The URL can be used to link to this page

04-12-2022 - Planning Commission Agenda Packet File AssembledREGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California Register in advance for this webinar: https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. After registration, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. During the registration process, you will be asked if you would like to speak on any of the agenda items. Please provide detail on the items you would like to discuss. April 12, 2022 7:30 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 Regular Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person with the Commissioners meeting at City Hall, Council Chambers, as well as via telecommunication (Zoom) being available for members of the public. The meeting is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. This Regular Planning Commission meeting will also 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 https://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 Defer approval of March 22, 2022, minutes to 4/26. 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 April 12, 2022 Pg. 2 of 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PLN-2021-193 Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN-2021-193) to amend the side-yard setback requirements for properties located within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 17, 2022. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner 2. PLN-2022-31 Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated Revocation/ Modification (PLN-2022-31) of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit/Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-283) that allowed expansion of an existing liquor establishment (Khartoum Lounge) with late-night operational hours on property located at 300 Orchard City Drive, Suite 101, in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Statutorily Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director 3. PLN-2021-12 Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update which consists of goals, policies, actions, and an updated land use map that will guide future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the General Plan and Housing Element Update. The purpose of this meeting is to receive verbal or written comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR to be prepared for the proposed project from interested public agencies, organizations, and individuals. STUDY SESSION 4. PLN-2021-12 Study Session to review and provide feedback on goals, policies, and strategies aimed at producing, protecting, and affirmatively furthering fair housing in Campbell and addressing key housing issues facing the community as part of Campbell’s Plan for Housing (Housing Element Update). ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 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). Planning Commission Agenda for April 12, 2022 Pg. 3 of 3 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 Abby Jones at the Community Development Department, at abbyj@cityofcampbell.com or (408) 866-2739. CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ April 12, 2022 PLN-2021-193 Zoning Code Amendment Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN-2021-193) to amend the side-yard setback requirements for properties located within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the side-yard setback requirements for properties located within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This Zoning Code Text Amendment may be deemed Exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for the action to have a significant effect on the environment because the amendment is limited in scope as to not effect substantive regulatory changes. Future development projects that utilize the setback exceptions identified in this zoning ordinance amendment will be subject to site specific discretionary approval and further environmental review. BACKGROUND Administrative Process: Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Sec. 21.60.020 an amendment to the Zoning Code may only be initiated by the City Council or the Planning Commission. As such, for the reasons discussed, below, staff sought Planning Commission authorization to prepare a Zoning Code Text Amendment to revise the setback standards of the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts. The Planning Commission initiated preparation of such an amendment at its meeting of December 14, 2021, by a 5-1-1 vote (Rivlin dissenting and Ostrowski absent), as reflected in the minutes (reference Attachment 2). Reason for Amendment: For each zoning district, the Zoning Code provides a development standards table that identifies the general requirements for construction, including minimum building setbacks, maximum floor area ratio (FAR), and maximum building height. These standards are intended to provide the limitations for development based on the allowable land use (residential, commercial, industrial) and the anticipated development intensity as established by the General Plan. The Zoning Code allows for limited deviations from these development standards on a case-by-case basis as approved by the Planning Commission. For example, the Planning Commission may generally grant an increase in FAR "for a specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment." Similarly, with regards to rear setbacks, in some zoning districts, the Planning Commission "may grant a reduction or approve a structure to be placed on the rear property line and may designate that additional landscaping and setback requirements be provided at the front of the parcel." Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-193 ~ C-1/M-1 Zoning Code Amendment These exception provisions are intended to allow limited relief for projects when necessary and appropriate. However, while the Zoning Code allows for reductions to rear yard setbacks on commercially and industrially zoned properties it does not provide the same allowance for side yard setbacks. The side yard setback requirement for non-residential zoning districts, including the General Commercial (C-2) and Light Industrial (M-1) districts, is the same as residential zoning districts: the greater of 5-feet or one half of the height of the adjacent building wall. This standard generally requires buildings to be stepped-back as the buildings increase in height in order to minimize their perceived massing. Staff is currently reviewing several industrial and commercial applications that involve requests by the applicant for reduced side setbacks. The repeated request to reduce the side yard setback as exemplified by these projects questions the appropriateness of applying a residential setback standards to commercial and industrial properties and highlight the lack of flexibility to adjust this standard, which is paradoxically provided for residentially zoned properties. As compared to residential properties, adjacent industrial and commercial properties do not pose issues of privacy, noise, or access to sunlight, such that side setbacks are not crucial. Additionally, providing flexibility to setback standards for commercial and industrial properties in not an uncommon practice in other cities and would generally be accepted as industry practice. Under the existing Zoning Ordinance provisions, the only remedy for these applicants is to either request a Variance or seek a zoning amendment to rezone the property to P-D (Planned Development), neither of which is an appropriate course of action. As provided for in State law and the City's Zoning Code, variances should be limited to those situations where the unique physical characteristics of a site make it difficult to develop under standard regulations and should only be granted to allow the disadvantaged property to develop in a manner consistent with nearby properties in the same zoning district. Given Campbell's flat topography and lack of unusual environmental constraints, the granting of variance is quite rare. P-D zoning is intended to allow for a comprehensively planned development in a manner that existing zoning standards cannot accommodate, while still maintaining compliance with underlying General Plan land use designation. In this regard, this tool is intended to facilitate superior development, not to simply exempt projects from typical zoning standards that otherwise would apply. The Draft Envision Campbell General Plan Update, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in the fall of 2021, identifies a reduction in the use of P-D Zoning as part of the General Plan implementation. Staff will soon begin work on zoning code updates in association with the completion of objective standards and creation of zoning districts for the new General Plan, that will incorporate these provisions. DISCUSSION M-1 Zoning District: The proposed changes to the M-1 development table are twofold. First, staff recommends a general reduction to the side-yard setback to a flat 5-feet when the property abuts a non-residentially zoned property. The existing side setback of the greater of 5-feet or one half of the wall height would continue to apply when a side property line abuts a residentially zoned property. This change recognizes that the vast majority of M-1 zoned properties are quite narrow such that a setback based on wall height would tend make development challenging. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-193 ~ C-1/M-1 Zoning Code Amendment The second proposed change is to grant the Planning Commission the ability to allow a reduction to the side setback to zero, allowing placement of a building on a property line, where a property line abuts a non-residentially zoned property, when it can establish two findings: 1. The height of the building wall, inclusive of a parapet, adjacent to the side property line is no taller than 30-feet and limited to one-story; and 2. The proposed building is designed for and would be limited to general industrial use, including manufacturing, processing, warehousing, storage, assembly, and fabrication. The intent of these findings is to allow traditional industrial buildings to be constructed on side property lines when abutting other industrial properties, comparable with the existing provision for rear property lines. This allows for a more efficient use of land by maximizing the width of narrow industrial properties. To minimize the visual effect of solid masonry fire-rated walls necessary for a building to be built on a property line, the height of such buildings would be limited one-story at a height of a 30-feet, inclusive of parapet (by comparison, the maximum height for the M-1 Zoning District is 45-ft, excluding the parapet). Additionally, the building would need to be designed and restricted for industrial use, such that the provision could not be applied to other types of building such as an office or recreational facility where solid side walls would not be architecturally appropriate. C-2 Zoning District: For the C-2 Zoning District, the proposed ordinance would maintain the existing side setback standard of the greater of 5-feet or one half of the wall height. However, the Planning Commission would now be allowed to approve a side setback of no less than five feet irrespective of building wall height where a property line abuts a non-residentially zoned property, if it finds that "the reduced setback would enhance the architectural integrity of the building". This finding is intended to provide greater discretion to the Planning Commission in its review of new commercial buildings and application of development standards. Through this process, the Commission can compel a greater degree of design quality by judicially exercising the proposed setback reduction as part of the discretionary land use process on a case-by-case basis. As opposed to residential and mixed-use projects, which must be evaluated on compliance with objective standards per the Housing Accountability Act, the City maintains a high degree of discretion on non-residential development. ANALYSIS General Plan Conformance: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.60.070, an amendment to the Municipal Code may only be approved if the decision-making body finds that: (1) the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; (2) the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; and (3) the proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Staff believes that these findings can be affirmatively established, as discussed below: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; The proposed changes are intended to facilitate new commercial and industrial development by providing greater flexibility to side setback standards that can at times styme new projects. However, this flexibility is balanced against the need to respect the integrity of adjacent Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-193 ~ C-1/M-1 Zoning Code Amendment residential properties. In this manner, it can be found that the draft ordinance would further the following General Plan policies and strategies by encouraging continued investment in the M- 1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, improving the built environment, minimizing impacts to residential properties, and furthering the economic development of the City. Policy LUT-5.4: Industrial Neighborhoods: Safeguard industry’s ability to operate effectively, by limiting the establishment of incompatible uses in industrial neighborhoods and encouraging compatible uses. Strategy LUT-5.4b: Residential Adjacent to Industrial: Amend Area Plans and Zoning Ordinances to ensure that conflicts between residential and industrial uses are minimized. Strategy LUT-5.4c: Redevelopment: Facilitate redevelopment opportunities in the McGlincy Lane area. Policy LUT-5.6: Industrial Impact: Reduce the impact of existing industrial uses on adjacent residences, schools, and other sensitive uses. Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural resources. Strategy LUT-13.1c: Fiscal Effects of Land Use: Evaluate the fiscal effects of different land uses on City revenues and services. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; As noted, the proposed ordinance would maintain existing setback requirements where property lines abut residentially zoned properties. As such, it would not create any new visual or massing impacts to existing residences that could be viewed as detrimental. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. The proposed text changes are self-contained to the "General Development Standards" tables for the C-2 and M-1 Zoning Districts and therefore, do not interface with any other section of the Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance 2. Meeting Minutes, December 14, 2021 Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-193 ~ C-1/M-1 Zoning Code Amendment Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 46xx BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER 21.10 OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS. FILE NO.: PLN-2021-193 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2021-193: 1. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would amend Chapter 21.10 of the Campbell Municipal Code to revise the side setback requirements of the C-2 (General Commercial) and M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. 2. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would be consistent with the General Plan in that it would encourage investment in the M-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, improve the built environment, minimize impacts to residential properties, and further the economic development of the City, consistent with the following policies and strategies: Policy LUT-5.4: Industrial Neighborhoods: Safeguard industry’s ability to operate effectively, by limiting the establishment of incompatible uses in industrial neighborhoods and encouraging compatible uses. Strategy LUT-5.4b: Residential Adjacent to Industrial: Amend Area Plans and Zoning Ordinances to ensure that conflicts between residential and industrial uses are minimized. Strategy LUT-5.4c: Redevelopment: Facilitate redevelopment opportunities in the McGlincy Lane area. Policy LUT-5.6: Industrial Impact: Reduce the impact of existing industrial uses on adjacent residences, schools, and other sensitive uses. Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural resources. Strategy LUT-13.1c: Fiscal Effects of Land Use: Evaluate the fiscal effects of different land uses on City revenues and services. 3. The legislature of the State of California has, in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560 and 65800, conferred upon local governments authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry. 4. As required by Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.60.020, the Planning Commission took action to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to amend the side-yard setback requirements for properties located within the M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts at its meeting of December 14, 2021. Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx PLN-2021-193 – Recommending Approval a Zoning Code Amendment Page 2 5. Review and adoption of this Zoning Code Amendment is done in compliance with California government Code Sections 65853 through 65857, which require a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission whereby the Planning Commission shall provide its written recommendation to the City Council for its consideration. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City; 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; and 4. Adoption of the proposed amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for the action to have a significant effect on the environment. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance (reference Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary Ordinance No. _____ BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER 21.10 OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS. FILE NO.: PLN-2021-193 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. To encourage a more efficient use of land and to allow for more creative site design, the City Council finds it appropriate to revise the interior side setback requirements of the C-2 (General Commercial) and M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan, including: Policy LUT-5.4: Industrial Neighborhoods: Safeguard industry’s ability to operate effectively, by limiting the establishment of incompatible uses in industrial neighborhoods and encouraging compatible uses. Strategy LUT-5.4b: Residential Adjacent to Industrial: Amend Area Plans and Zoning Ordinances to ensure that conflicts between residential and industrial uses are minimized. Strategy LUT-5.4c: Redevelopment: Facilitate redevelopment opportunities in the McGlincy Lane area. Policy LUT-5.6: Industrial Impact: Reduce the impact of existing industrial uses on adjacent residences, schools, and other sensitive uses. Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural resources. Strategy LUT-13.1c: Fiscal Effects of Land Use: Evaluate the fiscal effects of different land uses on City revenues and services. SECTION 3. The City Council further finds that the proposed ordinance would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; and would be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code. SECTION 4. The City Council further finds that the adoption of the proposed ordinance qualifies as Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061.b.3 which states that a project is exempt if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Page 2 of 4 activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 5. C-2 Development Standards Table: Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.10.050.E, Table 2-10 (General Development Standards) is amended to read as follows with underlining indicating new text and strikeouts (strikeout) indicating deleted text: Table 2-10 General Development Standards - C-2 Zoning District Development Feature C-2 Maximum floor area ratio 0.40 The planning commission shall have the authority to increase the F.A.R. for a specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment. Setbacks required Front 10 ft. Side (each) A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater). The Planning Commission may allow a side setback of no less than five feet irrespective of building wall height where a property line abuts a non-residentially zoned property, when it finds that the reduced setback would enhance the architectural integrity of the building. Street Side 10 ft. Rear 10 ft. The planning commission may grant a reduction or approve a structure to be placed on the rear property line and may designate that additional landscaping and setback requirements be provided at the front of the parcel. Maximum height limit 75 ft. Accessory structures See Section 21.36.020 (Accessory Structures) Fences, walls, lattice and screens See Section 21.18.060 (Fences, Walls, Lattice and Screens) Landscaping See Section 21.26.020 (Landscaping Requirements for Individual Zoning Districts) Motor vehicle parking See Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading) Signs See Chapter 21.30 (Signs) Page 3 of 4 SECTION 6. M-1 Development Standards Table: Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.10.080.E, Table 2-13 (General Development Standards) is amended to read as follows with underlining indicating new text and strikeouts (strikeout) indicating deleted text: Table 2-13 General Development Standards - M-1 Zoning District Development Feature M-1 Minimum parcel size 6,000 square feet Maximum floor area ratio 0.40 The planning commission shall have the authority to increase the F.A.R. for a specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment. Setbacks required Front 10 ft. Side (each) 5 ft. or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater) when the side property line abuts a residentially zoned property or 5 ft. when the side property line does not abut a residentially zoned property. The Planning Commission may allow a side setback of less than five feet where a property line abuts a non-residentially zoned property, when it finds that: 1. The height of the building wall, inclusive of a parapet, adjacent to the side property line is no taller than 30-feet and limited to one-story; and 2. The proposed building is designed for and would be limited to general industrial use, including manufacturing, processing, warehousing, storage, assembly, and fabrication. Street side 10 ft. Rear 10 ft. The planning commission may grant a reduction or approve a structure to be placed on the rear property line and may designate that additional landscaping and setback requirements be provided at the front of the parcel. Maximum height limit 45 ft. Accessory structures See Section 21.36.020 (Accessory Structures) Fences, walls, lattice and screens See Section 21.18.060 (Fences, Walls, Lattice and Screens) Landscaping See Section 21.26.020 (Landscaping requirements for individual zoning districts) Motor vehicle parking See Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading) Signs See Chapter 21.30 (Signs) Page 4 of 4 SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption and shall be published, one time within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2022 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: APPROVED: ________________________ Paul Resnikoff, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Dusty Christopherson, City Clerk 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 City-Initiated Revocation/ Modification of Khartoum PLN 2022-31 CITY OF CAMPBELL· PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report · April 12, 2022 ITEM NO. 2 Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated revocation/modification of a Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN201 l-283) for a liquor establishment (Khartoum Lounge) on property located at 300 Orchard City Drive, Suite 101 in the P-D Planned Development Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1.Adopt a Resolution, approving a City-Initiated Modification (PLN2022-31) of a Conditional Use Permit/Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-283) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and permitting of existing facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. PROJECT LOCATION The property is located on the along Orchard City Drive, west of Railway Avenue. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east, and west, and an office complex to the south (The Water Tower Plaza) and a residential condominium community (Park Town Place) to the southwest (Attachment 2). The liquor establishment is located within a 54,420 square foot building (The Water Tower Plaza) on a 1. 70-acre parcel that contains both office and non-office commercial space. The establishment occupies a 2,364 square foot space on the ground floor of the building, and is accessed directly from a public parking lot facing Orchard City Drive. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2012, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Administrative Site Development Permit was granted to Khartoum Lounge ("Khartoum") for the (unpermitted) expansion and continuation of operations as a liquor establishment, including late night operational hours. As established in the Conditions of Approval, Khartoum was allowed business hours of operation until 2am every day of the week. Total indoor occupancy is limited to 145 persons. The 2012 Conditional Use Permit also allowed Live Entertainment, limited to a Disk Jockey, and Karaoke 752 This map is based on GIS Information and reflects the most current information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for reference purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors. Location Map 300 Orchard City Dr. Ste. 101 9,028Campbell IT, GIS Services 1,505 1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet 1,5050 Scale RESOLUTION NO. _____ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A CITY-INITIATED MODIFICATION (PLN-2022-31) TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN-2011-283), AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AN EXISTING LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT (KHARTOUM LOUNGE) LOCATED AT 300 ORCHARD CITY DRIVE, SUITE 101. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to file numbers PLN-2022-31: 1. The subject property is located on the along Orchard City Drive, west of Railway Avenue. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east, and west, and an office complex to the south (The Water Tower Plaza) and a residential condominium community (Park Town Place) to the southwest 2. The liquor establishment is located within a 54,420 square foot building (The Water Tower Plaza) on a 1.70-acre parcel that contains both office and non-office commercial space. The establishment occupies a 2,364 square foot space on the ground floor of the building, and is accessed directly from a public parking lot facing Orchard City Drive. 