11-08-2022 - PC Agenda Packet REGULAR 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.
November 8, 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 October 25, 2022
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 November 8, 2022 Page 2 of 2
STUDY SESSION
1. PLN-2022-90 Study Session to review and provide feedback on
development of the Multi-Family Development and Design
Standards including mapping of walkable and auto-oriented
neighborhoods, establishment of off-street parking
requirements, and the development of site development and
design standards to be addressed as part of the update (File
No.: PLN-2022-90).
REPORT OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 2022 at 7:30 p.m.
This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City
Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed
to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person (as space allows while maintaining on-going
face covering and social distancing).
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are
available for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to
participate in the meeting, please contact the Community Development Department, at
planning@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2739.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
October 25, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday October 25, 2022, was called to order at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair
Ching and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Acting Chair: Adam Buchbinder
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Davis Fields
Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Alan Zisser
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Stuart Ching, Maggie Ostrowski
Staff Present: Director: Rob Eastwood
Associate Planner: Tracy Tam
Associate Planner: Larissa Lomen
City Attorney: Bill Seligmann
Admin Analyst: Ken Ramirez
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved October 11, 2022 meeting minutes.
COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2022 Page 2
ORAL REQUESTS
Acting Chair Buchbinder opened public comments, hearing none, public comments closed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Acting Chair Buchbinder asked if any of the Commissioners had any disclosures.
Commissioner Krey visited both sites. Commissioner Fields visited the parking lot of one of
the sites and Commissioner Zisser stated that they visited the 1614 W. Hacienda site.
Acting Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLN-2022-67 Public Hearing to consider the request of Fahed Habayeb, for
property located at 1614 W. Hacienda Avenue to allow for the
construction of a new 3,963 square-foot dwelling using portions
of the existing house. The application under consideration
includes a Site and Architectural Review Permit. File No.: PLN-
2022-67. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed
Categorically Exempt from CEQA. Planning Commission action
is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10
calendar days. Project Planner: Larissa Lomen, Assistant
Planner
Associate Planner Larissa Lomen presented the staff report to recommend construction
approval for a new 3,963 square-foot dwelling using portions of the existing house.
Planning Commissioners had questions regarding the privacy concerns of neighbors,
frontage improvement requirements, and steps that will be taken for privacy mitigation.
Applicant, Fahed Habayeb, stated that they took into utmost consideration the privacy
concerns of neighbors when designing the home.
Planning Commissioners were in favor of the project as there were steps take to mitigate
privacy concerns.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner
Kamkar, the Planning Commission adopted resolution No. 4658
recommending that the City of Campbell approve a Site and
Architectural Review Permit to allow construction of a new 3,963
square-foot two-story single-family house utilizing portions of the
existing structure on property located at 1614 West Hacienda Avenue
(PLN-2022-67), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Zisser, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ostrowski, Ching
ABSTAIN: None
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2022 Page 3
2. PLN-2022-85 Public Hearing to consider the request of Tom Tarn, SGPA
Architecture and Planning, for property located at 1640 South
Bascom Avenue Suite F to allow for a new medical services,
clinic use within an existing commercial building. The
application under consideration includes a Conditional Use
Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-85. Staff is recommending that this
item be deemed Categorically Exempt from CEQA. Planning
Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City
Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tracy Tam,
Associate Planner
Associate Planner, Tracy Tam presented the staff report to allow for a new medical
services, clinic use within an existing commercial building. The application under
consideration includes a Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commissioners asked how the city defines a medical clinic, what types of licensed
medical professionals will be on site, and whether a naturopathic doctor was a licensed
professional.
Associate Planner Tam clarified that staff look at the City of Campbell’s Municipal Code for
what defines a medical clinic, the services provided, and the type of staff employed at a
medical clinic.
Applicant, Dr. Shannon Wood-Gallegos, stated that they are a family run-practice heavily
involved philanthropically in the communities where they serve their 50,000 clients who are
B-12 deficient. Dr. Wood-Gallegos reiterated that there is always a licensed professional
on site.
Acting Chair Buchbinder closed public comment.
