose summarized Council’s previous directions on the General Plan and non-residential components noting the extension of the Hamilton Avenue Overlay Area to extend further east and south down Salmar Avenue and the potential removal of the North of Campbell Avenue Area (NOCA) and South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA) plans allowing for C-2 uses where 2 Packet Pg. 12 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 16, 2021 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 2 governed by C-2, removal of FAR restrictions by lot size, and reducing density/uses along Harrison Avenue in the NOCA area, and for allowing C-2 uses where governed by C-3, removing FAR restrictions by lot size, addressing height limits, and updating related use policies and design standards for the SOCA area. Senior Planner Rose reviewed the City’s building intensities and how they compare to other South Bay cities, noting Staff’s recommendation to increase the City’s building intensities by .6 for most of the cities designations to bring them in line with other neighboring jurisdictions. Senior Planner Rose noted the changes to the residential density calculation method from the centerline of the street to using the four corners of a lot prior to any dedication of right-of-way. Senior Planner Rose reviewed Council’s consensus on the draft General Plan Policy Sets noting a creation of a mixed-use zoning reducing reliance on the P-D, continue to allow drive-thru’s but to establish standards on when and where, do not include a research and development zone and reevaluate it as part of an overarching Economic Development Plan, defer traffic study thresholds to a consultant, do not directly fund a shuttle system, and retain the existing Community Design Element. In response to an inquiry, Senior Planner Rose clarified that FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is used in Campbell to describe commercial lots and is describing how much of a building can cover the size of a specific lot; for residential properties, this is described in units per acre. Community Development Director Eastwood stated that Staff will provide additional information what a specific plan is and includes at the January 2022 Council meeting. Dave Hogan, Consultant, M-Group reviewed the City’s RHNA allocation and noted that with an added 30% buffer the total units assigned to Campbell is 3,300. Mr. Hogan reviewed Staff’s methodology for identifying potential sites including reusing previously selected sites, vacant sites, underutilized sites, parking lots, faith based facilities, school sites, city-owned sites, and properties where the owners have expressed an interest. This methodology includes a lot of sites, and will serve as a beginning point to then be paired down as the work on the EIR is completed. State law requires the City to select sites that are better resourced. Mr. Hogan reviewed the various residential densities and presented examples of what those densities look like once built out. In summary, Mr. Hogan noted that both the Planning Commission and the City Council preferred placing densities near transit, revitalizing shopping centers, and along commercial corridors (which are described as Options 3, 4, and 5 from the November 17, 2021 City Council Special Meeting). From the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting Council provided consensus to support a hybrid of Options 3, 4, and 5, and to provide more “missing middle” units or townhomes in the existing neighborhoods, and to explore housing at the First Street Garage, the Campbell Technology Park. Mr. Hogan reviewed the City’s public outreach to date and the community meeting feedback received. In response to an inquiry, Community Development Director Eastwood stated that Staff is recommending the addition of the 30% site buffer to the RHNA 2 Packet Pg. 13 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 16, 2021 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 3 allocation because it is highly unlikely the City will reach a 100% buildout of the selected sites, and this extra site selection provides room for the City to meet its required RHNA assignment. Community Development Director Eastwood noted that Staff has removed from consideration sites which currently support the top sales tax generators for the City. In response to inquiries, Senior Planner Rose stated that FAR is only related to commercial land uses and the City retain discretionary authority and the General Plan discusses the maximum ranges allowed. By studying the maximum FAR in the EIR, it would eliminate the need for more study down the line on each project. In response to inquiries, Community Development Director Eastwood noted that unit size will be addressed as a tool to assist reaching the affordable housing benchmarks and only number of units is needed to complete the EIR, but this is an area that will be discussed in greater detail as strategies to meet the City’s affordable housing targets. Mr. Hogan reviewed the Community Development Themes staff utilized in selecting proposed sites including a mixed-use promenade on East Campbell Avenue, higher density mixed-use around the Fry’s Electronics site, creating a transit oriented area around the Winchester Light Rail Station, revitalizing the San Tomas Neighborhood Shopping