3. The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development) and is designated with a Central Commercial land use designation by the General Plan. 4. At its meeting of February 14, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4046 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN 2011-283) to allow expansion of a liquor establishment (Khartoum Lounge). In approving Resolution No. 4046, the Planning Commission found that: The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use. 5. Between August, 2021 and January, 2022, Campbell Police have documented over 82 calls for service at Khartoum Lounge, resulting in 10 arrests in association with alcohol service and fighting / assault. 6. Condition 5 (b) of the Conditional Use Permit for Khartoum Lounge states If the liquor establishment generates three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval and/or related to the service of alcohol within a six (6) month period, the Community Development Director may immediately reduce the hours of operation as follows: Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 2 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit Reduced Business Hours 11:00 AM – 12:00 AM, Monday – Friday 9:30AM – 12:00 AM, Saturday – Sunday Reduced Operational Hours: 9:00 AM – 12:30 AM, Monday – Friday 7:00 AM – 12:30 AM, Saturday – Sunday Upon reducing the allowable hours of operation, the Community Development Director shall schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider modification or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit / Administrative Planned Development Permit. In exercising this authority, the decision making body may consider the following factors: • The number and types of Police Department calls for serviced at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of patrons actions; • The number of complaints received from residents, business owners and other citizens concerning the operation of an establishment; • The number of arrests for alcohol, drug, disturbing the peace, fighting and public nuisance violations associated with an establishment; • The number and kinds of complaints received from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control office and the County Health Department; and • Violation of conditions of approval. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be made in a positive manner, and the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require modification in that: A CUP was granted on February 14, 2012. As documented by the Campbell Police Department, Khartoum has been the source of numerous calls for police service between August 2021 and January, 2022, resulting in ten (10) documented cases of alcohol service to minors and ten (10) arrests, including five for fighting / assault. These cases document that operations at Khartoum affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety or welfare and require the modification. 2. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated. Condition 5(b) of the Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Site Permit state that if Khartoum generates more than three verifiable complaints related to the service of Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 3 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit alcohol within a six-month period, then the Community Development Director may reduce the hours of operation and schedule the establishment for a revocation / modification hearing before the Planning Commission. Between the six-month period of August, 2021 and January 2022, the Campbell Police Department received over 82 calls for service for Khartoum, resulting in ten (10) arrests in association with alcohol service and fighting / assault. 3. The improvement or use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or the manner of operation constitutes and is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body. As documented in this report, between the six-month period of August, 2021 and January 2022, the Campbell Police Department received over 82 calls for service for Khartoum, resulting in ten arrests in association with alcohol service and fighting / assault. Representatives from the Campbell Police Department have met with the owner and management staff of Khartoum to issue warnings and feedback regarding the pattern of calls for service, documented underage drinking / service of alcohol to minors, fighting, and the need to modify the establishment’s operations and procedures to address these issues. This included a meeting with between a Police Captain, the Chief of Police and the owner of Khartoum in the Fall of 2021. Despite these warnings and feedback, calls for service and documented cases of underage drinking and arrests have continued at Khartoum, including ten calls for service and two additional arrests in January 2022. These cases document that operations at Khartoum affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety or welfare and require the modification. 4. A Conditional Use Permit may be approved, with or without conditions, only if the Planning Commission (or the City Council, upon appeal) makes certain findings provided in CMC Section 21.46.040. In approving a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission (or City Council, upon appeal) may impose reasonable and necessary specific design, locational, and operational conditions relating to both on- and off-site improvements, which are intended to ensure compliance with the findings. 5. In order to make the required findings and protect the public health, safety, and welfare, as well as the integrity and character of the city, the Planning Commission (or the City Council, upon appeal) has placed appropriate conditions on the project as provided herein. 6. As conditioned in this Resolution, the modified use is allowed within the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code. 7. As conditioned in this Resolution, the liquor establishment (Khartoum Lounge) is consistent with the Central Commercial General Plan land use designation and the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 4 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit 8. As conditioned in this Resolution, the site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the existing building, parking, and other existing improvements in order to integrate the use with other uses in the surrounding area. 9. As conditioned in this Resolution, the site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate. 10. As conditioned in this Resolution, the modifications to the Conditional Use Permits will not increase parking demand greater than the use, as currently conditioned. 11. As conditioned in this Resolution, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the modified use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property. 12. As conditioned in this Resolution, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the modified use at the existing location will not be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. 13. As conditioned in this Resolution, the modified establishment at this location will not result in an over concentration of similar uses in the surrounding area. 14. As conditioned in this Resolution, the modified use will not create a nuisance due to litter, noise, traffic, vandalism, or other factors. 15. As conditioned in this Resolution, the modified use will not significantly increase the demand on city services. 16. As conditioned in this Resolution, the modified restaurant use is consistent with the guidelines of the Downtown Development Plan in that it supports a use in the downtown that complements other retail activities in the downtown. 17. The Police Department has reviewed the modifications and is supportive of the modifications as conditioned. 18. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the use, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 19. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the operation and permitting of an existing private structure involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. 20. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project. Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 5 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves, a City-Initiated Modification (PLN2022-31) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2011-283) for an existing liquor establishment on property located at 300 Orchard City Drive, Suite 101, subject to the attached Revised Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2022, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL City-Initiated Modification (PLN2022-31) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a City-initiated Modification (PLN-2022-33) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2011-283) amending the Conditions of Approval for an existing liquor establishment (Khartoum Lounge) with late-night hour operational hours. The configuration of the approved liquor establishment shall continue to substantially conform to the revised project plans stamped as received by the Planning Division on January 6, 2011, except as may be modified by the conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Approval Expiration: The Modified Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Planned Development approved herein (hereon "Approval") shall be valid in perpetuity on the property subject to continued exercise of this Approval and maintenance of a Type 48 (On-sale General – Public Premises) Liquor License issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) , except upon revocation pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 7 (Revocation of Permit). Discontinuation of alcohol service for a continuous period of twelve months, as evidenced by surrender or revocation of the Type 48 License, shall void this Approval. 3. Previous Conditions of Approval: The previously approved Conditions of Approval provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4046 (PLN2011-283) are hereby void and permanently superseded in their entirety by the Conditions of Approval specified herein. 4. Mandatory Review: The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing six months from the effective date of this Resolution to evaluate the operation of the business. The Community Development Director shall report on the operator's compliance with the conditions of approval contained herein, any known violations of local ordinances or State laws, the Police Department's calls-for-service history for the establishment, and any reported parking or noise complaints. At such time, as based on the Community Development Director's report, public testimony, and any additional evidence presented, the Planning Commission determines that conditions of approval have been violated or the circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed to a degree that one or more of the findings can no longer be made in a positive manner, the Planning Commission may revoke or modify the Approval pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.28 (Revocations and Modifications). Alternatively, if the Planning Commission finds that the conditions of approval have been continuously fulfilled, the Commission may extend the hours of operation as it determines appropriate. Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 2 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit Notwithstanding the above, any violation of the conditions of approval may result in returning to the Planning Commission prior to the six-month period, pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 7 (Revocation of Permit). 5. Operational Standards: Consistent with the Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy and other City standards, any liquor establishment operating pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit / Administrative Planned Development Permit approved herein shall conform to the following operational standards: a. Patron Occupancy: Total indoor patron occupancy shall be limited to 145 persons, subject to the maximum occupancy capacities of certain rooms as determined by the California Building Code (CBC). It is the responsibility of the business owner to provide adequate entrance controls to ensure that patron occupancy is not exceeded. “Maximum Occupancy” signs shall be posted conspicuously within the premises. b. Hours of Operation: Subject to ongoing compliance with the Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy and all standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell, the following reduced hours of operation are granted. By the end of ‘Business Hours’ all patrons shall have exited the liquor establishment. By the end of the ‘Operational Hours’ all employees shall be off the premises. Reduced Business Hours 11:00 AM – 12:00 AM, Monday – Friday 9:30 AM – 12:00 AM, Saturday – Sunday Reduced Operational Hours: 9:00 AM – 12:30 AM, Monday – Friday 7:00 AM – 12:30 AM, Saturday – Sunday c. Live Entertainment: Live entertainment, limited to a disk-jockey and karaoke performance, shall be permitted subject to approval of a Live Entertainment Permit in compliance with CMC 5.24. d. Outdoor Seating: Outdoor seating is prohibited at all times. e. Semi-Arcade Permit: The business owner shall secure and maintain in good standing a Semi-Arcade Permit in compliance with CMC 5.30. f. Smoking: “No Smoking” signs shall be posted on the premises in compliance with CMC 6.11.060. g. Loitering: There shall be no loitering allowed outside the business. The business owner is responsible for monitoring the premises to prevent loitering. h. Noise: Any noises, sounds and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio sound systems, music, and/or public Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 3 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit address system, generated by the establishment shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing capacity from any residential property. i. Trash & Clean Up: All exterior trash and normal clean up activities shall occur before 11:00 PM. j. Liquor License: The business owner shall maintain in good standing a “Type 48” license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. k. Uniform Security: Uniformed, privately provided security staff may be required in and/or around the premises when deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. l. City Meetings: At the discretion of the Chief of Police, periodic meetings will be conducted with representatives from the Police Department/Alcohol Beverage Control for on-going employee training on alcoholic beverage service to the general public. m. Employee Training: The establishment shall use an employee training manual that addresses alcoholic beverage service consistent with the standards of the California Restaurant Association and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. n. Designated Driver Program: The establishment shall maintain and actively promote a designated driver program (e.g., complimentary non-alcoholic beverages for designated drivers). o. Taxicab Service: The establishment shall post in a conspicuous place the telephone numbers of local taxicab services 6. Terms of Approval: The applicant shall enter into an agreement prepared by the City Attorney pursuant to the following terms. Once the agreement is provided to the applicant, it shall be executed, including payment of the cash deposit, within five (5) business days. • Funding of Staff Costs: A $15,000 cash deposit shall be provided, which shall be used by the City for staff costs, code enforcement, legal and/or abatement actions associated with this revocation / modification hearing and all subsequent revocation / modification hearings. Any remaining funds that are unnecessary for staff costs, code enforcement, legal and/or abatement actions shall be returned to the liquor establishment 7. Revocation of Permit: Operation of the liquor establishment pursuant to this Approval is subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030 and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke a Conditional Use Permit if it is determined that the sale of alcohol has become a nuisance to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Conditional Use Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell. Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 4 300 Orchard City Dr. PLN-2022-31~ Modified Conditional Use Permit At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise, parking, etc.) and/or related to the service of alcohol within a twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking its Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of the Approval upon the occurrence of less than three (3) complaints if the Community Development Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action. The Director may also at such time immediately restrict the establishment's Hours of Operation to address noise complaint in a timely manner. In exercising this authority, the decision making body may consider the following factors, among others: a. The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of patrons actions; b. The number of complaints received from residents, business owners and other citizens concerning the operation of an establishment, c. The number of arrests for alcohol, drug, disturbing the peace, fighting and public nuisance violations associated with an establishment; d. The number and kinds of complaints received from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control office and the County Health Department; and e. Violation of conditions of approval. DOWNTOWN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE POLICY Adopted February 3, 2009 Amended October 4, 2011 POLICY ADDRESSING THE ISSUANCE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES AND THE SERVICE OF ALCOHOL IN THE DOWNTOWN I. PURPOSE The Downtown area of Campbell by nature is a compact commercial district intended to be the center of social and civic activity for the City. The City has encouraged, through its redevelopment programs and City policies, an active and vibrant balance of day and night time land uses to appeal to all demographics. To be successful, a downtown must be appealing to local residents and also serve as a destination for visitors to our community. A component of any successful downtown is restaurants and night time venues that provide a selection of places to dine and socialize. Alcoholic beverage licenses are often requested as a part of the operation and service offered by such establishments. City policy supports the responsible service of alcohol as a component to those full service restaurants and night time establishments. The City currently uses a number of tools designed to protect the public welfare when considering alcohol service including conditions of operations, police enforcement, the State Office of Alcohol Beverage Control regulations, and administrative citations. However, the over-concentration of late night alcohol serving establishments within a compact downtown district can create a cumulative impact that overwhelms the area creating an undesirable result such as drunk in public, vandalism, and disorderly conduct. While acknowledging the positive contributions restaurants and night time activities provide to a vibrant commercial district, maintaining the proper balance of uses is essential to a successful downtown. This policy is intended to: • Provide the Planning Commission and City Council with guidelines when considering how new applications for alcohol beverage service affects the proper balance and/or concentration of a particular land use, especially as it relates to late night service of alcohol. • Provide clear policy direction to staff as a basis in evaluating new applications for alcohol beverage service; and • Demonstrate to the Campbell community and the general public that the City intends to maintain a level of discretion and control over late night alcohol service. For purposes of this policy, the "Downtown" is defined by the boundary map attached as "Exhibit A". The following provisions are intended to balance the health and safety of the community while still maintaining the commercial viability of the downtown in which restaurants have an essential role. Hours of operation may be regulated based on an establishment's proximity to a residential neighborhood, the concentration of similar alcohol beverage R:\Downtown Alcohol Policy\Downtown Alcohol Beverage Pol!cy.Amend.doc licenses in the area or other material reasons raised at a public hearing in consideration of an alcohol beverage license. By controlling the concentration of alcohol service establishments and the operation of late night alcohol beverage service, this policy is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Development Plan and General Plan by reflecting the vision for the downtown as a safe and healthy environment for all to enjoy. II. GENERAL POLICY The deciding body shall consider the following policy guidelines in reviewing any application involving the service of alcoholic beverages: 1. Stand Alone Bars a. The City strongly discourages new applications for stand alone bars in the downtown. This includes nightclubs, ultra lounges or similar establishments typically offering live entertainment and late night alcohol service. b. Wine bars and wine tasting establishments with hours not exceeding 11:00 PM may be approved. 2. Restaurants with Separate Bars Conditional Use Permits for restaurants requesting separate bar areas should have the separate bar area be ancillary and subordinate to the primary purpose of serving food and should comply with the following criteria: a. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, the bar area is restricted to having no more than 25 percent of the total seating allowed for the establishment. b. The bar cannot stay open past the hours of operation of the restaurant. c. Full menu food service must be provided at all times. d. Live entertainment is limited to live musicians complimentary to the primary purpose of providing meal service, is subject to Section 5.24.010 of the Municipal Code which requires a Live Entertainment Permit, and shall not be permitted past 11:00 PM. e. Alcohol beverage service in the dining room area is only allowed in conjunction with food service. Additionally, the dining room area may not be converted to bar area. An area for dancing can be approved with a conditional use permit. f. Meal service must be permitted in the bar area. g. Specific hours of operation are determined by the Planning Commission upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. h. Outdoor seating areas are considered part of the dining area and shall be subject to the restrictions of Section 11.2.e. Outdoor dining areas shall be closed down by 11 :00 PM. Outdoor seating is prohibited for stand alone bars. i. Doors and windows shall remain closed after 10:00 PM. R:\Downtown Alcohol Policy\Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy.Amend.doc 3. Restaurants w/o Separate Bars a. Any new discretionary land use permit granted to a restaurant which allows alcohol beverage service, must have a full service menu available during operational hours. A full service menu is defined as a combination of food items intended to serve as meals for breakfast, lunch or dinner. A menu consisting of only food items commonly known as appetizers such as popcorn, nachos, pretzels, potato skins, relish trays, etc. (hot or cold) is not a full service menu. The full service menu the applicant intends to serve must be submitted with each application. b. Restaurants without separate bars are also subject to the provisions of Section 11.2 as it relates to live entertainment, alcohol service, meal service, outdoor seating, and the closing of windows and doors. 4. Hours of Operation a. It is strongly recommended that Conditional Use Permits for establishments for on-site consumption of alcohol beverages be limited to a closing time of no later than 12:00 AM. b. Restaurants requesting beer and wine service only with operating hours not exceeding 11 PM will continue to be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. 5. Operating Conditions Any new discretionary land use permit granting an establishment alcohol beverage service or any modification of a land use permit to serve alcohol for on- site consumption may be subject to the following conditions: a. Uniformed, privately provided security staff may be required in and/or around the premises when deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. b. At the discretion of the Chief of Police, periodic meetings will be conducted with representatives from the Police Department/Alcohol Beverage Control for on-going employee training on alcoholic beverage service to the general public. c. All establishments shall use an employee training manual that addresses alcoholic beverage service consistent with the standards of the California Restaurant Association and the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. d. All licensed operators shall have and shall actively promote a designated driver program such as complimentary non-alcoholic beverages for designated drivers. e. Taxicab telephone numbers shall be posted in a visible location. R:\Downtown Alcohol Policy\Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy.Amend.doc 6. Existing Establishments a. Those existing establishments operating under a valid Conditional Use Permit with alcohol beverage licenses in effect as of the date of adoption of this policy, and conducting business in good standing under their Conditional Use Permit, may continue to operate under their current conditions of approval. b. The City may consider an application for expansion of an existing establishment that is currently permitted to serve late night alcohol as of the effective date of this policy, subject to the deciding body making the following findings that: i) The establishment is currently operating and has operated in good standing under the terms of its conditional use permit and as a responsible business owner in the community; and ii) The proposed expansion will not have a material detrimental affect on the health, safety and welfare of the downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods due to its size, number of permitted occupants and general management and operation; and iii) The expansion or intensification will not adversely affect the goal of achieving a balanced use of commercial space downtown as envisioned under the Downtown Development Plan which promotes predominantly retail and restaurant uses. c. All new and existing establishments are subject to Section Ill of this policy. Ill. Enforcement All Conditional Use Permits issued to establishments for alcoholic beverage service on- site are subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030 and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke a Conditional Use Permit if it is determined that the sale of alcohol has become a nuisance to the City's public health, safety or welfare. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, any establishment that generates three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval and/or related to the service of alcohol within a six (6) month period may be scheduled before the Planning Commission for a public hearing to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking its conditional use permit. Nothing contained in this section is intended to limit the authority of the Community Development Director to commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of use permits upon the occurrence of less than three (3) complaints if the Community Development Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action._ln exercising this authority, the decision making body may consider the following factors, among others: R:\Downtown Alcohol Policy\Downtown Alcohol Beverage Po!icy.Amend.doc a. The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of patrons actions; b. The number of complaints received from residents, business owners and other citizens concerning the operation of an establishment, c. The number of arrests for alcohol, drug, disturbing the peace, fighting and public nuisance violations associated with an establishment; d. The number and kinds of complaints received from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control office and the County Health Department; and e. Violation of conditions of approval. The City retains the right of review and to approve (or deny) an application based on its merits. R:\Downtown Alcohol Policy\Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy.Amend.doc DOWI*l!TOWN ts~LCOHOL BEVERAGE POLICY BOUNDARY MAP COMMUNITY CENTER 1"=600' N October 4, 2011 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. List of Existing Establishments Eligible for Consideration under Section 6.b of the Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy Chacho's 266 E. Campbell Avenue Katie Blooms Irish Pub 369 E. Campbell Avenue Cardiff Lounge 260 E. Campbell Avenue Khartoum 300 Orchard City Drive Sonoma Chicken Coup 200 E. Campbell Avenue La Pizzeria 373 E. Campbell Avenue The Spot 201 Orchard City Drive ITEM NO. 3 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ April 12, 2022 PLN-2021-12 Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update which consists of goals, policies, actions, and an updated land use map that will guide future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the General Plan and Housing Element Update. The purpose of this meeting is to receive verbal or written comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the proposed project from interested public agencies, organizations, and individuals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Open the public meeting and receive public comment on environmental issue areas necessary to help prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2. Close the public meeting and allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to identify additional issue areas necessary to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND Following Council direction from its June 2021 meeting, completion of the Envision Campbell General Plan Update (‘General Plan’) has been linked together with completion of the required 2023-2031 Housing Element (‘Housing Element’) to meet State requirements. Between September 2021 and January 2022, the Commission and Council provided feedback on the Administrative Draft General Plan document and topics of significance under CEQA that affect the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process, such as identification of a preferred Housing Sites Inventory Map, as well as changes to land uses and maximum allowable floor area ratio to be studied as part of the General Plan Update. Staff and the environmental consultant team (De Novo Planning Group) are currently working to complete and refine the goals, policies, and actions for both the General Plan and the Housing Element. These documents will be available for public review concurrent with the Draft EIR, and the City will host public workshops to introduce the documents to the community, answer questions, and receive feedback. PURPOSE The City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This hearing is the project's "scoping Planning Commission Meeting – April 12, 2022 Page 2 of 5 Scoping Meeting for the Envision Campbell General Plan & Housing Element Update session," which is intended to provide an opportunity for members of the public, reviewing agencies, and the Planning Commission to provide information and comment to staff and the City's environmental consultant, De Novo Planning Group, regarding potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. DISCUSSION Project Location & Setting: As shown on Figure 1, the City of Campbell is located south of the San Francisco Bay in Santa Clara County. The city has a rich startup employment base with a diverse population, quality schools, conveniently located neighborhood parks, and a variety of retail options and entertainment options in its historic and vibrant Downtown. The city is served by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail stations (Hamilton, Campbell, and Winchester stations in Campbell, and the Bascom station immediately northeast of city limits). The city is accessed by Highway State Route 17, which runs north/south and bisects the city and runs roughly parallel to Los Gatos Creek, and Highway State Route 85 that runs roughly east–west and cuts through the southwest corner of the city. Campbell is bordered on the east and north by San Jose, on the south by Los Gatos, and on the west by a small portion of Saratoga. Figure 1 – Project Regional Location The Planning Area is the geographic area for which the Plan provides a framework for long-term plans for growth, and resource conservation. State law requires the Plan to include all territory within Campbell’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300). The Planning Area includes the entire city limits (approximately 3,060.65 acres; reference Attachment C – Proposed Land Use Map). Proposed Project: The City of Campbell is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing General Plan, including the Housing Element (collectively referred to as the General Plan). The updated Campbell General Plan is expected to be adopted in late 2022 and will guide the City’s development and conservation through land use objectives and policy guidance. The Plan is intended to be an expression of the community’s vision for the City and Planning Area and constitutes the policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects will be reviewed and public improvements will be implemented. The Housing Element portion of the General Plan addresses the City’s obligations and programs for the provision of its fair share of housing in California. The City will implement the Plan by requiring development, infrastructure improvements, and other projects to be consistent with its policies and by implementing the actions included in the Plan. State law requires the City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan Planning Commission Meeting – April 12, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Scoping Meeting for the Envision Campbell General Plan & Housing Element Update for the physical development of its planning area. The Plan must include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements, as specified in Government Code Section 65302, to the extent that the issues identified by State law exist in the City’s planning area. The Campbell General Plan will include a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), as well as a Proposed Land Use Map (reference Attachment C). A goal in the Plan is the broadest statement of community values. It is a generalized ideal which provides a sense of direction for action with a vision of desired future conditions. The essence of the Plan is contained within its policies. Policies are statements which further refine the goals and guide the course of action the City must take to achieve the goals in the Plan. It is important to note that policies are guides for decision makers, not decisions themselves. Action items are steps or actions the City should take to implement the Plan. The Implementation element identifies the responsible entity and timing for each Action item. ANALYSIS Environmental Review: CEQA is regarded as the foundation of environmental law and policy in the State of California. Its main objective is to disclose to decision makers and public any significant environmental effects of proposed activities and to require agencies to avoid or reduce the environmental effects by implementing feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. Another objective is to offer public disclosure regarding the reasons for agency approval of projects that have significant environmental effects, as well as to enhance the public participation in the planning process. CEQA applies to all discretionary activities proposed to be carried out by various California public agencies, including local agencies such as the City of Campbell. The applicant’s proposal to develop the subject property is considered a discretionary activity subject to CEQA review. An EIR serves a variety of purposes: • It is the highest level of environmental review for discretionary projects. • It is a detailed informational document that analyzes a project’s potential significant effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to avoid significant effects [Guidelines secs. 15121 (a), 15362]. • It informs decision makers and the public about significant environmental effects and ways to reduce them. • It ensures political accountability by disclosing to citizens the environmental values held by their elected and appointed officials. • It does not require technical perfection, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure [Guidelines sec. 15003 (i)]. The EIR will evaluate the project for potential impacts on the environment and determine the potential environmental consequences of future change. To ensure that the EIR for this proposed project is thorough and adequate and to ensure that the issues of concern to the public and public agencies are addressed, the City is soliciting input on the scope and content of the EIR. The method Planning Commission Meeting – April 12, 2022 Page 4 of 5 Scoping Meeting for the Envision Campbell General Plan & Housing Element Update used to solicit such comments is referred to as a scoping period which begins when the City, acting as the lead agency, releases a Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP document for the proposed project (Attachment A) identifies a 30-day scoping period from March 23, 2022, through April 25, 2022. The 30-day scoping period is considered the tool used to "scope out" issue areas to help in the preparation of the environmental document and is considered the initial step in the CEQA process. Comments on the NOP, in addition to the comments received during this public hearing, are due no later than the close of the 30-day review period at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 2022. The public is invited to provide comments on the scope of issues to be evaluated in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, the following environmental issues will be evaluated in the EIR.  Aesthetics  Agriculture / Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology and Water Resources  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation1  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities / Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance For reference purposes, many of the questions that the environmental consultant will analyze are included in a Sample Environmental Checklist (Attachment D). Once the Draft EIR is prepared, it will be released to the public for a 45-day public review period. During this time, agencies and members of the public will have an opportunity to submit comments on the adequacy of the document. Staff will also schedule a future public meeting to receive verbal and written comments on the analysis of the Draft EIR. Following the close of the 45-day public review period, a Final EIR, which includes a Response to Comments document, will be prepared. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the EIR concurrently with the development application. The Planning Commission's action on the EIR and development application is final unless appealed to the City Council. Public Notice: This public hearing and the NOP was advertised in the Metro Silicon Valley newspaper on March 23, 2022. The NOP was also noticed to various State and local agencies, and other interested parties (reference Attachment B – Notification List)2. The NOP was also posted 1 It is noted that Level of Service (LOS), which measures intersection and roadway operations and delays, is no longer subject to CEQA. Rather, circulation impacts are now analyzed in terms of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). 2 The City separately mailed a postcard to every property in the City about the Housing Element update in October 2021 and emailed Native American Tribes and Bands identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as Planning Commission Meeting – April 12, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Scoping Meeting for the Envision Campbell General Plan & Housing Element Update with the State Clearinghouse on March 21, 2022, for which the 30-day comment period will run from March 23, 2022, to April 25, 2022. The public was also informed of the scoping meeting through the City's website and related notification system. Attachments: A. Notice of Preparation B. Notification List C. Proposed Land Use Map D. Sample Environmental Checklist Prepared by: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director having interest in the area, and all parties subscribed to the City’s Plan for Housing email campaign coordinated through MailChimp. Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting for the Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element (“Campbell’s Plan for Housing”) Update Environmental Impact Report Date: March 23, 2022 To: State Clearinghouse, Stakeholder Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting for the Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meeting: April 12, 2022, 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 70 N. First St. Campbell, CA Comment Period: March 23, 2022 to April 25, 2022. The City of Campbell (City) will serve as Lead Agency in the preparation of a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update (General Plan Update, Plan or Proposed Project). The purpose of this notice is to (1) serve as a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, (2) advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR to be prepared for the proposed project, and (3) provide notice the upcoming public scoping meeting. The proposed project is a General Plan Update, including a Housing Element, consisting of goals, policies, actions, and an updated land use map that will guide future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the General Plan and Housing Element Update. Information regarding the project description, project location, and topics to be addressed in the Draft EIR is provided below. Additional project documents and information are available at the City of Campbell, Community Development Department (Planning Division) located at City Hall 70 N. First St. Campbell, CA 95008, and on-line at: https://www.campbellca.gov/163/Planning For questions regarding this notice, please contact Stephen Rose, Senior Planner at (408) 866-2142, or by email: stephenr@campbellca.gov Notice of Preparation 30-Day Comment Period: The City, as Lead Agency, requests that responsible and trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning and Research, respond in a manner consistent with Section 15082(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Public Resources Code NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 2 of 14 Section 21080.4, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt. In accordance with the time limits established by CEQA, the NOP public review period will begin on March 23, 2022 and end on April 25, 2022. In the event that the City does not receive a response from any Responsible or Trustee Agency by the end of the review period, the City may presume that the Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has no response to make (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b)(2)). Comments in response to this notice must be submitted in at the address below, or by email by the close of the 30-day NOP review period, which is 5:00 PM on April 25, 2022: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner City Hall 70 N. First St. Campbell, CA 95008 Email: stephenr@campbellca.gov Scoping Meeting The City will hold a scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for agency representatives and the public to assist the City in determining the scope and content of the EIR. The scoping meeting will be held during a Planning Commission hearing on April 12, 2022, at 7:30p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First St. Campbell, CA 95008 and available for remote participation via Zoom. The scoping meeting will not discuss the merits of the project, but rather the environmental topics to be included in the environmental review. Project Location and Setting As shown on Figure 1, the City of Campbell is located south of the San Francisco Bay in Santa Clara County. The city has a rich startup employment base with a diverse population, quality schools, conveniently-located neighborhood parks, and a variety of retail options and entertainment options in its historic and vibrant Downtown. The city is served by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail stations (Hamilton, Campbell, and Winchester stations in Campbell, and the Bascom station immediately northeast of city limits). The city is accessed by Highway State Route 17, which runs north/south and bisects the city and runs roughly parallel to Los Gatos Creek, and Highway State Route 85 that runs roughly east–west and cuts through the southwest corner of the city. Campbell is bordered on the east and north by San Jose, on the south by Los Gatos, and on the west by a small portion of Saratoga. The project’s regional location is shown in Figure 1. The Planning Area is the geographic area for which the Plan provides a framework for long-term plans for growth, and resource conservation. State law requires the Plan to include all territory within Campbell’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300). The Planning Area, as shown in Figure 2, includes the entire city limits (approximately 3,060.65 acres). NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 3 of 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Campbell is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing General Plan, including the Housing Element (collectively referred to as the General Plan). The updated Campbell General Plan is expected to be adopted in late 2022 and will guide the City’s development and conservation through land use objectives and policy guidance. The Plan is intended to be an expression of the community’s vision for the City and Planning Area and constitutes the policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects will be reviewed and public improvements will be implemented. The Housing Element portion of the General Plan addresses the City’s obligations and programs for the provision of its fair share of housing in California. The City will implement the Plan by requiring development, infrastructure improvements, and other projects to be consistent with its policies and by implementing the actions included in the Plan. State law requires the City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of its planning area. The Plan must include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements, as specified in Government Code Section 65302, to the extent that the issues identified by State law exist in the City’s planning area. The Campbell General Plan will include a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), as well as a revised Land Use Map (Figure 2). A goal in the Plan is the broadest statement of community values. It is a generalized ideal which provides a sense of direction for action with a vision of desired future conditions. The essence of the Plan is contained within its policies. Policies are statements which further refine the goals, and guide the course of action the City must take to achieve the goals in the Plan. It is important to note that policies are guides for decision makers, not decisions themselves. Action items are steps or actions the City should take to implement the Plan. The Implementation element identifies the responsible entity and timing for each Action item. General Plan Elements The Campbell General Plan will include a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions (implementation measures), as well as a revised Land Use Map (Figure 2). The State requires that the General Plan contain seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Conservation, as well as address issues related to climate change, resiliency planning, and environmental justice, either as separate Elements or as components of the required Element framework. The Campbell General Plan will include all of the State-mandated elements, as well as optional elements and issue areas, including Community Design, Public Facilities, Economic and Fiscal Sustainability, Community Health and Wellness, and Sustainability. • The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, open space, public/semi-public, and other categories of public and private land uses. The Land Use Element includes the Land Use Map, which identifies land use designations for each parcel in the city limits and Planning Area (Figure 2). NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 4 of 14 • The Community Design Element identifies high-level community design objectives for the City of Campbell, including the relationship between the public and private realm, streetscapes, best site planning practices, and placemaking strategies. • The Transportation Element correlates closely with the Land Use Element, and identifies the general locations and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and alternative transportation facilities necessary to support a multi- modal transportation system. This element is intended to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout Campbell by a variety of transportation modes, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit opportunities. • The Housing Element plans for housing to meet the needs of all segments of the community and addresses state requirements. The current revision to the Housing Element covers the 2023-2031 planning period. • The Conservation and Open Space Element addresses conservation topics including: development and use of natural resources, open space, riparian environments, native plant and animal species, soils, cultural/historical resources, air quality, and alternative energy. It also details objectives and measures for preserving open space for natural resources and the managed production of resources. • The Economic and Fiscal Sustainability Elements Provide tools and strategies to strengthen and diversify the local economy and ensures the City maintains adequate revenues to provide quality public services. These elements seek to sustain and diversify the city’s economy, recognizing the importance of supporting existing and local businesses while broadening and expanding the employment base and economic opportunities within the city. • The Safety Element addresses a variety of natural and human-related hazards such as fires, geologic hazards, as well as hazardous materials, and contains goals and policies aimed at reducing risk associated with these hazards. • The Noise Element addresses noise-generating and noise-sensitive uses such as residences and schools. This element also addresses the required topics related to noise, including standards and policies to protect the community from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise levels. This element includes strategies to reduce land use conflicts that may result in exposure to unacceptable noise levels. • The Community Services and Facilities Element establishes policies and programs that address the following public services and facilities: police services; fire protection services; schools; civic, library, and other community facilities; water supplies, sewer services, storm drainage infrastructure, and solid waste disposal. While not specifically required by State law for inclusion in the General Plan, the Community Services and Facilities Element is a NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 5 of 14 critical component in meeting the infrastructure and utility services needs of businesses and residents. This element also ensures adequate planning for park and recreation services and facilities. • The Community Health and Wellness Element acknowledges the profound effects of the built environment on travel choices, access to food, levels of physical activity, and exposure to risk from accidents or pollution. The Element addresses the topics of active living, healthy lifestyles, environmental justice, and community building. • The Sustainability Element Provides measures that balance resource supply and consumption to develop in harmony with the environment to ensure current residents and future generations to have continued access to resources. The General Plan’s policies and actions support the principle of sustainability. Creating and maintaining a sustainable community requires integrating sustainable principles into the City’s everyday actions and future policy decisions, while adapting to changing environmental conditions, new technologies, and staying informed of innovations and current best practices. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 6 of 14 General Plan Objectives: The following objectives were identified for the proposed update to the General Plan: 1. Reflect the current goals and vision expressed by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders; 2. Address issues and concerns identified by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders; 3. Capitalize on Campbell’s location within the Silicon Valley to provide high tech jobs that enable Campbell to be a live/work community while maintaining Campbell’s small town community identity; 4. Protect and enhance Campbell community character, and sense of community; 5. Ensure Campbell remains a safe, vibrant, and family-friendly community; 6. Proactively plan for and accommodate local and regional growth in a balanced and sustainable manner, with an emphasis on maintaining Campbell’s unique character; 7. Provide a range of high-quality housing options, including housing resources and programs that comply with State Planning Law; 8. Attract and retain businesses and industries that provide high-quality and high-paying jobs; 9. Continue to maintain and improve multimodal transportation opportunities; 10. Maintain strong fiscal sustainability and continue to provide efficient and adequate public services; 11. Support and enhance Campbell’s small business community to sustain a vibrant city with a strong downtown core and community identity; 12. Emphasize sustainability and environmental stewardship in future planning decisions 13. Address new requirements of State law; 14. Address emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends; 15. Promote alternative transportation and community connectivity; and 16. Encourage mixed use corridors that promote vibrant commercial and residential areas. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations The following describes the proposed land use designations for the Proposed General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2.). Residential Land Use Designations: Low-Density Residential (LDR 4.5): This designation generally consists of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. Allowable Density: Less than 4.5 units per gross acre. Low-Density Residential (LDR 5.5): This designation generally consists of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units, in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 7 of 14 Allowable Density: Less than 5.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low-Density Residential (LDR 7.5): This designation generally consists of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. Allowable Density: Less than 7.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR): This designation generally consists of duplexes, apartment buildings, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. Allowable Density: 8 to 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium Density Residential (MDR): This designation generally consists of duplexes, apartment buildings, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. This designation is typically applied to transition areas between lower-density neighborhoods and higher-density developments or commercial areas. Allowable Density: 18 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR): This designation generally consists of duplexes, apartment buildings, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. This designation is typically applied to areas away from major commercial intersections. Allowable Density: 26 to 33 dwelling units per gross acre. High Density Residential (HDR): This designation generally consists of apartment buildings, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. This designation is typically applied to sites along Class I, or Class II arterial roadways that abut lower-density neighborhoods. Allowable Density: Up to 45 dwelling units per gross acre. Mobile Home Park (MHP): This designation generally consists of mobile homes, modular homes, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. The MHP designation discourages the conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses. Allowable Density: 8 to 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Commercial/Office Designations: Neighborhood Commercial (NC): This designation generally consists of small-scale, lower intensity commercial and office uses that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. This land use is intended to encourage the location of commercial uses at major intersections in residential areas which are designed to encourage convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel to and from surrounding neighborhoods. The architecture of the buildings should be compatible to the neighborhood. Allowable FAR: 1.0. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 8 of 14 General Commercial (GC): This designation generally consists of commercial uses that need exposure to high volumes of automobile traffic or access to transit corridors. Most of the land in Campbell with a General Commercial land use designation is located along both sides of Bascom and Hamilton Avenues and parts of Winchester Boulevard. Commercial development in these areas is highly visible, hence the placement and scale of buildings is especially important to the community image. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Professional Office (PO): This designation generally consists of administrative, professional, and research office uses and instruction for personal and/or professional enrichment. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Industrial Designations: Light Industrial (LI): This designation generally consists of wide range of light manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution uses. This designation is intended to provide for, and protect, industrial uses in the community. Nuisance- causing industries, such as those producing substantial amounts of hazardous waste, odor, dust, other pollutants, or excessive noise levels are not permitted. Ancillary uses that support light industrial developments including, cafés, office supply retailers, service commercial uses, etc., may be conditionally allowed onsite as a minor use associated with a primary light industrial use. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Research and Development (R&D): This designation generally consists of campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and offices. The R&D designation also accommodates uses such as incubator-research facilities, testing, packaging, publishing and printing. The designation aims to attract new firms and high quality local jobs and enables existing firms to grow and expand operations within Campbell. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Mixed-Use Designations: Central Commercial (CC): This designation generally consists of shopping, service, and entertainment uses within a pedestrian oriented urban environment. Building forms should edge the street and should include pedestrian-oriented commercial uses on the ground floor with either office or residential uses on upper floors. Residential units within this land use designation are restricted to upper floors and residential-only projects are not permitted within this land use designation. Allowable Density: 26 to 33 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.25. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 9 of 14 Commercial/ Light Industrial (C/LI): This designation generally consists of commercial uses as provided for by the General Commercial (GC) land use designation and industrial uses as provided for by the Light Industrial (LI) land use designation. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Office/Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR/O): This designation generally consists of office uses as provided for by the Professional Office (P-O) land use designation and/or residential uses as provided for by the Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR) land use designation. This designation is intended to serve as a transitional buffer between the more intense uses located in Downtown, and the surrounding low density residential uses. Allowable Density: 8 to 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Residential/Commercial/Prof. Office (RCPO): This designation generally consists of residential land uses as provided for by the Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) land use designation, commercial uses as provided for by the General Commercial (GC) land use designation, and office uses as provided for by the Professional Office (P-O) land use designation. Mixed-use residential projects are encouraged within this designation but not required. Allowable Density: 26 to 33 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU): This designation generally consists of commercial land uses as provided for by the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designation and residential uses as provided for by the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation. Mixed-use residential projects are encouraged within this designation but not required. Allowable Density: 18 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Medium-High Density Mixed Use (MHDR-MU): This designation generally consists of residential uses as provided for by the Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) land use designation and commercial uses as provided for by the General Commercial (GC) land use designation. Mixed-use residential projects are encouraged within this designation but not required. Allowable Density: 26 to 33 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 10 of 14 High-Density Mixed-Use (HD-MU): This designation generally consists of residential uses as provided for by the High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation and commercial uses as provided for by the General Commercial (GC) land use designation. Mixed-use residential projects are encouraged within this designation but not required. Allowable Density: Up to 45 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Commercial-Corridor Mixed-Use (CC-MU): This designation generally consists of higher-density residential, and mixed-use development that is generally located along Class I and Class II Arterial Roadways, such as Bascom Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, and parts of Campbell Avenue. Mixed-use residential projects are strongly encouraged within this designation but are not required. Allowable Density: Up to 60 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use (TO-MU): This designation generally consists of very high density commercial, residential, and mixed-use development within walking distance of high quality transit service such as light rail. Mixed-use residential projects are strongly encouraged within this designation but are not required. Allowable Density: Up to 75 dwelling units per gross acre. Allowable FAR: 1.0. Public/Recreational Designations: Institutional (I): This designation generally consists of civic, social service, educational, cultural or charitable uses operated by a government or private agency serving the public. Institutional uses can include facilities owned or operated by a private organization, such as a private school or religious organization, as well as facilities owned or operated by a public entity, such as public buildings and grounds, public schools, and government offices. Open Space (OS): This designation generally consists of public parks and identifies areas for waterways, sensitive habitat, groundwater recharge areas, creek corridors, and trails. Development in these areas shall be limited to such buildings and structures that support the uses described above. Examples of acceptable buildings and structures may include park facilities, restrooms, trails, signage, and utilities infrastructure. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 11 of 14 Table 1 below summarizes and compares land use designations under the Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Table 1: Proposed and Existing General Plan – Acreage by Land Use Designation General Plan Land Use Proposed GP (Acres) Existing GP (Acres) Change (Acres) Commercial, Office, and Industrial Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI) 24.42 24.42 0.00 Central Commercial (CC) 37.53 59.46 -21.93 General Commercial (GC) 98.08 195.57 -97.49 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 49.30 34.30 15.00 Light Industrial (LI) 104.86 104.86 0.00 Professional Office (P-O) 33.55 36.05 -2.50 Research and Development (R&D) 85.49 102.89 -17.39 Residential Low Density Residential <4.5 (LDR 4.5) 142.40 144.00 -1.60 Low Density Residential <5.5 (LDR 5.5) 211.25 211.25 0.00 Low Density Residential <7.5 (LDR 7.5) 1039.87 1042.27 -2.41 Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR) 161.99 162.95 -0.95 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 191.28 184.48 6.80 High Density Residential (HDR) 170.54 177.75 -7.21 Mobile Home Park (MHP) 29.66 29.66 0.00 Mixed–Use Office/Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR/O) 4.16 4.16 0.00 Commercial/High-Medium Density Residential (MHDR/C) 0.00 16.37 -16.37 Commercial/Prof. Office/Residential (RCPO) 57.11 54.96 2.15 Commercial-Corridor Mixed-Use (CC-MU) 60.03 0.00 60.03 High Density Mixed-Use (HD-MU) 20.58 0.00 20.58 Medium-High Density Mixed-Use (MHDR-MU) 27.20 0.00 27.20 Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU) 8.12 0.00 8.12 Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use (TO-MU) 44.75 0.00 44.75 Limited Development Public/Quasi Public and ROW Uses Institutional ( I) 155.66 166.57 -10.91 Open Space (OS) 263.61 269.48 -5.87 Right-of-Way Parcels 39.22 39.22 0.00 Total Acres 3,060.65 3,060.65 0 SOURCE: CITY CAMPBELL GIS DATASET, DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 2022. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 12 of 14 Growth Projections While no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Campbell General Plan Update, the General Plan will accommodate future growth in Campbell, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. The buildout analysis assumes an approximate 20-year horizon, and 2040 is assumed to be the buildout year of the General Plan. Table 2 below summarizes the range of new growth, including residential units, and non-residential square footage that could occur upon full buildout of the proposed General Plan. It is noted that there are very few vacant parcels in Campbell. As such, most of the new growth projected through General Plan buildout would occur as existing developed parcels redevelop with new or modified uses over time. The projections shown in the table below represent good-faith estimates of growth that could potentially occur following adoption of the General Plan. Consistent with the Proposed General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2), future growth would largely be focused near transit stations, transit corridors, in existing and proposed areas of multifamily and mixed-use development, and in existing business-serving areas. As shown in Table 2 buildout of the General Plan could yield a total of up to 26,224 housing units, a population of 64,929 people, 12,724,055 square feet of non-residential building square footage, and 36,908 jobs within the Planning Area. As shown in Table 2, this represents development growth over existing conditions of up to 8,863 new dwelling units, 22,203 people, 2,633,721 square feet of new non-residential building square footage and 6,194 new jobs. Table 2: Growth Projections - Proposed Land Use Map Population Dwelling Units Non- Residential Square Feet Jobs Jobs per Housing Unit Existing Conditions 42,726 17,400 10,090,334 30,568 1.76 New Growth Potential Existing General Plan 4,123 1,640 2,098,014 4,633 2.83 Proposed General Plan 22,203 8,824* 2,633,721 6,194 0.70 Total Growth: Existing Plus New Growth Potential Existing General Plan 46,849 19,040 12,188,348 35,199 1.85 Proposed General Plan 64,929 26,224 12,724,055 36,762 1.40 SOURCES: CITY CAMPBELL GIS DATASET, DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 2022. Santa Clara County Assessor 2017; California Department of Finance 2017; U.S Census ONTHEMAP; ESRI 2017, *NOTE: APPROXIMATELY 6,644 NEW DWELLING UNITS ARE ASSUMED TO BE ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES, AND THE ADDITIONAL 2,180 NEW DWELLING UNITS ARE ASSUMED TO OCCUR AS NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE BALANCE OF THE CITY. Growth projections should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur throughout the planning horizon of the General Plan is based on many factors outside of the City’s control. Actual future development would depend on future real estate and labor market conditions, property owner preferences and decisions, site-specific constraints, land turnover, and other factors. Additionally, new development and growth are NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 13 of 14 largely dictated by existing development conditions. Very few communities in California actually develop to the full potential allowed in their respective General Plans during the planning horizon. Program EIR Analysis The City, as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will prepare a Program EIR for the Campbell General Plan Update. The EIR will be prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines), relevant case law, and City procedures. No Initial Study will be prepared pursuant to Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR will analyze potentially significant impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the General Plan. In particular, the EIR will focus on areas that have development potential. The EIR will evaluate the full range of environmental issues contemplated under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines including cumulative impacts. At this time, the City anticipates that EIR sections will be organized in the following topical areas: • Aesthetic Resources • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources • Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources • Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services and Recreation • Transportation • Utilities/Service Systems • Wildfire • Mandatory Findings of Significance/Cumulative Impacts • Project Alternatives o Project Alternatives would include a No Project Alternative, a Lesser Intensity Housing Alternative, and other alternatives which are not-yet defined. NOP –Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Page 14 of 14 Project Approvals: The updated Campbell General Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and to the City Council for comment, review, and consideration for adoption. The City Council has the sole discretionary authority to approve and adopt the Campbell General Plan. In order to approve the proposed project, the City Council would consider the following actions: • Certification of the General Plan EIR; • Adoption of required CEQA findings for the above action; • Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and • Approval and Adoption of the General Plan Update. Subsequent Uses of the EIR The EIR will provide a review of environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan, consistent with the requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. When considering approval of subsequent activities under the proposed General Plan, the City of Campbell would utilize the EIR as the basis in determining potential environmental effects and the appropriate level of environmental review, if any, of a subsequent activity, consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15162. Projects or activities successive to this EIR may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Approval and funding of major projects and capital improvements; • Future adoption of a Specific Plan, Planned Unit Development, or Master Plan approvals; • Revision to the Campbell Zoning Ordinance; • Development plan approvals, such as tentative subdivision maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits; • Development Agreements; • Property rezoning consistent with the General Plan; • Permit issuances and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects; and • Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the General Plan. S a n F r a n cis c o B a y Danville San Ramon Moraga Daly City Atherton SanBruno PaloAlto SanCarlos Menlo Park Hillsborough RedwoodCity FosterCity Woodside South SanFrancisco EastPaloAlto Belmont PortolaValley SanMateo BrisbaneColma Pacifica MillbraeBurlingame HalfMoonBay A L A M E D A C O U N T YA L A M E D A C O U N T Y C O N T R A C O S TAC O N T R A C O S TAC O U N T YC O U N T Y S A N M A T E OS A N M A T E OC O U N T YC O U N T Y S A N T A C L A R AS A N T A C L A R AC O U N T YC O U N T Y S A N T A C R U ZS A N T A C R U ZC O U N T YC O U N T Y Emeryville Piedmont Alameda San Leandro Newark Dublin Pleasanton Oakland Fremont Livermore Hayward Union City Milpitas Morgan Hill MonteSereno Saratoga Campbell Cupertino LosAltosHills Los Altos SantaClaraSunnyvale MountainView Palo Alto Los Gatos San Jose SanFrancisco UV82 UV87 UV9 UV77 UV130 UV82 UV114 UV262 UV17 UV61 UV85 UV92 UV880 UV24 UV82 UV237 UV84 UV92 UV238 UV84 UV185 UV35 UV85 UV13 UV1 UV236UV1 UV238 UV84 UV35 £¤101 £¤101 §¨¦80 §¨¦238 §¨¦680 §¨¦980 §¨¦280 §¨¦880 §¨¦880 §¨¦580 §¨¦280 CITY OF CAMPBELL GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map 0 52½ Miles Legend County Boundary Area Citys City of Campbell Sources: CalAtlas; Santa Clara County; Santa Cruz County; AlamedaCounty; Contra Costa County. Map date: March 9, 2020. K 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 S A N J O S ESAN J O S E ¬«30 ¬«60 ¬«67 ¬«150 CITY OF CAMPBELLGENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 2. Proposed Land Use Map Planning Areas City of Campbell Other Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Santa Clara County Planning Overlays Maximum Unit Count Site-Specific Overlay Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay Residential Uses Low Density Residential (4.5) Low Density Residential (5.5) Low Density Residential (7.5) Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mobile Home Park High Density Residential Mixed Uses Central Commercial Commercial/Light Industrial Office/Low-Medium Density Residential Residential/Commercial/Professional Office Neighborhood Mixed Use Medium-High Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use Commercial Corridor Mixed Use Transit-Oriented Mixed Use Commercial/Office Uses Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Professional OFfice Industrial Uses Light Industrial Research and Development Public/Recreational Uses Institutional Open SpaceLosGatosCreekSanTomasAquinasCreek LosGatosC r e e kLosGatosCreekSources: City of Campbell; Santa Clara County. Map date: March 15, 2022. K 0 2,0001,000 Feet Attachment B U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1886 MAILING LIST U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 450 Golden Gate Ave, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-3404 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Planning & Research Division 375 Beale Street, Suite 60 San Francisco, CA 94105 Regional Water Quality Control Board Attn: Brian Wines 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, Ca 94612 Santa Clara County Fire Dept. Tracy L. Staiger, Senior Deputy Fire Marshal 14700 Winchester Blvd. Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 SCC Dept of Agriculture 1553 Berger Drive San Jose, CA 95112 CA State Water Resources Control Bd 1011 “I” Street Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 ABAG (Assn of Bay Area Governments) 375 Beale Street, #700 San Francisco, CA 94105 CalTrans District 4 / Jean Finney Office of Trans Plang – B Box 23660 Oakland CA 95623-0660 SCC Roads & Airports/Plng Division Attn: Dawn Cameron 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110 U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Divion 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Cambrian Elementary School District 4115 Jacksol Drive San Jose, CA 95124 Habitat for Humanity Attn: Chris Weaver 513 Valley Way Milpitas, CA 95035 Moreland School District 4710 W. Campbell Avenue San Jose, CA 95130 Campbell Union Elem. School Dist, 155 N. Third Street Campbell, CA 95008 Campbell Union High School District 3235 Union Avenue San Jose, CA 95124 West Valley/Mission College Dist. General Services 14000 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Campbell Chamber of Commerce 267 E Campbell Ave. #C Campbell, CA 95008 DCBA (DT Campbell Business Assn) P.O. Box 1484 Campbell, CA 95009-1484 San Tomas West Neighborhood Assn. P.O. Box 111934 Campbell, CA 95011-1934 Greenbelt Alliance 312 Sutter Street, Suite 402 San Francisco, CA 94108 United States Post Office Attn: Postmaster Campbell, CA 95008 West Valley Collection & Recycling 1333 Old Oakland Road San Jose, CA 95112 PG&E 10900 N. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95130 Comcast of CA/CO/WA Inc. 183 Inverness Drive, W Englewood, CO 80112 Department of Transportation 1120 N. Street PO Box 942874 MS 28 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Santa Clara County Libraries Administration 1370 Dell Ave Campbell, CA 95008 SCC Department of Environ. Health Attn: Arlette Kerley 1555 Berger Dr., #300 San Jose, CA 95112 SCC Dept of Parks & Recreation 298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Attachment B SCC Open Space Authority 6980 Santa Teresa Blvd, #100 San Jose, CA 95119 PG&E Land Development 111 Almaden Blvd., #814 San Jose, CA 95124 AT&T 870 N. McCarthy Blvd, 1st Floor Milpitas, CA 95035 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 CPRU@valleywater.org Attn: Community Projects Review Unit San Jose Water Company PO Box 229 San Jose, CA 95196 West Valley Sanitation District 100 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Depart. 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City of San Jose Planning Division 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 SCC Division of Agriculture 1553 Berger Drive, #1 San Jose, CA 95112 California State Clearing House Office of Planning & Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044House California Department of Fish & Game 2825 Cordelia Rd, #100 Fairfield, CA 94534-1377 Valley Transportation Agency Attn: Roy Molseed 3331 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Attn: Shani Kleinhaus McClellan Ranch Park 22221 McClellan Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Union Pacific Railroad Attn: Duffy Exon 9451 Atkinson Street, Suite 100 Roseville, CA. 95747 West Valley Collection & Recycling 1333 Oakland Road San Jose, CA 95112 CA Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710-2721 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Attn: Conservation Chair 3921 East Bayshore Road #204 Palo Alto, CA 94303 South Bay Cablevision Attn: Walt MacKay 3450 Garrett Drive Santa Clara, CA 95054 SCC Office of Education 1290 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95131-2304 LAFCO of SCC 70 W. Hedding Street, 11th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Consuelo Hernandez SCC - Office of Supportive Housing Housing and Community Development 3180 Newberry Ave., #150 San Jose, CA 95118 Comcast Engineering Department Attn: Serviceability Team 3055 Comcast Place Livermore, CA 94551 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Attn: Michael Mirelez PO Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Susan M. Landry 349 Curtner Ave Campbell, CA 95008 Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council 1361 N Hulbert Ave, Fresno, CA 93728 Lisa Brancatelli, Engineering Tech Community Projects Review Unit Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Caltrans District 4 / Mark Leong Office of Transit and Community Planning PO Box 23660, MS-10D Oakland, Ca 94623-0660 Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 270 (members in Campbell) 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94607 Attachment B Amah MutsunTribal Band Valentin Lopez, Chairperson P.O. Box 5272 Galt, CA, 95632 Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson 789 Canada Road Woodside, CA, 94062 Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA, 95024 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 North Valley Yokuts Tribe Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson P.O. Box 717 Linden, CA, 95236 The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan, P.O. Box 3388 Fremont, CA, 94539 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Attn: Michael Mirelez PO Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Tamien Nation Attn: Chairwoman Quirina Luna Geary PO Box 8053 San Jose, CA 95155 Tribal Cultural Resource Officer Attn: Johnathan Costillas PO Box 866 Clearlake Oaks, CA 95423 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 S A N J O S ESAN J O S E ¬«30 ¬«60 ¬«67 ¬«150 CITY OF CAMPBELLGENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 2. Proposed Land Use Map Planning Areas City of Campbell Other Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Santa Clara County Planning Overlays Maximum Unit Count Site-Specific Overlay Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay Residential Uses Low Density Residential (4.5) Low Density Residential (5.5) Low Density Residential (7.5) Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mobile Home Park High Density Residential Mixed Uses Central Commercial Commercial/Light Industrial Office/Low-Medium Density Residential Residential/Commercial/Professional Office Neighborhood Mixed Use Medium-High Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use Commercial Corridor Mixed Use Transit-Oriented Mixed Use Commercial/Office Uses Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Professional OFfice Industrial Uses Light Industrial Research and Development Public/Recreational Uses Institutional Open SpaceLosGatosCreekSanTomasAquinasCreek LosGatosC r e e kLosGatosCreekSources: City of Campbell; Santa Clara County. Map date: March 15, 2022. K 0 2,0001,000 Feet APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM NOTE: The following is a sample form that may be tailored to satisfy individual agencies’ needs and project circumstances. It may be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines have been met. Substantial evidence of potential impacts that are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of significance. 