Planning Commissioners stated that they were in favor of the project as long as it meets
the City’s requirements and the allowable types of uses. There is no objection and should
be a nice addition for Campbell and the business shows that it is a reasonable type of walk-
in use.
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Fields, seconded by Commissioner
Zisser, the Planning Commission adopted resolution No. 4659 being a
resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell granting
approval of a conditional use permit (PLN-2022-85) to allow a medical
services, clinic use within an existing commercial tenant space located
at1640 S. Bascom Avenue Suite F in the C-2 (General Commercial)
zoning district, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fields, Zisser, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ostrowski, Ching
ABSTAIN: None
Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2022 Page 4
REPORT OF THE RESIDENTAL DESIGN STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE
Acting Chair Buchbinder stated that he attended another meeting on residential design
standards. Commissioner Buchbinder shared With Planning Commission key points from
Assembly Bill 2097, that City of Campbell cannot mandate parking minimums, and that
along with Commissioner Kamkar, developed comparable parking requirements.
Also shared with Planning Commission what parking policies the City of Pasadena has
adopted to grow Streetscape improvements and that he would like to refine bike maps.
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Director Eastwood reported the following:
Confirmed joint study session at 5:45pm on November 1st, 2022 in City Council chambers
regarding the Objective Standards so that both City Council and Planning Commission
understand the approach.
Housing Element has been submitted to the HCD and HCD communicated that there is
factual and technical data that they would like as part of what was submitted. Planning
Department will be providing an update to HCD and posting the update to website.
Post receipt of the letter on November 4th from HCD will return to City Council and Planning
Commission in late November to review HCD letter and review the volume of Housing
Opportunity Sites.
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the next
Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, at City
Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA.
SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Acting Chair
ATTEST : ______________________________________
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙November 8, 2022
PLN-2022-90
Study Session to review and provide feedback on development of the
Multi-Family Development and Design Standards including mapping of
walkable and auto-oriented neighborhoods, establishment of off-street
parking requirements, and the development of site development and
design standards to be addressed as part of the update (File No.: PLN-
2022-90).
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission receive the report and provide recommendations to the
City Council concerning development of the Multi-Family Development and Design
Standards, including mapping of walkable and auto-oriented neighborhoods,
establishment of off-street parking requirements, and the development of site
development and design standards.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to solicit direction on key areas to support development of the
Multi-Family Development and Design Standards (“Design Standards”) under
development. These standards include mapping of walkable and auto-oriented
neighborhoods, establishment of off-street parking requirements, and the development of
site development and design standards.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2022, the City Council received a ‘Kick-Off’ report on the subject item,
provided guidance on key aspects of the work plan and established four guiding principles
(i.e., Keep it Simple, Keep it Focused, Keep it Engaging, and Keep it Moving) to
ensure the scope of work remains focused on priorities and is completed on time.
On August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission received the same ‘Kick-Off’ presentation
presented to the Council on August 17, 2022, as well as a summary of Council direction
from the meeting. At the meeting, the Planning Commission appointed Commissioners
Buchbinder and Kamkar to serve on an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee which will help research
topic areas of interest – such as best practices related to parking standards.
On August 24, 2022, staff held its first Community Meeting, and on August 26, 2022, staff
held its first Developer’s Roundtable Meeting, serving to educate and engage the
community in the process and obtain initial feedback regarding development of the
standards.
On September 20, 2022, the City Council received a progress update on the Multi-Family
Residential Development and Design Standards, where staff identified the proposal to
conduct an informational joint study session between the City Council and the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 2 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
On September 28, 2022, staff held its second Developer’s Roundtable Meeting.
Approximately 50 participants were in attendance. The purpose of this Developer’s
Roundtable was to present the approach used to apply the Design standards to a sample
housing development and to solicit feedback from the development community on the
changes under consideration.