Center, mixed-used developments along major arterials and looking for ways to disperse opportunities throughout the City. Mayor Gibbons opened the floor for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Dykman, Dan Smith, Elena Baryshnikova, Allen Ishibashi, B. Wulff, Michael Stevens, Cassandra Owen, Jeanette Wulff, Dana Stevens, Thomas Colgrove, and Peter Young, Campbell residents, requested the Llewellyn site to remain at 20 units per acre or with townhomes only. Tim Pasqaneli, Campbell Technology Park Owner, expressed a desire to have his property included in the housing sites selected and would be open to some form of a land swap with the City. Sarah Chapin, Owner of property on S. Bascom and S. Winchester, expressed interest in developing her property into workforce housing. James Sullivan, Campbell resident, stated that typical townhome development that would be worth while for a developer would need to be built at 16 – 24 units per acre. Mike Christman, Campbell resident, spoke of his concern with including the 30% buffer and for not charging impact fees to developers to support city services. Kelly Snider, San Jose State University Professor in Real Estate and Planning spoke of her concern relating to solving the housing crisis and the City not meeting its affordability housing targets and encouraging the City to develop at 75 units per acre especially for sites like Hamilton. 2 Packet Pg. 14 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 16, 2021 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 4 Guilian Gao, Campbell resident, expressed support for low density housing and for not including the Community Center in the site selection list. Joanne Carol, Campbell resident, expressed concern relating to parking and especially parking needs around the Light Rail station. Carolyn Field, Campbell resident, asked not to have the Community Center and the Civic Center gravel lot included in the site selection list. Dennis Randall, Industry Professional representing the Shell Station and Hickory Pit site and would like to be included in the list at 75 units per acre and noted that only higher density projects will be able to afford underground parking and open space. William Barron, Representative Staples site, express his desire to be included in the final site selection for development. Scott Connelly, 320 Virginia Avenue Owner, expressed a desire to have his site included in the final site selection for development. Mayor Gibbons closed the public comment. Council recessed at 7:23 p.m. and reconvened at 7:38 p.m. with all members present. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - CONTINUED In response to inquiries, Geoff Bradley, Consultant, M-Group stated that at this stage in the process, it is too late to change the land use designation in certain spots throughout the City with the purpose of increasing resources to those areas to then qualify an area as an AFFH preferred site. Senate Bill 10 would be an interesting tool to use to increase housing stock for the “missing middle” but it would not be recommended to use those sites in the RHNA allocation because it is very difficult to predict how many will be developed, the State also won’t allow a City to include density bonus’ in their site selection methodology either. In response to an inquiry, Community Development Director Eastwood stated that it is staff’s intention to not move forward with the Community Center location on this final site selection list and bring back a broader discussion to Council relating to a Master Plan for the Community Center site. Mr. Bradley presented the current housing opportunity sites with 6 different maps matching the themes for the housing opportunity sites. Winchester Boulevard Map Councilmember Lopez expressed support for the Winchester Boulevard map, noting that this area could support a higher density and expressed an interest in including schools and day care sites. Councilmember Bybee expressed support for reviewing schools and day care sites, concerned about overall building height with higher densities, and not 2 Packet Pg. 15 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 16, 2021 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 5 supportive of increasing the 30% buffer. Councilwoman Landry was not supportive of increasing the 30% buffer and is concerned by utilizing school properties as an increase in residents means an increase in students, supports mandatory mixed-use and higher densities in some areas only, not supportive of changing the industrial uses on Winchester Boulevard, and is not supportive of including the First Street Parking Garage. Vice Mayor Resnikoff supported increasing the 30% buffer, should not plan for school properties being developed, would support higher densities in places like the Hickory Pit site, Fry’s Electronics site, Culinary Institute site, revitalizing the PetSmart Shopping Center site, supportive of mixed-use styles to accommodate needed services and housing, not supportive of displacing current services. Mayor Gibbons was generally supportive of mixed-use in certain places, expressed concerns relating to high density along Winchester Boulevard as there are single-family neighborhoods that are just behind those high density buildings, could be supportive of higher densities on the major corners