1. Project title: _______________________________________________________________ 2. Lead agency name and address: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Contact person and phone number: ____________________________________________ 4. Project location: ___________________________________________________________ 5. Project sponsor's name and address: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. General plan designation:___________________________ 7. Zoning:________________________ 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture / Forestry Resources Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation Wildfire Air Quality Energy Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4.“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5.Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8.This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9.The explanation of each issue should identify: a)the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; andb)the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Page 4 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but notlimited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildingswithin a state scenic highway? c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existingvisual character or quality of public views of the site and itssurroundings? (Public views are those that are experiencedfrom publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in anurbanized area, would the project conflict with applicablezoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which wouldadversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significantenvironmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ofStatewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the mapsprepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and MonitoringProgram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources CodeSection 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (asdefined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land tonon-forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, dueto their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFarmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest landto non-forest use? III.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollutioncontrol district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anycriteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainmentunder an applicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations? d)Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Page 5 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or throughhabitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fishand Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat orother sensitive natural community identified in local or regionalplans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federallyprotected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernalpool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establishednative resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede theuse of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingbiological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, orother approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ahistorical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of anarchaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsideof dedicated cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a)Result in potentially significant environmental impact due towasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energyresources, during project construction or operation? b)Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewableenergy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverseeffects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated onthe most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ZoningMap, issued by the State Geologist for the area or basedon other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer toDivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv)Landslides? b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Page 6 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or thatwould become unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial director indirect risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resourceor site or unique geologic feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on theenvironment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adoptedfor the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g)Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b)Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge such that the projectmay impede sustainable groundwater management of thebasin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in amanner which would: Page 7 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surfacerunoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed thecapacity of existing or planned stormwater drainagesystems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff; or iv)impede or redirect flood flows? d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release ofpollutants due to project inundation? e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water qualitycontrol plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? b)Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict withany land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for thepurpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resourcethat would be a value to the region and the residents of thestate? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineralresource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increasein ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excessof standards established in the local general plan or noiseordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not beenadopted, within two miles of a public airport or public useairport, would the project expose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,either directly (for example, by proposing new homes andbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension ofroads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a)Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated withthe provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Page 8 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XVI. RECREATION. a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhoodand regional parks or other recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require theconstruction or expansion of recreational facilities which mighthave an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII.TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a)Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b)Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c)Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d)Result in inadequate emergency access? XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. a)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PublicResources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place,cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms ofthe size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or objectwith cultural value to a California Native American tribe, andthat is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register ofHistorical Resources, or in a local register of historicalresources as defined in Public Resources Code section5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in itsdiscretion and supported by substantial evidence, to besignificant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying thecriteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public ResourceCode § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider thesignificance of the resource to a California NativeAmerican tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm waterdrainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunicationsfacilities, the construction or relocation of which could causesignificant environmental effects? Page 9 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projectand reasonably foreseeable future development duringnormal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatmentprovider, which serves or may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand inaddition to the provider’s existing commitments? d)Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwiseimpair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e)Comply with federal, state, and local management andreduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would theproject:a)Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan? b)Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbatewildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants topollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolledspread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associatedinfrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate firerisk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to theenvironment? d)Expose people or structures to significant risks, includingdownslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result ofrunoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to substantially degradethe quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitatof a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populationto drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate aplant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal oreliminate important examples of the major periods ofCalifornia history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, butcumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project areconsiderable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and theeffects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will causesubstantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Planning Commission Report TITLE: Provide feedback on the Campbell's Plan for Housing – Policies and Programs. (PLN-2021-12) RECOMMENDED ACTION Review existing and proposed Objectives, Policies, and Programs, and provide a recommendation to the City Council on which should be revised or added as part of “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” and the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update. 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 development of Objectives, Policies, and Programs to include in Campbell’s Plan for Housing. At the Planning Commission meeting on March 22, 2022, staff presented an informational update on the status and timeline of Campbell’s Plan for Housing. Following initial identification of Housing Opportunity Sites in January 2022 and the start of preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Housing Element, the City is now focused in identifying policies and programs to be included in the Housing Element. Staff began this process by conducting community outreach relative to the development of the Housing Element’s policy framework. Staff has conducted outreach with the community and key stakeholders to obtain feedback regarding objectives, policies, and programs to include in the Housing Element. This included a community meeting on March 24, 2022, a meeting with the faith-based organizations, a meeting with service organizations, and selective individual meetings with stakeholders. A summary of the feedback is included as Attachment B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Planning Commission meeting is to provide recommendations to the City Council on the prioritized objectives, policies, and programs to include in Campbell’s Plan for Housing. Based on this initial feedback from the Planning Commission and Council, staff will refine the identified policies and programs that will be subsequently reviewed by the Planning Commission at its second meeting on this topic, scheduled for May 4th, 2022. To support the Commission in this evaluation, Staff has summarized and provided in this report relevant background information, including (a) an analysis of Campbell’s Existing Item: Category: Study Session Meeting Date: April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 2 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Housing Element and the status of policies and programs, (b) relevant demographic information regarding the Campbell community, to identify special needs populations and housing trends and (c) feedback from the public and key stakeholders during public outreach. EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION The City of Campbell’s existing 5th cycle Housing Element (2015-2023) identifies 6 goals: Goal H-1 Maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods in Campbell. Goal H-2 Improve housing affordability for both renters and homeowners in Campbell. Goal H-3 Encourage the production of housing affordable to a variety of household income levels. Goal H-4 Provide adequate housing sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs. Goal H-5 Reduce the impact of potential governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Goal H-6 Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice. These goals and related policies and programs, in combination with the Housing Opportunity Sites identified, served to demonstrate how could provide sufficient housing to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 933 units over the eight-year planning period (see ‘RHNA Progress’). While policies and programs in the 5th Cycle Housing Element may be carried over to the new Housing Element, many will need to be revisited to provide more specific implementation measures with defined timelines to meet State requirements. Policies should also be evaluated to ensure they align with community expectations, facilitate affordable housing development at all below-market-rate levels, affirmatively further fair housing, and support a broader profile of special needs households. A summary of existing housing programs, objectives, timeframes, and status of its implementation has been provided as a separate attachment (reference Attachment A – Existing Housing Programs & Staff Recommendations). In addition to incorporating changes to existing policies, the 6th Cycle Housing Element will include new programs, where appropriate, to ensure that the City’s priorities and requirements of the State law are addressed, and that constraints to housing are removed, or lessened, to the extent feasible. More specific program language with Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 3 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing detailed timelines for completion will also be included as per new HCD requirements. RHNA Progress Over the current eight-year Housing Element reporting cycle, starting in 2015 and ending in 2023, the City’s RHNA was comprised of 933 housing units distributed across four distinct income levels – ranging from Very Low-Income to Above Moderate-Income. By the end of 2021, the City did not permit sufficient housing in any of the below-market rate categories, despite providing more than enough Above Moderate-Income (market-rate) units as seen in Table 1 below: Income Level RHNA Allocation Total Through 2021 Percent Complete Very Low 253 13 5.3% Low 138 4 2.9% Moderate 151 16 11.8% Above Moderate 391 532 136.1% Total 933 565 N/A Table 1: 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Accomplishments Accordingly, staff recommends the City focus on programs and policies that better facilitate the development of Very Low-Income, Low-Income, and Moderate-Income housing as part of the new Housing Element to meet Campbell's 2023-2031 RHNA requirements. Conclusions from Existing Housing Element Policies and RHNA Progress In summary, staff review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Policies and RHNA progress (Attachment A – Existing Housing Programs & Staff Recommendations) identifies the following issues: • Program language will need to be modified to specify detailed timelines for completion that can be identified in Annual Progress Reports • Existing policy language can largely be retained, with some modified policies • Bolstering production of below market rate housing units for Very Low-Income, Low-Income, and Moderate-Income should be prioritized • New Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements must be identified in the 6th Cycle • Refinements could include: o Support for a broader profile of special needs households o Further incentivize ADUs o Mitigating displacement Potential approaches that may be explored to address these issues are discussed further under ‘Objectives, Policies, and Programs’ below. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 4 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing COMMUNITY CHALLENGES Demographic data and feedback from community engagement meetings has been used to identify community challenges that should be addressed as part of the new Housing Element. Demographic Data As identified in Table 1 above, few Very Low-Income, Low-Income, and Moderate-Income households have recently been built in Campbell. This shortage of affordable housing is reflected in the income patterns of Campbell residents, which consists of proportionately more households making greater than the area median income of $151,300. Figure 1: Household Incomes – Campbell / Santa Clara County / Bay Area1 Due to the underproduction of housing units, Campbell is also growing substantially more slowly than the County or the Bay Area region as a whole as shown in Figure 2: Figure 2: Population Growth Trends2 1 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release 2 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; California Department of Finance, E-5 series Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 5 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing The proportion of the population age 55 or older is also growing substantially as compared between the years of 2000 and 2019 in Figure 2. This signifies a community aging in place over a 20-year timespan. Figure 3: Population by Age: 2000-2019 Further, the city's Asian/API (14.7% up to 20.7%) and Hispanic or Latinx (13.8% up to 19.1%) populations have grown faster between 2000 and 2019 as an overall percentage of Campbell’s population. Figure 4: Population by Race: 2000-20193 3 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 6 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Cost of Housing Home values in Campbell are higher than the Bay Area region or even Santa Clara County according to the Zillow Home Value Index in an area where housing affordability is already among the most challenging in the nation. Figure 5: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)4 The rental market in Campbell is also constrained with more than half of all rental units renting for between $1,500 and $2,500 a month. There are also proportionally fewer units at the top of the market than in Santa Clara County broadly, and proportionally fewer units available at the bottom of the market than in the Bay Area as a whole. Figure 6: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units5 4 Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 7 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Special Issues Family Size - In evaluating household size and the types of housing available in Campbell, there is a mismatch between household size and average number of bedrooms in a unit. The median household size for both homeowners and renters in Campbell is two persons, but the typical housing unit is 2 bedrooms rental units and 3-4 bedrooms for ‘for-sale’ housing stock. Figure 7: Household Size by Tenure6 Figure 8: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms7 Female Headed Households - Although Campbell has proportionately fewer female- headed households than Santa Clara County or the Bay Area region, there are more female-headed households with children below the poverty level than there are female- 6 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009. 7 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 8 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing headed-households without children below the poverty level. Figure 9: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status8 Seniors - Although seniors who are homeowners generally make greater than 100 percent of the Area Median Income, the majority of seniors who are renting make less than 50 percent of the Area Median Income. Figure 10: Senior Households by Income and Tenure9 8 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012. 9 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Report: Campbell; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 9 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Conclusions from Data Review of Campbell’s demographic data points to the following key conclusions: • Campbell is greying, with a slowing rate of population growth and a growing proportion of senior residents • This change is being felt inequitably: o The senior population is less diverse than the younger population in Campbell o Homeowning seniors have more wealth and income than renting seniors. • Campbell is seeing a mismatch between the relatively small household sizes (median of 2 residents per household) and the stock of relatively large housing units (median of 3-4 bedrooms per household) • There is also a relatively large number of female-headed households with children below the poverty level. In review of this demographic data and trends , as well as community feedback (see related discussion below) the Planning Commission should consider how existing housing policies and programs can be modified or new policies and programs created to address key challenges and needs of the community. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMENTS Between March and early April staff facilitated in-depth focus on community engagement for the Housing Element update, including a general community meeting on March 24, a service provider stakeholder meeting on March 29, and a focus group meeting with faith- based organizations on April 4, 2022. This follows prior engagement such as focus group meetings with affordable and market-rate housing developers, businesses, and property owners, as well as public surveys and noticed meetings. On March 24, members of the Campbell community discussed the five draft objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. The community members focused on affordability, particularly 100-percent affordable housing projects. Other statements coming out of the meeting included the encouragement of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), potentially considering alternative parking requirements, encouraging transit, and encouraging more safe senior housing. Attachment B is a summary of this meeting. On March 29, service providers met with staff and stated priorities for a mix of unit sizes throughout Campbell, noting that 2-bedroom units for families and housing near transit serves were particularly lacking. The providers stated that housing for the unhoused population and seniors were priorities, particularly housing with care facilities on-site. The service providers also stated that housing for people with disabilities and for precariously- housed populations10 were acute needs. Attachment C summarizes this meeting. On April 4, the project team hosted a meeting for faith-based organizations in area. One ministry representative attended in person and engaged in a discussion expressing interest in knowing how many of the units in the City are used for short-term rental or 10 Those living with others but not paying rent. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 10 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing have been purchased by corporations. Due to the low attendance rate, City staff followed up with the ministries that were invited and shared a survey with the same questions asked at the focus group session. To date, one respondent has completed the survey. The survey respondent encouraged the development of affordable housing and not allowing for profit developers to buy multi-unit housing properties, and encouraged the City to develop a livable, attractive, and safe shelter for the homeless that addresses privacy concerns that families may have. Other policies to consider should include tariffs on large companies that buy properties for their own use and profits. This feedback is summarized in Attachment D. In addition to the meetings held on March 24, 29, and April 4, staff will meetings with school district representatives in mid-April. Summary of Stakeholder and Community Feedback There are several consistent themes in the feedback provided: • Emphasizing the development below-market-rate units • Prioritizing the development of 100-percent affordable projects and/or projects with smaller unit sizes • Prioritizing ADUs • Prioritizing housing near transit • Promoting affordable housing with on-site care facilities, whether for unhoused/precariously-housed populations, persons with disabilities, or seniors. SUMMARY OF HOUSING ISSUES Campbell's demographics point to a greater need for housing for seniors, and a potential mismatch of housing unit types with respect to average household size, and a need for specifically targeted affordable housing policies. The feedback from stakeholders and the community prioritized 100-percent affordable units, increased ADUs, a broader unit mix, and housing developments with on-site care would all meet Campbell's demographic needs. Targeted affordable housing supported by a tight policy framework would incentivize the production of affordable housing, meeting Campbell's RHNA obligations, by signalizing to affordable housing developers what types of affordable housing projects are sought by the city and where. OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS The objectives, policies, and programs of a housing element serve as the framework that guides housing development throughout the housing element’s 8-year planning period. To function effectively the framework must focus on the overarching policy objectives of the jurisdiction. Based on the current objectives of Campbell’s housing element and the programmatic requirements of the State, staff has identified six key objectives to frame Campbell’s future housing policies and programs. These objectives were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in March and consist of the following: Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 11 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing 1. Improve Housing Affordability in Campbell – Encourage the Production of Affordable Housing 2. Preserve Existing Housing / Affordable Housing Stock 3. Remove Government Constraints to Housing 4. Resilient Housing Policies 5. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing & Addressing Special Needs Groups Below, each objective is presented with an analysis of potential policies and programs. with an identification of the benefits and challenges of each. The intent of housing policies is to provide strategic guidance on how to address specific housing issues. For example, providing incentives for developers to provide affordable housing achieves the objective of improving housing affordability in Campbell. The intent of programs is to implement the policy objectives. For example, modification of permitting procedures, ordinances and allocating any necessary funding to provide financial incentives that encourage the development of affordable housing. Community feedback identifies greater needs for the community and helps tailor strategies that meet Campbell’s unique set of needs and establish localized priorities. Objective #1: Improve Housing Affordability in Campbell – Encourage the Production of Affordable Housing A. Modifications to Campbell’s Inclusionary Ordinance The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires at least fifteen percent of the units in a new housing development of ten or more units to be price or rent restricted for low- and moderate-income households. The City could modify its City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to facilitate additional below market rate housing production. This could include • Additional incentives for the development of units affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and low- income households or units to accommodate people with special needs. • Provide more specific requirements on the exact percentage of units that should be provided to low- and moderate-income households, • Lower the inclusionary ordinance threshold to under 10 units and/or require the payment of an appropriate in-lieu fees for projects with fewer than 10 units. Benefits: • Increase the development of affordable units or units which accommodate people with special needs. • Modifications could allow the City to incentivize development of units affordable to a target income-level or special needs population. Challenges: • Increases to the required percentage of affordable units or units which accommodate special needs could provide a financial disincentive to overall residential development if the financial burden is too high. The City should Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 12 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing obtain feedback from key stakeholders (developer community) and complete a feasibility study to ensure that the requirement would be adequately offset by incentives.  Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend clarifying the percentage of restricted units by income-level (i.e., 50% low, 50% moderate) and establish an in- lieu fee for smaller housing projects that scales proportionally and appropriately to the number of units in projects less than nine units. Based on research of other jurisdictions, stakeholder feedback, Campbell should identify a lower threshold (ex. five units) for requiring payment of an in-lieu fee. o Priority: High B. Establishment of Affordable Housing Impact Fees applied to non-residential development A commercial or non-residential linkage fee would require developers of non- residential development to pay a fee proportional with the size of the development that would be used to finance affordable housing developments. Implementation of this program would require a nexus and feasibility study to determine an appropriate fee amount. Benefits: • Establishes a nexus and financial link between commercial development, new job growth, and the need for housing to support additional jobs. • Provides the City with resources for funding affordable housing projects. Challenges: • Affordable housing impact fees could discourage non-residential development in the city if they are not calibrated correctly. The cost to prepare the nexus and feasibility study would also need to be funded by the City.  Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends an initial analysis of linkage fees collected by surrounding communities on non-residential development to better establish industry standards for further evaluation of this program. Given that the number of non-residential buildings to be constructed over the eight-year planning period is anticipated to be substantially lower than the number of new housing units, staff would consider this a medium priority when compared to other items on the list. o Priority: Medium C. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Introducing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone would establish incentives and development standards with the explicit intent of incentivizing the development of affordable housing units within identified geographic areas. Adding an AHOZ would require modification to the City's zoning ordinance. Benefits: • Allows the City to incentivize affordable housing on suitable parcels and can Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 13 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing tailor the real estate development market towards affordable housing development rather than market rate development • Expands opportunities for higher density if a development includes affordable housing units. • Facilitates and directs where higher density, affordable projects can be developed in consideration of the potential greater massing and height of buildings associated with these projects. • Creates greater certainty and potential permit streamlining for Affordable Housing developers. Challenges: • Would require discussions with property owners and neighborhoods where the AHOZ is proposed to ensure community support. • Would not create immediate affordable housing but would provide opportunities when redevelopment occurs.  Staff Recommendation: Staff would strongly recommend adding a policy to establish an affordable housing overlay zone and could also explore the creation of a transfer of development rights program as a means of preserving existing housing consistent with Objective #2 and/or protecting areas of the community where there may be a high sensitivity to increased density and/or height (i.e., Downtown, adjacent to Single Family Residential Areas). o Priority: High D. Regulation of housing unit sizes to increase affordability The City could establish regulations relative to unit size in moderate to large scale housing developments. This could apply as a required mix of unit sizes that reflect a mix of bedrooms (i.e., studio, 1-bedroom, +2-bedrooms) or as a maximum average unit size that must be met in an entire development without further specification on how that average is achieved (no minimum or maximum on unit square footage if the average is achieved). As an example, the City of Burlingame has a maximum average unit size of 1,250 sq. ft. in the downtown area to provide a diverse range of unit types and sizes within a project by balancing larger units with smaller units. Benefits: • Facilitates a more balanced housing stock for the City over the long term. • Ensures a mix of unit types in denser developments. Challenges: • Creates additional challenges for developers to address market-rate only housing demands. • Limits flexibility of developers to address immediate market demands.  Staff Recommendation: Staff would further evaluation and consideration of establishing maximum average unit sizes as a means of preserving and protecting the City’s established 75-foot height limit and to ensure units would be affordable Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 14 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing by design. Exceptions could be considered in instances when the project provides a greater level of affordability or helps provide housing for a special needs population. Staff also recommends further stakeholder engagement (affordable and market rate developer community) on this proposal o Priority: High E. Use of City-owned land for affordable housing Promote increased utilization of surplus or underutilized public land for affordable housing. Benefits: • Ensures production of affordable units. • Strengthen public-private partnerships. • City can dictate terms in the development process when negotiating terms of use or sale of city-owned land. Challenges: • Requires that land provided does not displace a public use that cannot be effectively re-located.  Staff Recommendation: The City of Campbell has identified two City-owned properties as potential housing opportunity sites (i.e., First Street Parking Garage, City Corporation Yard). Recognizing that no other City-owned properties were identified as suitable for housing development, and the feasibility of the sites identified is separately being studied, no further action on this item is required at this time. Separately, staff has been meeting with school districts to evaluate use of their underutilized fields as potential housing sites. o Priority: Potential sites have been already identified F. ADU Ordinance updates The ADU Ordinance update could include incentives for the development of accessory dwelling units that are deed restricted to be affordable to very low-, low- , and moderate-income households. Benefits: • Increases the development of affordable units in neighborhoods that are predominantly single-family residences. Challenges: • ADU production is solely reliant on individual homeowners to decide to develop an ADU on their property.  Staff Recommendation: A draft study on the affordability of ADU’s completed the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team noted that even without deed restrictions, approximately 30% of ADU’s are provided at a very low-, low-, and moderate-income level. Based on this data, it is likely a lower priority for the City to create a program to incentivize deed restricted affordable units. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 15 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing o Priority: Low G. Establish Pre-Approved ADU Plans This program would entail establishing ADU plans that are pre-approved by the city to meet building and fire codes and would meet height requirements. Creation of these pre-approved ADU’s would incentivize the development of accessory dwelling units by allowing interested residents to visualize potential ADUs for their property. Pre-approved plans would also lower costs by streamlining the architectural work and regulatory processes required to develop an ADU for a property. Benefits: • Encourages ADU development by lowering costs and decreasing City staff time required for review of ADU projects. Challenges: • Would require the City to pay to prepare plans and publicize them to Campbell residents and local architects.  Staff Recommendation: As part of the Santa Clara County Housing Collaborative, Campbell and other City staff have discussed developing this as a sub-regional program that can be available to all residents and cities in Santa Clara County. Currently the City of San Jose has a pre-approved ADU program and a County wide program could build off of this effort. Staff will continue to work with the Housing Collaborative to potentially develop this in tandem with other Santa Clara County Cities. o Priority: Moderate H. Providing certainty for housing developers by allowing appropriate waivers from development regulations or fees for affordable housing developments Give affordable housing developers more assurances early in the conceptual development phase of the project to diminish financial risk during the entitlement process. This can be achieved by providing relief from specific development standards (parking standards) if a project meets certain affordable housing goals. While many of these standards can be waived through the use of the State Density Bonus law process, an identification of standards and fees that can be waived can direct affordable housing developers to focus on these areas and provides an incentive for affordable housing development. Benefits: • Eliminates an amount of upfront risk and sunk costs involved with the development of housing units if a project meets affordable housing goals. • Could enhance other policies and programs (i.e., an AHOZ or use of a city-owned parcel) or could stand alone as a policy. Challenges: • Requires a detailed understanding of specific developer needs, which may Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 16 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing change over time, to minimize upfront costs.  Staff Recommendation: This program can be developed in tandem with the development of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Objective Standards. o Priority: Develop in tandem with AHOZ and Objective Standards Update I. Develop Objective Development Standards Adopt objective development standards that provide clear direction for developers as to how to comply with Campbell’s development requirements. Objective standards would replace subjective requirements, such as language that requires “neighborhood compatibility” without defining what that means and requiring interpretations at the discretion of decision makers. Benefits: • Provides developers with greater certainty at the outset of a project that it will comply with Campbell’s requirements. • Greater certainty of success during the project review phase lowers development costs and shortens the review period. • Enables Campbell to have more direct oversight of housing projects that could pursue streamlining of review under state laws such as Senate Bill (SB) 35, SB 9, SB 10, or ADUs. Challenges: • Limits the discretion of decision makers when approving development proposals. • May result in fewer large housing projects receiving direct input from the public or decision makers, if those projects can proceed without a public notice process or public hearing.  Staff Recommendation: The City has already embarked on an effort to adopt objective standards and staff will be returning to the City Council on April 19, 2022 to discuss an expanded scope of work to create new standards for the development of small-lot single family, multi-family, and mixed-use development projects at densities being studied as part of the Housing Element update process. o Priority: N/A; Under Development J. Develop Missing Middle Ordinance (SB 10) A Missing Middle Ordinance would identify sites where small urban infill housing could be implemented throughout the City, where parcels can be developed up to 10 units as allowed by SB 10 (2021). During the Housing Opportunity Site selection process, this tool was identified as a potential means to allow additional housing in areas of the City (San Tomas) that did not receive many Housing Opportunity Sites. Benefits: • Can provide additional opportunities for missing middle housing development, between ADU’s and higher density development, on smaller Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 17 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing parcels that cannot be assimilated for higher intensity development. Challenges: • New development built under SB 10 will not necessarily be affordable beyond the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.  Staff Recommendation: Following the adoption of Objective Standards, staff would strongly recommend pursuing an SB 10 Ordinance with an emphasis on developing housing throughout the community and in addition to areas near transit, in areas that received a low allocation of housing units (i.e., San Tomas Area). o Priority: Moderate; pending adoption of Objective Standards Objective #2: Preserve Existing Housing / Affordable Housing Stock A. Rent Control Ordinance A rent control ordinance would cap the maximum yearly rent increase that landlords can charge. This Ordinance would go beyond what is currently allowed under State Law. AB 1482 caps yearly rent increases to 5% plus the percent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 10%, whichever is lower, for tenants who have occupied a property for more than 12 months. Benefits: • Decreases the number of households at risk of displacement and homelessness. • Decreases the number of households that are rent burdened. • Promotes tenant and community stability. Challenges: • May discourage development of market-rate housing since rent-controlled units will be more difficult to make profitable for developers. • Possibly less maintenance of rent-controlled units since landlords cannot recoup the costs as much as with market prices.  Staff Recommendation: Rather than lower the maximum caps allowed by AB 1482, staff would recommend adopting a local Ordinance that would cap the rent increases for tenants that have occupied a property for less than 12 months as a first step. By adopting such an Ordinance, it would help provide protections for tenants that lease month-to-month (often the most at-risk community) and help educate the rental community at large of the provisions of AB 1482 in general. o Priority: Low B. Preservation of Mobile Home Parks An ordinance that preserves mobile home parks will protect mobile home parks from being redeveloped into other uses. This differs from what is required by State Law under AB 2782. State law requires a developer to provide a relocation plan for all displaced residents and pay residents who are unable to find housing in Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 18 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing another mobile home park for the market value of their mobile home. A local plan would require preservation of the mobile home park outright. Benefits: • Protects vulnerable populations from being displaced. • Preserves a valuable source of low-income housing. • Furthers existing Housing Element Program, H-2.1b: Preservation of Mobile Home Park Units, which calls for the enforcement of the City’s Rental Increase Dispute program for mobile home units to maintain the availability and affordability of mobile home units in the Campbell. Continue to enforce the City’s Rental Increase Dispute Resolution program for mobile home park units to maintain the availability and affordability of mobile home units in Campbell. The City recently entered into an agreement with the Timber Cove Mobile Home Park to maintain unit affordability. Challenges: • Restricts property owner flexibility in land use development.  Staff Recommendation: The proposed land use designation for mobile home parks is intended to serve mobile homes and modular homes and specifically discourages the conversion of exiting mobile home parks to other uses. Moreover, as the studied density range allowed by the mobile home park land use designation (8 to 16 units per gross acre) is low when compared to existing improvements, redevelopment of these areas is anticipated to be very unlikely if not entirely cost prohibitive. As the Paseo de Palomas Mobile Home Park is resident owned, the benefit to mobile home parks in general may be limited when compared to the adoption of other ordinances or policies, such as a rent control ordinance, especially when the City has an existing program in the Housing Element (H-2.1b) which has led to successful outcomes in the past, such as agreements with the Timber Cove Mobile Home Park community to maintain unit affordability. o Priority: Low C. Short Term Vacation Rental Ordinance A short-term vacation rental ordinance would allow homeowners to rent out their properties or a portion of their properties for less than 30 days. Any ordinance and/or guidelines would require extensive outreach and surveying to reflect community concerns and values. The City Council has discussed potentially allowing short term vacation rentals as a means of increasing the receipt of transit occupancy taxes. Benefits: • Provides homeowners with an extra source of income while allowing the City to collect transient occupancy taxes. Challenges: • Short-term vacation rentals would create increased competition for the Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 19 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing traditional lodging industry in the city. • The use of housing units for short term vacation rentals reduces the housing stock available to renters. • Short term vacation rentals can have negative land use impacts (parking, noise) on residential neighborhoods.  Staff Recommendation: Short-term rentals are not allowed in the City at this time. Allowing short-term rentals could diminish housing stock availability and run counter to other objectives. If pursued, a short-term vacation rental ordinance should balance maintaining available housing stock and reducing land use impacts with the opportunity for homeowners to receive additional income and to provide additional TOT funding for the City. o Priority: Low D. Housing rehabilitation loan program City staff will continue to refer eligible low-income households to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley11 to help finance qualifying home repairs. Benefits: • Ensure safe and attractive neighborhoods by rehabilitating older homes. • Preserve and maintain existing housing. Challenges: • City cannot directly impact funding or distribution, as this is a County program.  Staff Recommendation: Update the existing policy (H-1.1a – Facilitate home rehabilitation) to provide more specific direction on program availability to Campbell residents and include a notice in the annual certification process for below-market rate housing units (for-sale) to inform them of the opportunity in addition to posting on the City website. o Priority: Low E. Workforce Housing / CSCDA JPA The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) designed to provide reduced rent to middle-income workers in California which make too much to qualify for traditional affordable housing subsidies but do not earn enough to live in the communities where they work (hereinafter ‘Workforce Housing Program’). The Workforce Housing Program uses tax-exempt government bonds to acquire market-rate apartment buildings. Once acquired, the property becomes exempt from paying property taxes which results in the ability to lower rents and provide affordable housing. Rent levels are lowered to no more than 35% of household 11 Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 20 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing income levels at Low (up to 80% AMI) to Moderate (up to 120% AMI). Annual rent increases would not exceed 4% per year, which is considerably less than the limits under AB1482. Benefits: • Converts existing market-rate housing into deed restricted affordable housing • Current residents are not displaced; if tenants do not qualify for restricted rents, they may remain at current market rent. Challenges: • Requires the City to enter into a Public Benefit Agreement (“PBA”) and to approve each specific property to be included on a case-by-case basis. • Potential tax losses to the City, County, and local school districts. • Units are not counted toward RHNA obligations. • Must show that an equal or greater number of net new affordable housing units are being produced in the same housing element planning period and RHNA cycle. • Most affordable housing is provided at no more than 30% of household income towards rent and utilities.  Staff Recommendation: Several organizations, including Catalyst Housing and Opportunity Housing Group (OHG), have expressed interest in buying apartment communities (such as the ‘Park at Pruneyard’) and converting them to workforce housing. OHG has identified an immediate need, based on property availability, to initiate an Opportunity Housing project in Campbell. Per state law, the City must adopt a resolution authorizing Opportunity Housing within the City. Understanding this interest, the City may elect to advance this opportunity in the short term rather than waiting for the adoption of the updated Housing Element. o Priority: Medium Objective #3: Remove Government Constraints to Housing A. Modify parking standards Reducing Parking requirements or creating better flexibility for developments that include affordable housing or provide units for special needs populations or are located within a short proximality to the VTA light rail stations. Under this program, the City may explore rideshare parking facilities or establishing parking passes for street parking in select areas of the community to offset the impact of reduced parking standards. Benefits: • Reduces costs to developers that build affordable housing or housing for special needs populations. • Reductions in parking has been documented to lead to a reduction in driving. • Benefits the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicles miles traveled (VMT) in the community. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 21 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Challenges: • Standards will need to be developed that are based on both property location and type of housing. • Potential to impact surrounding areas where offsite parking demand will increase.  Staff Recommendation: Reduce parking standards for all projects close to light rail and affordable housing projects and consider ridesharing opportunties. o Priority: High B. Improve permit streamlining Eligible affordable housing development would be granted a streamlined permitting process, thereby shortening review times. Benefits: • Reduces costs and time needed for developer build affordable housing. Challenges: • Minimizes the ability for public input on the design of a project.  