On November 1, 2022, a joint study session was held with the City Council and Planning
Commission to provide an informational briefing on the work plan effort. The meeting
reiterated key objectives of the update, and explained core concepts, terminology, and
methodology being used to develop new standards. A summary of new housing bills (AB
2097 and AB 2011/SB 6) affecting this planning effort was also provided.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is organized into five sections which serve to inform and solicit
initial feedback on topics critical to the development of the Design Standards. These
include: 1) the mapping of walkable and auto-oriented neighborhoods; 2) off-street
parking requirements; 3) regulation of design standards, 3) standards to address
adjacency and context; and 5) standards for the development of large sites.
The feedback provided on these subjects will help development of the standards covered
in Phases 2, 3, and 4 of the update process, as discussed with the Commission and
Council at the November 1, 2022, Joint Study Session.
Figure 1: Subject Meeting Topics & Related Project Phases
Based on feedback and direction from the Planning Commission and City Council, staff
and the consultant will prepare an Administrative Draft of the Design Standards discussed
in this report for review early next year (see ‘Schedule / Next Steps’).
1) Walkable & Drivable Areas Map
The City’s existing land use policies are organized by distinctions in land use as opposed
to physical form. As part of the update, the City will incorporate a “form-based” approach
as the primary organizing principle for the development of new housing development. In
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 3 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
developing a form-based code, the City will prepare a map of form-based zones (i.e., T-
3, T-4, as discussed in the November 1, 2022, Joint Study Session Report) to identify
where specific standards apply.
Based on the feedback provided on this topic, staff and the consultant will begin preparing
this mapping which includes assigning building standards related to walkability (i.e.,
frontage types, reduced parking standards) the associated form-based zones throughout
the city.
Figure 2: Relationship of General Plan, Zoning, & Form-Based Zone Map
As a first step in the mapping process, the city identifies neighborhoods as either
“walkable” or “drivable (auto-oriented)” using the following criteria as a guide.
• “Walkable areas” are highly interconnected to other areas and built to support
pedestrian activity, including recreational purposes, and walking to destinations
within a short distance (approximately 5 minutes) such as work, transit, errands,
shopping, or restaurants. As a result, walkable areas generally include building
forms with the following characteristics:
o The building’s ground floor is engaging with the street through building
entries and outdoor areas near the sidewalk
o Wider sidewalks and fewer curb cuts
o Lower parking requirements
o Parking that is not between the sidewalk and the buildings
An example of a walkable area is Campbell’s downtown area, where the street
pattern (e.g., grid streets small blocks, and ease of pedestrian movement), ground
floor treatment of buildings (e.g., a variety of storefronts, buildings closer to the
sidewalk), and a variety of amenities (e.g., restaurants, shopping, transit) all
contribute to the walkability of the area.
• “Drivable (Auto-oriented) areas” are centered around the automobile and
development is built to prioritize and accommodate the automobile as the priority
with pedestrians as secondary. As a result, auto-oriented areas generally have
building forms with the following characteristics:
o Buildings oriented toward parking, as opposed to the sidewalk or street
o Reduced sidewalk widths
o More parking
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 4 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
o Parking that is placed between the sidewalk and the buildings
An example of an auto-oriented area is the San Tomas area of Campbell, where
most activities require driving.
In preparation of a Draft Walkable & Drivable Areas Map, policy guidance from the City’s
various planning documents (i.e., Area / Neighborhood Plans) as well as analysis of the
built environment completed as part of Phase 1 (Existing Conditions Analysis) were
considered.
The Draft Walkable & Drivable Areas Map includes three key categories: 1) Walkable
areas; 2) Drivable (Auto-Oriented) areas, and 3) Potentially Walkable areas (for areas
having characteristics of both).
Figure 3: Walkable, Potentially Walkable, and Drivable (Auto-Oriented) Areas
Staff is soliciting Commission and Council feedback on three areas identified as
“Potentially Walkable”, indicated in light pink on the map, to determine if they should be
mapped as “Walkable” or “Drivable” as discussed below:
Northwest Campbell (Area 1): The first of the three areas identified includes the San
Tomas Aquino Plaza Shopping Center, and properties in the surrounding area including
those located south of the Kirkwood Plaza Shopping Center. This area generally has
excellent access to services (i.e., grocery stores, restaurants, daycare, fitness facilities)
but limited access to public transit. By defining this area as walkable, future development
of the area will be oriented toward establishing a pedestrian-oriented, particularly for
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 5 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
larger development sites such as the San Tomas Aquino Plaza Shopping Center.