along Winchester Boulevard, expressed concern that many large parcels held by private owners are not included on this map. City Attorney Bill Seligmann clarified that the First Street Parking Garage is under restrictions through a previous agreement and where parking needs to be available to residents in some fashion, but the how could be discussed. Bascom Avenue Map Council confirmed consensus for including the higher densities in the Pruneyard and Bascom areas. Mayor Gibbons expressed concern relating to the height of buildings along Bascom Avenue in relation to the single-family neighborhoods on the east side of Bascom Avenue. Central Campbell Map Council confirmed consensus for including higher densities at the Fry’s Electronics site, the Staples site and for investigating a pedestrian bridge to the Hamilton Light Rail station. Hamilton Avenue Map Council confirmed consensus for keeping the Llewellyn site at 20 units per acre and for encouraging a mixed-use for the PetSmart site. Vice Mayor Resnikoff requested staff reach out to the large site leases and property owners and inquire about the future of those properties, long term leases, interested in development etc. San Tomas Aquino Councilmembers expressed concern about the placement of potential housing on 2 Packet Pg. 16 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 16, 2021 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 6 the Grocery Outlet site and noted that this area of the City could be challenging for higher density options as there are many residential areas near by. South Campbell Mr. Bradley noted that this area of the City has the most potential for development of Accessory Dwelling Units, and Senate Bill 9 and 10 housing options. Mayor Gibbons expressed concern with this map not including the larger individual parcels that could support townhome development and support below market rate housing. Camden Avenue Council confirmed consensus for not supporting the Planning Commission recommendations on this map. In conclusion, Community Development Director Eastwood stated that of the city-owned sites presented, Staff will move forward in analyzing the City Corp Yard site for viability and alternatives. Staff will conduct further property owner outreach and will return to Council with one final housing site selection meeting and will then begin the EIR process. ADJOURN Mayor Gibbons adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. APPROVED: ________________________ Paul Resnikoff, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Dusty Christopherson, City Clerk 2 Packet Pg. 17 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Dec 16, 2021 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) m-group a new design on urban planning policy planning urban design environmental review historic preservation community engagement staffing solutions m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 MEETING NOTES Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 Subject: Campbell Housing Element Meeting Host: Rob Eastwood, City of Campbell Focus Group: Property Owners These are the Meeting Notes from the Property Owner Focus Group that took place Wednesday, January 5, 2022, at 6:30PM regarding the Campbell Housing Element. Project Team: Rob Eastwood |Community Development Director, City of Campbell Stephen Rose | Senior Planner, City of Campbell David Hogan |Project Manager, M-Group Radha Hayagreev | Senior Planner, Urban Designer, M-Group Christabel Soria Mendoza | Assistant Planner, M-Group Participants: 25 property owners Initial Questions: 1. How interested are you in redeveloping your property for housing in the next eight-years? 2. What do you believe may be barriers to developing your property for housing in the next eight years? 3. Do you have any questions and/or feedback for the City related to the development of your property for housing? Notes: • James Sullivan | 320 Virginia/Llewelyn • Scott Connelly | 320 Virginia o interested in redevelopment o interested in understanding density figure and range • Helen Feber | 1236 Hacienda / Burrows o interested in redevelopment, but needs to understand process) • Sanjay (Sam K) | 1300 White Oaks Road o 2-acres (industrial) o would like to advance faster than 2023 m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Highway 17 & Camden adjacent nearby property owners may also be interested – potential interest in mixed- use, short-term leases • Raja | 1216 W. Hacienda Avenue o ½ acre lot o mixed-use interest o affordability interest • Steve Eggers | 1340 Whiteoaks o short-term leases • William Baron | 500 E. Hamilton (Staples) o HDR interest o Concern w/ boundary of Hamilton Avenue Area specific plan, and implications in achieving goals of developing housing during 8-year planning period • Nick Whitstone o In support of the ‘White Oaks’ properties, specifically 1300 representing 3-acres in total • Pardhiv K | 1226 W. Haciend • 1300 White Oaks Road o Requested interim Housing solutions for differently abled housing request • 494 Salmar Ave. o *Requested to be added back to the Housing Opportunity Site List* • Uplift Site o Requests for an earlier development timeline can reach out in Spring/Summer • San Tomas shopping Center o Interested to redevelop and will fill out survey • VTA site is going to run a community outreach meeting