Staff Recommendation: Under current state law, certain affordable housing projects may already use an SB 35 process that requires permit streamlining. The Department is working on a broader zoning ordinance update that will includes the establishment of SB 35 processing procedures. In keeping with previous comments, the creation of Objective Standards is being prioritized. Once established, the City may consider changes to the types of projects which require public hearings, eliminating the need for hearings entirely, or taking items to hearing only on appeal of an administrative action. o Priority: Low C. Development impact fee adjustments for affordable housing projects This would specifically lower or eliminate development impact fees for affordable housing developments. Benefits: • Incentivizes affordable housing development by lowering known costs and facilitating acquisition of grant financing for 100% affordable housing developments. Challenges: • Requires a fiscal study to understand costs associated with increases in population that would not be met through impact fee payments for affordable units.  Staff Recommendation: The City has only one existing development impact fee which is for public parks. As the park impact fee is paid for by the developer of a Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 22 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing community, waiving or reducing park impact fees should be reserved for 100% affordable housing development projects, or for units which are provided at an extremely very low-income level (over and above what would otherwise be required by Ordinance or State Law). o Priority: Low Objective #4: Resilient Housing Policies A. Siting development This refers to establishing climate adaptation strategies that encourage resilient design. Examples include siting development outside of high hazard areas or requiring building orientation to take advantage of passive heating/cooling. Benefits: • Reduces impacts of climate change on future development. Challenges: • May require additional development costs.  Staff Recommendation: As part of the Objective Standards update, staff would recommend incorporating specific standards to govern the placement and orientation of buildings. o Priority: Low; consider as part of Objective Standards update B. Resilient design New housing designs are encouraged to be resilient to hazards and climate impacts. This could be achieved through building standards such as requiring HVAC systems, using low-solar-gain exterior materials, and high efficiency heat pumps. Benefits: • Improve the safety and comfort of residents during climate events, such as heat waves, poor air quality days from wildfire smoke, and seismic events. Challenges: • Will likely pose a greater upfront financial burden on developers.  Staff Recommendation: As part of the Objective Standards update, staff would recommend incorporating standards to address more specific building requirements. o Priority: Low; consider as part of Objective Standards update Objective #5: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and addressing special needs groups A. Fulfilling housing needs for special needs populations and workforce housing. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 23 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Special needs populations identified to date include the following groups:  Large Families / Female Headed Households  Homelessness  Persons with Disabilities  Seniors To support special needs populations and workforce housing, programs could include incentivizing housing that is suitable to their needs or integrating services into housing developments. Examples could include providing more emergency housing and shelters for the homeless population and having incentives or requirements to ensure housing with facilities for those with disabilities are developed with affordable housing projects. As identified earlier, Campbell has an aging population and certain housing programs could focus on housing design or programs addressing the needs of seniors, such as allowing them to better age in place. Benefits: • Expand affordable housing opportunities that are accessible to special needs populations. Challenges: • Inexplicit programming requirements could add time and cost to development.  Staff Recommendation: See previous discussion related to ‘Modifications to Campbell’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance’. Separately, the City may seek to further expand and support existing programs that provide support to special needs populations. For example, the City may expand programs for overnight parking at faith-based organizations as part of the City’s Camping Ordinance, and explore opportunity housing programs to address the demands of large families / female headed households, persons with disabilities, and seniors (see related discussion’). o Priority: Medium B. Renter protections Renter protections include actions intended to enhance the rights of renters and protect them from unjust evictions and other conflicts with landlords. Examples of renter protection programs could include support for tenant/landlord mediation or a Fair Chance Ordinance, which would prohibit housing providers from inquiring about criminal history during the tenant selection process. Benefits: • Reduce unlawful displacement of renters. • Expand education for both renters and landlords on their respective rights and obligations. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 24 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Challenges: • Increases restrictions on landowners and may discourage rental of properties.  Staff Recommendation: The City of Campbell contracts with Project Sentinel to mediate renter disputes with landlords. While the City may consider adoption of a Fair Chance Ordinance, to help protect individuals with a criminal history, staff would consider it a low priority as it has not been identified as a housing challenge in community surveys (reference Attachment E – Community Survey Results; which identified potential discrimination based on ethnic background or financial status). o Priority: Low C. ADU incentives for special needs populations Incentives would be provided for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are built to accommodate the needs of special needs populations, such as people with disabilities. Benefits: • Provision of special needs housing throughout the City as opposed to only concentrated in one area. Challenges: • ADU production is solely reliant on individual homeowners to decide to develop an ADU on their property.  Staff Recommendation: It would be difficult to ensure that ADU units are provided to special needs populations in exchange for the types of incentives the City would likely offer (e.g., reduced fees, or larger units, or reduced standards). o Priority: N/A; not recommended. D. Outreach and education on fair housing laws Furthering outreach and education on fair housing laws means educating current and future residents on their rights and responsibilities. Benefits: • Increase the public’s awareness of their rights and protections under the law. Challenges: • Requires additional staff time to conduct outreach. Effective outreach and education cannot be a one-time event.  Staff Recommendation: Include a policy with specific guidance on the frequently and method of public outreach. o Priority: Low Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 25 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing E. Equity training Equity-focused trainings for City staff will provide them with tools to incorporate diversity and inclusion into internal structural practices, policy planning, and events where staff interfaces with the community. Benefits: • Provide staff with an opportunity to identify and eliminate barriers to equity. • Increase the inclusiveness of community engagement and planning efforts. Challenges: • To ensure effectiveness, equity trainings will need to be held semi-regularly, and should not be a one-time event.  Staff Recommendation: Include a policy with specific guidance on the frequently and appropriate forum for equity training events. o Priority: Low F. Multilingual information on housing programs Information on housing programs and websites that direct the public to housing resources would be multilingual. Interpretation services can be made available for non-English speakers that are inquiring about housing. Benefits: • Ensure more equitable access to housing programs and opportunities Challenges: • Full and continuous implementation of multilingual information on housing programs will require City spending on translation and interpretation services.  Staff Recommendation: Include a policy requiring key housing program materials and handouts to be provided in multiple languages. Given demographic trends, staff would recommend only providing such resources in Spanish in addition to English if considered. o Priority: Low NEXT STEPS Moving forward, staff will share the objectives, policies and programs outlined above with Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council on April 20, 2022. Following the City Council meeting, staff will further refine the list of programs and policies and provide more information to return to the Planning Commission and City Council in early May for a second round of review and a more robust discussion of feedback received through public outreach efforts. Following this review in May, the policies and programs will be integrated into the Draft Housing Element that is targeted to be published in mid to late May for public review. Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 26 of 26 PLN-2021-12 | Objectives, Policies, and Programs for Campbell’s Plan for Housing Prepared by: _________________________________ Brittany Bendix, M-Group Principal Planner Reviewed by: _________________________________ Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, M-Group, Principal in Charge Reviewed by: _________________________________ Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Approved by: _________________________________ Rob Eastwood, AICP, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Existing Housing Programs & Staff Recommendations B. Summary of March 24, 2022, Community Outreach Meeting C. Summary of March 29, 2022, Stakeholder Outreach Meeting D. Summary of April 4, 2022, Ministries Focus Group Meeting E. Community Survey Results 123 4 5 Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Potential Changes H-1.1a Facilitate home rehabilitation 2015 to 2023 Staff refers low-income households to Santa Clara County's Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan/Grant Program to help finance qualifying home repairs using the Santa Clara County (SCC) revolving loan fund. Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program The City will continue to inform residents about the County’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. 2015 to 2023 Staff refers low-income households to Santa Clara County's Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan/Grant Program to help finance qualifying home repairs using the Santa Clara County (SCC) revolving loan fund. H-1.1b Ensure ongoing maintenance of housing stock 2015 to 2023 The Code Enforcement officer continues to provide info to the public on rehab assistance (e.g., Rebuilding Together and the Rehab loan/grant program). Code Enforcement The City will continue to administer the Code Enforcement Program. The Code Enforcement Officer will identify housing units (including ownership and rental units in single- and multi-family buildings) that could qualify for rehabilitation assistance. 2015 to 2023 The Code Enforcement officer continues to provide info to the public on rehab assistance (e.g., Rebuilding Together and the Rehab loan/grant program). H-1.2a Promote energy conservation and sustainable design 2015 to 2023 The City continues to implement the California Green Building Codes and promote green building and energy conservation. Green Buildings Implement the State’s CalGreen building codes to promote climate protection strategies. Promote green building and energy conservation on City website and through brochures. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to implement the California Green Building Codes and promote green building and energy conservation. H-1.3a Reduce energy usage in existing buildings 2015 to 2023 The City continues to promote various utility assistance programs and other related programs on the website. Promote Energy Efficiency The City website will promote PG&E utility assistance programs, programs offered through non- profit agencies and other related programs. Information will also be provided at City facilities. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to promote various utility assistance programs and other related programs on the website. In 2015 the City became a member agency of Silicon Valley Clean Energy which, based on the most recent 2020 estimate, has contributed to regional reduction in energy-related emissions of 35% from the baseline year. In 2019 the City adopted a "REACH" code Ordinance requiring electric HVAC systems. H-2.1a Preserve assisted housing stock Contact the owners of at- risk properties on an annual basis The City is not aware of any assisted housing programs that are at-risk of conversion to market rate units. Preservation of Assisted Housing Monitor at-risk units. The City will maintain contact with the owners of the at-risk properties (those with Section 8 vouchers), and provide financial (if available) or other assistance as necessary to maintain the affordability of these at risk units. Contact the owners of at- risk properties on an annual basis The City is not aware of any assisted housing programs that are at-risk of conversion to market rate units. H-2.1b Preserve mobile home park dwelling units 2015-2023 Chapter 6.09 continues to apply to Mobile Home rental units. Preservation of Mobile Home Park Units Continue to implement the provisions of the ordinance to maintain the affordability of these units.2015-2023 Chapter 6.09 continues to apply to Mobile Home rental units. H-2.1c Monitor Lower Income Household Displacement 2015-2023 The City continues to monitor housing affordability and potential displacement issues in the community Lower Income Household Displacement Monitor housing affordability in the community on an ongoing basis, and consider possible strategies to address local displacement issues. 2015-2023 The City continues to monitor housing affordability and potential displacement issues in the community H-2.2a Assist extremely low and very low- income households with rental payments Prepare and disseminate property owner information. The City continues to encourage affordable housing developments to accept section 8 vouchers. Section 8 Rental Assistance Through the County Housing Authority, the City will continue to provide Section 8 rental assistance to extremely low to very low-income residents. The City will encourage landlords to register units with the Housing Authority. Prepare and disseminate property owner information. The City continues to encourage affordable housing developments to accept section 8 vouchers. H-2.3a Expand home- ownership opportunities 2015-2023 The City continues to refer interested households to the County's MCC program. Information on the MCC program is on the City’s website. In 2020, the helped promote and host an 'Empower Homebuyers SCC - Down Payment Assistance Program' webinar with the County of Santa Clara which uses Measure A funds to provide down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers with up to 17% of the purchase price. In 2021, the City attempted to secure Measure A funds for two housing developments (700 W. Hamilton Avenue and the VTA lightrail station on Winchester). Mortgage Credit Certificate Continue to provide information and promote the MCC program. The City will also continue to make available brochures of housing programs availableand provide information about the program on the City’s website. 2015-2023 The City continues to refer interested households to the County's MCC program. Information on the MCC program is on the City’s website. H-2.3b Prevent home foreclosures 2015-2023 The City provides information on foreclosure counseling on the website. Foreclosure Prevention Promote available foreclosure counseling services through the City website and quarterly newsletters. 2015-2023 The City provides information on foreclosure counseling on the website. H-2.4a Support the provision of shared housing opportunities Contact cities and service agencies in 2015 The City’s website includes a link to Catholic Charities’ shared housing program. Shared Housing Program Continue to provide assistance for shared housing services to single-parent households, and extremely low, very low and low income populations (if available). Contact cities and service agencies in 2015 The City’s website includes a link to Catholic Charities’ shared housing program. H-2.4b Coordinate efforts with Silicon Valley jurisdictions and service providers to assist the homeless 2015-2023 Each year the City contributes funds to the homeless count. The City’s website includes a link to homeless services. Homeless Assistance/ Shelter Provisions Continue to provide support to area homeless shelters and service providers to serve extremely low and very low income populations (as resources are available). 2015-2023 Each year the City contributes funds to the homeless count. The City’s website includes a link to homeless services. Existing Housing Programs and Staff Recommendations Update the existing policy to provide more specific direction on program availability to Campbell residents and include a notice in the annual certification process for below-market rate housing units (for-sale) to inform them of the opportunity in addition to posting on the City website. Consider adding additional policies addressing water conservation pending the outcomes of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) to be prepared by West Yost as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Consider establishing a rent control ordinance. Consider adopting an Ordinance that requires the preservation of mobile home parks outright. Consider establishing a rent control ordinance. No changes. H-2.4c Work with developers to integrate physically accessible units into new development 2015-2023 The City encourages developers to offer accessible units in affordable developments. Physically Accessible Housing The City will work with developers to increase the number of fully available accessible housing units compliant with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. 2015-2023 The City encourages developers to offer accessible units in affordable developments. H-2.4d Coordinate with other agencies and organizations, such as San Andreas Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition, and Bay Area Housing Coalition, in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities 2015-2023 The City has met with representatives from several non-profit agencies to help promote their programs and encourage developers to provide housing opportunities for the disabled. Persons with Disabilities Work with SARC to make information available on the programs and assistance for persons with disabilities to the public through the City Website. Explore opportunities to assist in the provision of supportive housing opportunities for persons with disabilities 2015-2023 The City has met with representatives from several non-profit agencies to help promote their programs and encourage developers to provide housing opportunities for the disabled. H-3.1a Increase affordable housing within market-rate developments 2015-2023 The City continues to implement the Inclusionary Ordinance. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Implementation Continue to implement inclusionary housing ordinance requirements for all new projects as required by City Ordinance. 2015-2023 The City continues to implement the Inclusionary Ordinance. H-3.1b Consider revisions to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to allow for case-by- case determination on the appropriate percentage of low and moderate income units 2015-2023 In 2019, the City updated the Inclusionary Ordinance to clarify that the definition of "residential project" is exclusive of any proposed accessory dwelling units. Citywide Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Amendments Evaluate the appropriateness of amending the Ordinance to provide more flexibility and to ensure that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the City’s Density Bonus provisions are integrated in a manner consistent with State Law and recent court decisions. 2015-2023 In 2019, the City updated the Inclusionary Ordinance to clarify that the definition of "residential project" is exclusive of any proposed accessory dwelling units. Reach test test H-4.1a Provide adequate sites to meet City’s share of regional housing needs Update sites inventory as needed. In addition to maintaining a list of opportunity sites on the City's website, in 2020 the City conducted extensive outreach to property owners in the community and developers (for profit and non-profit) in the region as part of Campbell's Plan for Housing (2023-2031 Housing Element). As a result of those efforts, the City identifie a number of potential housing opportunity sites and densities which would satisfy the City’s 6th cycle RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) which have the support and interest of property owners. Housing Opportunity Site Inventory Maintain active listing of Opportunity Sites; contact property owners; promote sites on website and update annually. Update sites inventory as needed. In addition to maintaining a list of opportunity sites on the City's website, the City continues to approve Planned Development permits with flexible development standards that allow for the maximum density on a site to help meet regional housing needs. H-4.2a Encourage mixed -use projects by including residences in mixed-use projects 2015 to 2023 The City continues to allow residential uses in mixed-use projects. Mixed-Use Development Continue to allow and promote residential uses in conjunction with commercial and/or office uses in mixed use developments. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to allow residential uses in mixed-use projects. H-4.3a Promote compact development by encouraging properties to develop to General Plan densities 2015 to 2023 The City continues to encourage developers to meet minimum density thresholds. Achieve Target Densities Inform developers of policy to strive to achieve at least 75% of General Plan density within specified areas. Review development proposals for residential and mixed-use projects to strive to achieve “planned-for” densities. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to encourage developers to meet minimum density thresholds. H-5.1a Evaluate the feasibility of re- establishing a local housing program 2015 to 2023 In 2016, the City hired a housing consultant (HouseKeys) to administer the City’s below market rate housing program. Housing Program Staffing Initiate this evaluation within 24 months. Complete evaluation process within 12 months.2015 to 2017 Since 2016, the City has prepared an annual report to the City Council providing an update on the program. H-5.1b Look for opportunities to partner with other organizations to share limited funds to further affordable housing opportunities At least every two years In 2016, the City participated in a multi-city nexus study effort where each city received a unique report based on local conditions. In 2018 and in 2019, the City of Campbell housing staff met with (Yee - County Director) on a number of occasions to explore how the City could leverage Measure B funds for affordable housing projects. In 2019 the City Managers' Association for Santa Clara County explored the creation of a subregion to determine how to distribute the RHNA numbers that discussion led to the formation of a Planning Collaborative in which the City Council adopted a Resolution to be a participant. In 2021 the City continued to participate in the Planning Collaborative and discussed issues of regional importance related to housing and the preparation of the City's 2023-2031 Housing Element update. Affordable Housing Partnerships Explore and evaluate opportunities to partner with non- profit organizations to rehabilitate, preserve, or create affordable housing. Monitor opportunities to apply for affordable housing grants. At least every two years In 2016, the City participated in a multi-city nexus study effort where each city received a unique report based on local conditions. H-5.2a Provide density bonuses and other incentives to facilitate affordable housing development 2015 to 2023 The City continues to offer and promote the density bonus program. In 2021 the City approved a density bonus for a mixed-use housing development located at 2575 & 2585 S. Winchester Boulevard. Density Bonus Continue to offer density bonus and/or regulatory incentives/ concessions to facilitate the development of affordable and/or senior housing. Advertise density bonus provisions on the City website. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to offer and promote the density bonus program. H-5.2b Provide parking modifications to facilitate mixed-use and affordable housing development 2015 to 2023 The City continues to grant parking modifications when appropriate. Consider identifying specific incentives that are more preferred; update to reflect recent state legislative changes (AB2345, etc.) No changes. Consider mandating mixed-use development on new sites identified as potential housing opportunity sites meeting specific requirements (e.g., near light rail, at higher densites). Consider requiring 75% of planned density for properties subject to the policy. No change. Evaluate Workforce Housing / CSCDA JPA Consider requiring a percentage of project units to meet a special needs population need and/or as a means to reduce impact fees. Separately, the City may seek to further expand and support overnight parking at faith-based locations. No changes. Clarify the percentage of restricted units by income-level (i.e., 50% low, 50% moderate) and establish an in-lieu fee for smaller housing projects that scales proportionally and appropriately to the number of units in projects less than nine units. Parking Standard Modifications Continue to offer modified parking standards, on a case-by- case basis, as a way to facilitate development of projects. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to grant parking modifications when appropriate. On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2252 to repeal and replace Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and to amend various other sections of the Campbell Municipal Code to achieve consistency with Assembly Bill 68 (Ting), Assembly Bill 881 (Bloom), Assembly Bill 587 (Friedman), Senate Bill 13 (Wieckowski), and Assembly Bill 671 (Friedman). In addition to complying with recent State legislation, the City ADU Ordinance provides enhanced flexibility by allowing 2-story ADUs on properties with 2-story homes and by restricting design consistency requirements to ADUs that are not located entirely behind the primary residence. Secondary Dwelling Units The City will facilitate the construction of new secondary dwelling units by making information available to the public.2015 to 2023 Upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2252, the City published an ADU Handout which summarizes the new standards and requirements, and includes an FAQ. Thehandout is available on the City’s website and may be downloaded at: https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/14449/ADU-Summary-Sheet. H-5.4a Update the Municipal Code as needed to comply with changes to State Law and local conditions and needs 2015 to 2023 The City continues to update City Ordinances to be consistent with new state law. In 2019 a public hearing was held with the City Council serving to provide a legislative update and consider changes to the City's Municipal Code to address AB678, SB166, SB167, AB1515, AB 1505, SB 35, AB2162, and SB828. In response to Council direction, the CIty has identifed subjective standards in the City's area plans and zoning ordinance, drafted short-term amendments to the P-D (Planned Development zoning ordinance and developed an expedited review process for qualifying SB35 and AB2162 projects (which remain under development). The City has also applied for funding through the SB 2 Planning Grants Program and hired a consultant to address subjective standards in the City's specific plans and zoning ordinance. Also see response provided under H-5.3a. - Facilitate development of secondary dwelling units (Row D; Cell 58 & Cell 59). In 2020 the City held an informational community meeting and public hearing with the Planning Commission on the preparation of Objective Standards and procedures. Further, in November of 2020, the City held a public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider a City-Initiated General Plan Amendment ) to the North of Campbell Avenue Area (NOCA) plan. In 2021, the City adopted an interim ordinance to adopt SB9 on an urgency basis to provide regulations and standards for the subdivision of single-family residential properties and development of two-unit housing developments. Periodic Ordinance Amendments Initiate and complete the amendment process to comply with the new requirements within 12 months of being notified of the requirement. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to update City Ordinances to be consistent with new state law, including but not limited to accessory dwelling units, density bonuses, housing legislation, etc. H-6.1a Further fair housing practices in Campbell 2015 to 2023 The City continues to work with the County and Project Sentinel to further fair housing practices in Campbell. Fair Housing Program Advertise through City website and newsletter, and through Recreational pamphlet. Coordinate with Project Sentinel to conduct property manager training. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to work with the County and Project Sentinel to further fair housing practices in Campbell. In 2021, the City conducted extensive outreach related to Campbell's Plan for Housing through MailChimp/Constant Contact email services, the recreation pamphlet, community center readerboard, and postcards mailed to every property owner. The City also developed a webpage dedicated to the Housing Element update process which has studied and solicited feedback from the public through a survey on issues related to fair housing practices to be used in the development of housing element policies in 2022. H-6.2a Assist in settling disputes/issues between tenants and landlords 2015 to 2023 The City continues to offer rent mediation through the ordinance. Brochures are available at City Hall. In 2019, the City assisted in the execution of a five (5) year rent stabilization agreement between Timber Cove Mobile Home Park Owners and the Land Owner/Property Manager. Rental Dispute Mediation Program The City will continue to enforce the Rental Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance and offer a Rent Mediation Program. The City will continue to make program brochures available at the public counter and other public locations and mail to new rental property owners a packet of information regarding the City’s Rent Mediation Program. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to offer rent mediation through the ordinance. Information is available at City Hall and online. H-6.3a Facilitate the provision of housing for the disabled population 2015 to 2023 The City continues to monitor building and planning procedures and standards to ensure that persons with disabilities have adequate accommodations. Consider incentives for more housing that address the needs of special needs populations. Reasonable Accommodation Provide annual monitoring to ensure that the reasonable accommodation procedure does not act as a constraint on housing for persons with disabilities. Evaluate the existing ordinance to ensure its compliance with the requirements of State Law. 2015 to 2023 The City continues to monitor building and planning procedures and standards to ensure that persons with disabilities have adequate accommodations. No change. Reduce parking standards for all projects close to light rail and affordable housing projects and promoting ridesharing. As part of the Santa Clara County Housing Collaborative, Campbell and other City staff have discussed developing pre-approved plans for ADUs. Currently the City of San Jose has a pre- approved ADU program and a County wide program could build off of this effort. Staff will continue to work with the Housing Collaborative to potentially develop this in tandem with other Santa Clara County Cities. No change. H-5.3a Facilitate development of secondary dwelling units 2015 to 2023 Attachment B Campbell’s Plan for Housing Community Meeting #5 | Objectives, Policies and Programs March 24, 2022 The project team hosted a hybrid community meeting on Thursday, March 24, 2022, with two in person attendees and close to thirty virtual attendees. Spanish translation services were offered to any attendees interested in participating in Spanish, however, no interest was shown. The community meeting was advertised through a flyer, in English and Spanish, and was shared with a list of service providers in the area and the City’s community network. The community meeting flyer is below: Attachment B During the community meeting, the project team provided a brief background information related to housing topics such as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and an overview of the demographics and housing needs in Campbell. After speaking on the five objectives, the project team invited participants to join either the in-person or virtual breakout rooms in order to obtain community feedback and ideas on potential policies and programs. The objectives and reflective questions are as follows: Objective #1 Improve Housing Affordability in Campbell – encourage the development of affordable housing 1. How would you describe the housing challenges and priorities in Campbell? Attachment B Community members identified a key housing challenge to be affordability, especially for those living on fixed incomes. The lack of available land has made it difficult for housing stock to keep up with the demand. Height and density restrictions were also identified as challenges to building more affordable housing. Following that was a discussion of streamlining, or allowing more flexibility, in the process of building more housing. Participants stressed that the City identify opportunities near Transit Oriented Development and prioritize the safety and attractiveness of neighborhoods without causing traffic congestion and bike/pedestrian safety issues. In order to address the affordability issue, City staff were encouraged to look toward ways that incentivize 100% affordable housing projects that get at deeper levels of affordability. The consideration of City owned land as a good incentive was mentioned. 2. How can we ensure there are enough quality housing options available for all households, at all income levels? Participants expressed that a program that finances accessory dwelling units (ADUs), should be encouraged as they are a great option for individuals at lower incomes or with special needs. The City should discourage outside purchasing to avoid investors buying properties and selling at unaffordable prices to residents. The use of City owned land was encouraged to build housing for essential workers in the community struggling to afford housing. A reduction or removal of impact fees on affordable housing would also allow for more housing. A partnership with nonprofits, government agencies, and corporate sponsors was identified as a tool to building quality housing. The need for affordable housing and starter home housing is high. SB9 was identified to help with providing some starter homes that prove live/workspaces with the reference of good examples in the City of Santa Cruz. Another community suggestion, was that the City partner with neighboring jurisdictions to build housing together (i.e. Los Gatos to Campbell) Objective #2 Preserve Existing Housing / Affordable Housing Stock 1. How can the city maintain and preserve existing housing? Participants stated that many garden style apartments need renovations, but that often raises the cost of rent. This causes concern that residents will be displaced because of physical improvements. Other suggestions were for the City to develop incentives to maintain single family residents and consider becoming a historical district. A mention of the Community/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA/TOPA) allowing non- profits to have the first right to purchase housing properties to keep rent lower was stated. Objective #3 Remove Government Constraints to Housing Attachment B 1. How can the city make affordable housing development easier? When asked this question, community members suggested that affordable housing should be streamlined and have reduced fees while also supporting developers to acquire large enough parcels to make projects that include both affordable and market rate housing. The City should also modify land use standards for affordable housing, through overlay, to enable greater densities that allow more units and require minimum unit sizes. Eliminating density limits and adopting objective design standards were also suggested to make affordable housing development easier. An overall concern to all these suggestions were the parking reductions and their impact on multi-family housing. Some funding sources to support the development of affordable housing were identified to be taxes, surplus land sales, and a collaborative effort to set aside money specifically for affordable housing. Objective #4 Promote Resiliency and Sustainability in Housing 1. Do you think there are any other potential policies to add to the list above? Other potential policies for the City to consider included the promotion of solar, greater heights and densities in transit areas, the accommodation of new residents, alternative parking strategies, access, and incentives to use public transportation, a car share program, and more electric charging stations. Additionally, policies that keep water on site, especially grey water re-use for appropriately sized buildings. Objective #5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and addressing special needs groups 1. How should people who need assistance with daily living tasks be provided with housing? By creating denser developments, access and walkability to basic necessities is improved. Nonetheless, social and financial services (i.e., rental/utility payment assistance) were identified to substantially support resident’s needs. Seniors who want to leave their single-family home need help to downsize by understanding where their options are and how to use programs that help them with that. This then allows larger single-family homes to be available. An additional consideration of senior living is that of caregivers serving this population who will need access to parking. Overall, a combination of small group homes, regular social work contacts, rides to appointments and check-ins to ensure reliable living conditions would benefit people who need assistance with daily living tasks. The City should work to discourage the displacement of current residents in order to reduce homelessness. Often, the affordable housing that is built are studios or 1- bedrooms, but low-income households need 2-bedroom unit housing to meet their needs. There is a need for affordable multi-family housing. 2. How can we support the aging population? Attachment B Supporting the aging in population would include the development of home sharing programs, affordable senior housing with in-house services/nurses on-site, and shallow rental subsidies to help them stay in their homes if they wish to age in place. A strong program that provides services to seniors and the disabled community in order for them to live with a high quality of life is also encouraged. 3. Do you have any suggestions on how to address homelessness in Campbell? The City should have transitional housing and a homeless shelter. A home sharing program that helps identify where to place tiny houses and geodesic domes that connect with social services in the County. The Casting Ponds area may accommodate 10 tiny homes. Lastly, mobile accommodations that are protected and have services - Redwood City has a vehicle home parking area. 4. How do you and/or your neighbors stay informed on the services and programs that the City provide? Attendees said that they stay informed via their neighborhood organization, by subscribing to city community agency weekly meetings, the Campbell Community Center and other outreach organizations. 5. What type of housing is most needed in Campbell? The housing that is most needed in Campbell must be deeply affordable for seniors and people with physical or developmental disabilities. Like seniors, people with disabilities live on fixed incomes or earn 30-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and entry-level incomes. The housing designed should not be just for physical disabilities, but also cognitive disabilities. Attachment C Campbell’s Plan for Housing Service Providers Focus Group | Objectives, Policies and Programs March 29, 2022 On Tuesday, March 29, 2022, the project team met with a few service providers working in Campbell to gather feedback and recommendations on the potential policies and programs, especially for the populations they serve. Of the 11 service providers that were invited to attend the focus group, three confirmed and attended with the addition of the housing developer of the Uplift Family Services site. The participants and organizations in attendance were: o Housing Choices o Pacific Clinics o Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley o Housing Developer of Uplift Family Services site Prior to the Q&A portion of the meeting, City staff presented a brief overview of Campbell’s Plan for Housing, its timeline and potential goals and policies. The questions and summary of responses are below: General 1. What are some of your housing priorities for Campbell? Housing priorities for people with physical and developmental disabilities should include the opportunity for people who grew up in Campbell to transition into housing that is coordinated with Housing Choices. Higher density with extremely affordable housing that allows inclusionary housing for people with disabilities is a high priority for this population. A recommendation is that developers should build 100% affordable housing on city owned land with a mix of unit sizes. From the perspective of a housing developer, cities need to capture the difference between market rate and moderate rate housing. Cities could use funds to support affordable housing and have in-lieu fees for market developments. 2. What type of housing and housing related services are lacking in Campbell? Housing near transit services is essential, especially 2-bedroom units for families. Specific Concerns 3. What are the needs and services available and/or needed in Campbell for the following groups? o Female headed households o Large households o Seniors o People with physical or developmental disabilities o People experiencing homelessness o Farmworkers Attachment C The most important are the unhoused population and seniors because there is an aging community. There should be a place for people with physical or developmental disabilities to have when they lose family and/or caregivers. Mental health services are needed, especially for families on Medical and living paycheck to paycheck. Families are on the brink of homelessness and non-profits and the Office of Supportive Housing support with funds but that is only a temporary solution. Overcrowding is becoming a growing concern as large households include multiple generations and the waitlist for services is too long so the need for services continues to increase. Equity 4. How can racial equity be furthered in Campbell? People of color are overwhelmingly representative of low-income categories. Therefore, developing deeply affordable housing for racial justice, especially housing for people with disabilities is needed. Consider the intersectional identities because they experience a higher cost burden. Closing 5. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about housing? Look at city owned land for opportunities to build more affordable housing as well as the City housing funds to help meet housing for special needs populations. Attachment D Campbell’s Plan for Housing Ministries Focus Group + Survey | Objectives, Policies and Programs April 4, 2022 Leading up to and following the community meeting on March 24, 2022, the project team made a diligent effort to reach out to and meet with service providers in the community. On Monday, April 4, 2022, the project team hosted a hybrid focus group session for ministries in the area. One ministry representative attended in person and engaged in a discussion with the in-person team. Prior to the discussion, City staff presented a brief overview of Campbell’s Plan for Housing, its timeline and potential goals and policies. The questions for Ministries are below: 1. What types of actions and programs can Campbell adopt to increase affordable housing in Campbell? 2. What types of actions and programs can Campbell adopt to preserve existing housing? 3. What types of actions should Campbell adopt to remove government constraints to housing development? 4. What types of resilient housing policies should Campbell adopt? 5. What actions should Campbell take to address homelessness? 6. What actions should Campbell take to address the needs of seniors, large families, female headed households, ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities? Community Development Director lead the in-person discussion with the one ministry representative in attendance. Due to the low attendance rate, City staff followed up with the ministries that were invited and shared a survey with the same questions asked at the focus group session. To date, one respondent has completed the survey. The survey respondent encouraged the development of affordable housing and not allowing for profit developers to buy multi-unit housing properties because the City should run them. In order to address homelessness, the City should develop a livable, attractive, and safe shelter that addresses privacy concerns that families may have. Other policies to consider should include tariffs on large companies that buy properties for their own use and profits. Attachment E Campbell’s Plan for Housing Community Survey | Objectives, Policies and Programs CLOSED: April 7, 2022 In mid-September of 2021, the City launched their community survey with the intent to gain a better understanding of the needs and desires for the future of housing in Campbell. Anyone who lives, works, or wishes to live and/or work in the City was welcome to provide feedback. The survey was closed on Thursday, April 7, 2022, with a total of 425 responses. To advertise the survey, a Plan for Housing postcard was sent city wide to over 18,000 postal addresses. This was a great opportunity to expand the network of respondents, as those who received the postcard to their residence or place of work, had the necessary information to participate and share the survey with others. The Envision Campbell website was home to the survey, previous and upcoming meetings, as well as a FAQ about the housing element update: A summary of the results, as they relate to policies and programs, is below: Relationship to Campbell • Nearly 83% of the respondents live in Campbell with 69% of homeowners residing in the City for over 10 years, while 66.7% of renters have lived in Campbell less than 10 years. Attachment E • Only 24.9% of respondents live and work in Campbell, following 21.7% of the respondents that are retired and living in the City • Less than ten percent of respondents live in Campbell but work elsewhere Detailed Breakdown • I live in Campbell but work somewhere else | 36.2% • I live and work in Campbell | 24.9% • I live in Campbell, and currently do not work, or am retired | 21.7% • I work in Campbell, but live somewhere else | 7.5% • I lived in Campbell, but have since moved away | 3.8% • None of the above | 5.9% Age • More than half of the respondents (52%) were between the ages of 30 and 54 • 40% of respondents were over the age 55 • Young adults made up 8% of the survey responses Detailed Breakdown • 17 years or under | 2.1% • 18 – 29 years | 5.6% • 30 – 54 years |51.8% • 55 – 64 years | 21.2% • 65 years or over | 19.3% Ethnicity and Race (respondents could choose more than one, if applicable) • White | 60% • Asian | 15.8% • Hispanic / Latinx | 9.4% • Black or African American | 3.1% • American Indian or Alaska Native | 1.3% • Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 1.3% Following a few demographic questions, respondents were asked “Do you believe you have faced housing discrimination based on your ethnicity/race in Campbell?”. A 90% majority said that they have NOT faced housing discrimination while 1.6% of respondents said YES, they have. Some respondents (8.2%) said that they were NOT SURE if they have faced housing discrimination. Those who said they faced housing discrimination had an opportunity to explain. Many mentioned feeling neglected or interrogated when attending open houses and apartment tours because the tour guide/realtor assumed they could not afford to live on the property. One respondent shared a specific situation in which they applied for low-income housing and the Attachment E intake person treated them with disrespect by assuming that they may be providing misinformation on the application. In the end, the applicant believes that their application was never submitted after they accused the worker of unfair treatment. Overall, respondents expressed that they have been discriminated against based on ethnic background and financial status. Households Including: (respondents could choose more than one, if applicable) • Students and Children (ages 5 or less) | 11.1% • Seniors (ages 65+) | 21% • A person with chronic health problems | 13.2% • A person with a sensory impairment (vision or hearing) | 5.1% • A person with a mobility impairment | 5.2% • None of the above | 16.1% Difficulties Finding Housing in Campbell • Cost of housing | 31.2% • No difficulties | 26.5% • Lack of housing that meets household’s needs | 18.4% • Nothing with enough bedrooms |8.7% • Lack of access to transit (e.g., light rail, bus) | 4.7% • Nothing near schools or parks | 3.7% • Other | 3.6% • Nothing near services such as grocery stores or pharmacies | 2.4% • Nothing that is physically accessible to me | 0.6% If the options to the above were not representative of the community, respondents had the option to write in a response when asked “What other difficulties have you encountered not listed above?”. Respondents expressed that finding affordable housing is not as much of a problem as finding housing that meets their needs and price range. Finding adequate housing without a qualifying income has become extremely difficult. Even if an affordable unit is found, the rent is drastically increasing the following year making rising rent unstable. When asked “Is there anything else you would like to add about housing that has the potential to impact you, your neighborhood, or the city?” survey respondents alluded to policies that preserve Campbell’s quality of life for all residents. Policies that support the unhoused community, low-income residents and parking solutions were highly encouraged. The respondents stress for renter protections, like rent control and an Ellis Act ordinance, to ensure that lower-income renters are not displaced by rising housing costs and new development. Incentives to use more public transportation and having the City upgrade its transit system with more stops and routes throughout the City were also mentioned. Greenspace should be Attachment E preserved and developed with any new housing developments. A first-time homebuyer’s program was suggested to help retain the current residents of Campbell. To: Chair Ching and Planning Commission Members Date: April 11, 2022 From: Abby Jones, Executive Assistant Subject: Desk Item: PC Agenda Item #2 – PLN-2022-31 – Email from Owner, Brandon Brigham The following is a list of emails received by staff after completion and posting of the agenda packet and report for this project on the website. These emailed items were immediately forwarded on to the Commission and are also being provided this evening as desk items. Emails received 1. Planning Commission received email dated 3/20/2022. Encl. Email dated 3/20/2022 City of Campbell MEMORANDUM Planning Division Desk Item: Item # 2- PLN-2022-31 Dear Campbell Planning Commission, Khartoum continues to strive to maintain its long-standing reputation with the City of Campbell, its residents, and its Police Department. Admittedly these have been rough times for many people, businesses, and organizations and the COVID environment has changed many aspects of our day to day reality. We are dedicated to keeping a safe, fun, and positive environment for all who visit us at Khartoum and we hope that flows into the surrounding areas in downtown Campbell and elsewhere. As we approach our town meeting on April 12th, we want you to know that we are doing everything in our power to reduce the number of service calls to the Police Department, and thus far the numbers have seemed to go down. I look forward to speaking to you all on April 12th. Thank you! -- Respectfully, Brandon Brigham Owner of Khartoum