Figure 4: Northwest Campbell (Potentially Walkable Areas)
North Central Campbell (Area 2): The second area warranting discussion includes Alvin’s
Corner at Penny Lane, the former Culinary Arts Center/Golds Gym, the Safeway
Shopping Center on Hamilton Avenue, and surrounding communities. Similar to the
properties in Northwest Campbell, properties in this area have excellent access to
services but limited access to public transit.
Figure 5: North Central Campbell
Northeast Campbell (Area 3): The third area is located south of eBay, and west of the
Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center. Properties in this area have two ‘nearby’ grocery store
options (Wholefoods and Trader Joes at the Pruneyard) but fall outside a ½ mile radius
of the Hamilton Light Rail station.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 6 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figure 6: Northeast Campbell (Potentially Walkable)
Staff Recommendation & Requested Feedback: Staff recommends using Walkable
and Drivable areas as an organizing principle for the standards under development. In
consideration that AB 2097 restricts the City in its ability to impose minimum parking
standards on properties located within ½ mile of public transit, staff also recommends
applying a walkable designation to any properties within these areas. For the three
properties identified as potentially being walkable, or drivable, staff recommends
designating Area 3 as walkable (given its proximity to light rail and the Pruneyard), and
Areas 1 & 2 as drivable. However, as these areas exhibit Walkable and Drivable
characteristics, the following point has been raised for discussion:
o Should Areas 1, 2, & 3 be treated as “Walkable” or “Drivable (Auto-
Oriented)”?
2) Off-Street Parking Requirements
Based on Council direction, staff has worked with Opticos and the Planning Commission
Ad-Hoc Subcommittee to evaluate options for updates to the City’s parking requirements.
The analysis included a review of existing parking standards used by the City of Campbell
and surrounding communities, parking standards allowed by state law (density bonus law,
AB 2097, etc.), community feedback and follows the initial policy direction outlined under
Program H-3a included in the draft Housing Element.
“Program H-3a: Update the Municipal Code to reduce parking requirements. The
following parking reduction strategies in areas adjacent to light rail, and other
parts of the City which will not present impacts to residential neighborhoods, shall
be considered:
- Reducing the parking requirements to require no more than two parking
spaces per unit
- Provide incentives for reduced parking in the Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone (program H-1c)
- Remove guest parking requirements
- Allow parking to be unbundled from residential units
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 7 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
- Consider allowing a combination of unbundled and assigned parking in
housing developments”
A summary of the results of this analysis has been provided below:
Campbell Parking Standards: The City of Campbell’s parking standards vary based on
the building type, bedroom size, and proximity to transit. The City’s highest parking
standard, of 3 spaces per unit, is imposed on small residential townhome projects, and
multi-family residential projects with two or more bedrooms. The City’s lowest parking
standard, 2 spaces per unit, applies to residential units in the Downtown, and for studio
to one-bedroom units located near transit.
Tables 1 & 2: City of Campbell “Standard” & “Transit Standard” Parking Requirements
Broadly comparing the City’s parking standards with those of surrounding communities,
Campbell has the highest “standard” parking requirement of any jurisdiction surveyed for
townhomes and multi-family development projects, and among the highest parking
standards for transit-oriented projects (reference Attachment D - Parking Standards
Comprehensive Survey). While this supports an argument to lower some of the City’s
parking standards, not all standards need to be updated, or warrant drastic changes to
better align with parking standards used by surrounding communities. Further,
considering that the development of objective standards for single-family homes are
outside the project scope of the Design Standards under development, no changes to
those standards are proposed at this time.