on Jan 19th o Theyhope to bring on an Affordable Housing project END: 7:50 PM To: Chair Ching and Planning Commission Members Date: Jan. 20, 2022 From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Old Business, Item #1 – Provide feedback on the Campbell's Plan for Housing – Housing Opportunity Sites Selection. (PLN-2021-12) The January 20, 2022, staff report included a map of Housing Opportunity Sites with targeted densities as Attachment B. An updated version of this map has been prepared (see Exhibit A) which is more focused on sites identified as “Tier 1” (with associated densities) and “Tier 2” (greyed out). Attached: Exhibit A – Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites with Targeted Densities City of Campbell MEMORANDUM 186 247176 240 241 174 40 242 180 249 175 20 42 89 250 239 34 25124392.2 48 254 25545 90 44 92.1 256 246 47 245 41 184 62 257258 259 50 260 43 261 63 182 238 130 185 97 183 37 266 187 32 214.2 188 132 49 94.2 119 339 31 214.3214.1 190.2 282 121 191 190.1 22139 36 30 214.4 5 168 179 28 94.193.2 97 192 190.3 93.1 95 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 1 of 6 Central Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Tier II Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 244 94.2 247 142 248241242 249 20 154.2 89 250 239 87 243 9092.1 256 246 154.1 144 245 62 257 258 259 260 261 63 238 153 97 266 143.2 17 1.1 12.2 94.2 202.1 19 202.2 212.1 136 279 3 219220 135 21 146 35 276 221 100.3 159 152 212.2 145 278 155 181 56 116 22 25 100.2 4.1 277 170 28 94.1 93.29793.1 33 95 143.2141 100.1 1.2 4.2 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile Sheet 2 of 6 East Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Tier II Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 247176 174 249 20 9189 281 87 243 90246245130 37 266 280 1.1 12.2 202.1 165 19 202.2 212.1 136 135 21 35 274 159 212.2 181 56 275 116 22 164 139 25 167 170 273 28 33 1.2 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile Sheet 3 of 6 North Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Tier II Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 200 201 203 196 51 204 162 205 197 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile Sheet 4 of 6 Northwest Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Tier II Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 268271 207 270269 12.1 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile Sheet 5 of 6 West Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Tier II Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 14.2 15 14.116 18 209 10 11 723 272218.1 27 218.2 29 218.3 City of Campbell 6th Cycle Housing Element Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites 0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile Sheet 6 of 6 South Campbell Density (du/ac) 20 30 45 60 75 Tier II Sites City Boundary Light Rail Stations 1 Andrea Sanders Subject:FW: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT From: C2 Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:07 PM To: Planning Division <planning@campbellca.gov> Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT My name is Carin Powell, and I'm a homeowner in the Union neighborhood in Campbell. Re: agenda item number one, I want to voice my strong support in favor of high density affordable housing at every possible opportunity for Campbell. Shutting our doors by keeping prices high and making development and construction so difficult doesn't maintain our neighborhood character, because a central part of Campbell's character for most of its history was that orchard workers could afford to live here. They can't anymore because we stopped developing and raised rents, and it's crucial that we move forward with high density affordable housing so that workers of all incomes can live here again. Thank you for your time. 1 Andrea Sanders Subject:FW: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT From: Wes Moots Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:38 PM To: Planning Division <planning@campbellca.gov> Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate. Good evening, My spouse and I started our marriage with our first apartment in Campbell. We loved the community and all it had to offer. However, as the cost of living continued to rise we were forced to leave. We often discuss how much we wish we could have stayed. Warmest regards, Wes Moots 1 Andrea Sanders Subject:FW: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT From: Christy Basile Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:50 PM To: Planning Division <planning@campbellca.gov> Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate. To whom it may concern: My name is Christine Moots. I am a former Campbell resident. Sadly due to the continuous rise in rent in Campbell, my spouse and I had to move out of Campbell. While I would like to one day move back to Campbell, until there is more affordable housing options that will not be possible. I hope that the Planning Commission really takes into consideration some affordable housing options in the near future. Campbell holds a special place in my heart and I would like to share that with others in our community. With more affordable housing comes more opportunities for people to create more memories and strengthen the community. Warmest regards, Christine Moots