Parking Standards by State Law: The recent passage of AB 2097 prohibits public
agencies from enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements for residential,
commercial, and mixed-use developments located within ½ mile of public transit
(industrial properties are not affected). Thus, the standards under consideration will
generally apply only to properties outside this area. The one exception is that changes
contemplated to the minimum dimension of parking spaces (see related discussion),
would affect properties subject to AB 2097 when they elect to provide parking.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 8 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figure 7: 1/2 Mile Buffer Map from Public Transit1
(Includes Stops in the Regional Transportation Plan)
Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Feedback: The Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee
was tasked with researching the appropriate number and size of parking spaces. The Ad-
Hoc Subcommittee also reviewed parking standards used by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and identified holistic approaches for providing multi-
modal improvements to reduce reliance upon automobiles and strategies for creating
parking districts. The preliminary results of the Planning Commission Subcommittee can
be found in Attachment C. The results, and recommendations, stemming from their
research will be presented at the meeting.
Parking Stall Dimensions: The city is also exploring utilizing a uniform parking space size
of 8½-feet by 18-feet to ensure the size requirements for residential buildings and
commercial buildings align. Currently, the parking space stall size for residential projects
are 9-feet by 20-feet, and non-residential uses require a parking space size of 8½-feet by
18-feet, with different considerations for angled parking spaces. Two parking space size
standards for different uses (residential and non-residential) is problematic for mixed-use
development, as it creates challenges for space planning, unbundling parking, and being
able to stack parking spaces in structured parking. Variations in parking space size
standards also create challenges to adequately park a project in the most efficient
manner.
Developer Feedback: During stakeholder engagement, both market-rate and affordable
housing developers have advised the City to reduce its parking requirements to align with
market conditions. Recommended parking standards, and related comments are
summarized as follows:
• Market-Rate Developers: 1 to 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
1 Under AB 2097, “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public
Resources Code. This definition includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional
transportation plan.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 9 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
o Commented that parking is often required for projects to pencil; so even if
the City eliminated its parking requirements, market conditions would
largely dictate the appropriate parking standard.
o Reiterated that imposing higher parking standards encourages developers
to pursue density bonus applications, which can frustrate City objectives.
• Affordable Housing Developers: 0.5 to 0.75 parking spaces per unit.
o Commented that higher parking standards for affordable housing severely
reduce the likelihood of projects receiving state tax credits.
o Reiterated that affordable housing projects need differentiated regulatory
requirements and processes from market-rate units to be competitive.
➢ Staff Recommendation & Requested Feedback: Based on the outcomes of the
parking analysis, staff recommends establishing a uniform parking space size of 8½
x18 feet, considering modest reductions to the ‘base’ parking standards, and
identifying parking reduction strategies, specific to the walkable or auto-oriented
context of the site, to allow for lower parking standards in exchange for certain
concessions (such as providing transit passes, or ride share parking).
Staff also recommends establishing a lower parking standard for properties within the
City’s Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ), consistent with Program H-3a of the
Draft Housing Element, to meet the needs of Affordable Housing Developers following
the adoption of the Housing Element and General Plan.
It is also recommended that the City organize the new parking standards based on
the principles of “Walkable” and “Drivable (Auto-Oriented)” areas as a placeholder
until formal form-based zones are established. Staff further recommends broadly
simplifying the City’s parking standards, by eliminating standards that are not linked
to a bedroom count (for greater parity with State Density Bonus Parking Standards)
and eliminating dedicated spaces for guest parking.
Staff further recommends reducing the City’s “Standard” and “Transit” parking
requirements, in accordance with the tables below. Consistent with Council direction
to avoid significant reduction in parking standards that could result in unintended
consequences (the need to create neighborhood parking districts), the proposed
modifications are modest, falling between the City’s existing standard and the State
density bonus parking standards.
Unit Size City Parking
Standard
Drivable Areas
(Proposed vs. Existing)
Density Bonus
(For Reference Only)
Single-Family 2 spaces (one
covered) No Change N/A
Small-Lot Single-Family 3 spaces (2 covered,
½ uncovered, ½
guest)
Remove Standard;
Default to Bedroom
Count Standards
N/A
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 10 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Studio to One Bedroom 2 ½ spaces 2 spaces
(-.5 parking spaces)
1 space
Two or more Bedrooms 3 spaces 2.5 spaces
(-.5 parking spaces)
2 spaces
Four or more Bedrooms N/A N/A 2.5 spaces
N/A - Residential (C-3) 2 spaces per unit Remove Standard;
Default to Bedroom
Count Standards
Varies by bedroom
count
Table 3: City “Standard” Parking Requirements vs. Proposed Drivable Areas
(Note: Density Bonus Standards are provided for Reference Only)
Unit Size City Transit
Standard
Walkable Areas
(Proposed)
Transit Density Bonus
(For Reference Only)
Studio to One
Bedroom 2 spaces 1.5 space per unit
(-.5 parking spaces)
.5 spaces per
bedroom (11% low/20%
mod)
&
.5 spaces per unit
(all low-income)
Two or more
Bedrooms 2.5 spaces 2 spaces per unit
(-.5 parking spaces)
Table 4: City “Transit” Parking Standard vs. Proposed Walkable Areas
(Note: Density Bonus Standards are provided for Reference Only)
Based on the feedback provided on these tables, staff will model the impact to housing
development projects that are built under the standards. Further refinements/changes to
the parking standards, as well as options to reduce parking further, such as by unbundling
parking, may be considered based on the results of this analysis, with the release of the
Administrative Draft of the Design Standards next year.
In consideration of the proposed reductions to the City’s parking standards, the following
points have been raised for discussion:
• Should units with two or more bedrooms be capped at 2 parking spaces for
“Drivable (Auto-oriented)” areas consistent with Program H-3a of the Draft Housing
Element?
• Are there any additional parking reduction strategies that should be considered
beyond those outlined by Program H-3a of the Draft Housing Element?
• Should a minimum threshold of one parking space per unit be required, even when
parking reduction strategies are applied (i.e., every unit must have at least one
parking space, but any additional spaces may be unbundled from the unit, or
waived in exchange for other concessions)?
3) Regulation of Design Standards
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 11 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
As presented in the November 1, 2022, study session, the changes under the Housing
Accountability Act represent a major paradigm shift in the traditional design approach,
which previously allowed for greater public input on projects after submittal. Recognizing
the City can no longer use a discretionary design review process to shape a housing
project, the project design review process needs to be “frontloaded” by developing new
tools and standards which respond to aspects of the design review process that were
previously decided as part of the public review process.
Figure 8: Traditional Project Review process
Figure 9: “Frontloaded” Approach under the Housing Accountability Act
In developing these new tools, the city will need to determine how flexible or prescriptive
the Design Standards should be to achieve desired outcomes. Based on feedback from
the community design survey and feedback received from the City Council on September
20, 2022, the city does not have a defined architectural style and thus should not establish
one as part of the update process. The city’s existing design guidelines identify the need
for high quality design but to avoid the design of projects to be so regulatory that all
projects start to look the same or “cookie-cutter”.
The following discussion is intended to outline the tools and methods under a form-based
code that may be used to strike the right balance. Further, as the city’s existing objective
development and design standards will be carried forward as part of the update – the
focus is primarily on areas where new objective design standards are being developed to
replace existing subjective standards, which are summarized in the following table.
Existing Standards Design Standards
Under Development
Building Envelope
(Height/Setbacks/FAR)
Objective
Objective
Massing / Modulation Somewhat Subjective Objective
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 12 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
(Not Enforceable)
Site Layout
(Placement of Buildings, Streets, Alleys, etc.)
Subjective
(Not Enforceable)
Objective
Façade Articulation
Subjective
(Not Enforceable)
Objective
Table 5: Existing Standards vs. Design Standards Under Development
In terms of overall objectives, the development and design standards should prevent the
development of buildings, as shown below, which do not incorporate design measures
to change in scale and height when near smaller buildings (i.e., massing, articulation,
site layout, standards addressing adjacency).
Figure 10: Six-Story Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Building2
Based on the results of the community design survey, it is also clear that the community
2 Source: Campbell Press, August 2021.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 13 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
expects that future projects are high quality, varied in form, and appropriately designed
to respond to their site-specific context in the community – with the recently approved
Parkview Project having received positive feedback in this regard.
Figure 11: Proposed Parkview Project
Using the city’s existing minimum requirements (i.e., setbacks, floor area ratio) and
requiring defined architectural styles (i.e., Victorian architecture only) as bookends, the
city needs to determine how regulatory the standards should be to achieve a desired
design aesthetic. With the recently approved Parkview Project as a case-study, the level
of detail that makes the project successful (colors, materials, window placement, varied
roof heights, frontage treatments) necessitate new tools that regulate those aspects of
the design of a project. In introducing the tools, the city has the flexibility to decide to what
extent they’re applied or to which properties in the city.
As an example, while the Design Standards could impose a requirement to select from a
palette of storefront standards for the ground-floor treatment of mixed-use projects
fronting E. Campbell Avenue in the Downtown, the actual implementation of that standard
can be as flexible as desired to achieve a particular outcome. If desired, the city could
require between 60% and 80% transparent glazing to accommodate a variety of
outcomes, while still preventing a tenant space from being completely walled in, or
completely comprised of glass.
Figure 12: Palette of Available Frontage Types
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 14 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Considering that every building will have a palette of options to select from, and a range
of options for how to comply with the selected option from the design palette, thousands
of different design outcomes could be achieved, even for projects which select the same
frontage type. Since the standards also involve architectural standards, building type
standards, site design standards, and more – the likelihood of a developer perfectly
overlapping on each standard selected to such an extent that it would result in cookie
cutter appearance will be exceedingly unlikely. It should also be noted that, even without
regulations it is possible that two projects could result in the same design outcome – as
it is common for developers to reuse the same design for a project as a cost saving
measure – effectively copy and pasting the same design over and over.
Figure 13: Select Design Standards Specified by Zone
Understanding that the city’s standards should not be too prescriptive, the Planning
Commission and City Council should provide feedback on aspects of the building design
which are critical (and therefore should require higher regulatory control) and those which
are less important (and therefore require lower regulatory control) to provide for greater
flexibility in outcomes. The key elements of building design regulated by the standards
include the following elements:
Figure 14: Design Regulations
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 15 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figures 15 & 16: Possible Outcomes Depending on Extent of Design Control
Staff Recommendation & Requested Feedback: To safeguard against site layout and
architectural design practices that are inconsistent with the character of the community,
staff recommends providing standards to regulate all aspects of the design process, such
that the regulatory framework is in place to adjust standards overtime to result in improved
outcomes. Staff also recommends establishing more prescriptive standards, which
achieve desired design outcomes, finding the risk of cookie cutter outcomes low given
the flexibility that would still be provided by the standards (i.e., range of options to select
from, and ways to implement that option). Staff further recommends that more restrictive
standards are initially established, understanding it is easier to reduce requirements than
add requirements under the new legislative environment (e.g., SB 330).
To strike the right balance, between being overly prescriptive and/or flexible, staff has
raised the following discussion points related to the regulation of design standards:
• Are there certain aspects of a building design which warrant less design control?
• Are there any specific properties or areas in the city (i.e., gateways, downtown)
which warrant a higher level of design control, or the development of specific
architectural standards to address?
4) Standards to Address Adjacency and Context
While the city has minimum setback requirements, most of the existing standards that
address adjacency (such as tall buildings adjacent to single-family neighborhoods) are
subjective or do not work in every situation that they are applied. As an example, the
slope-line standard, required by Area 2 of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan,
represents a broad, one size fits all, approach to regulating mass/bulk/height. As this
standard significantly decreases the development capacity of shallow lots, it has also
been identified as a standard that conflicts with existing and proposed residential
densities under consideration by the General Plan.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 16 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figure 17: Standards Reviewed & Conflicts Identified
Figure 18: Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Slope Line
The slope-line standard of the Winchester Boulevard Plan also is not context specific, as
it results in the same standard being applied all properties within the same area,
regardless of whether the adjacent land use is a single-family house or a commercial land
use, or public street.
Based on community and City Council feedback, establishing standards that address
transitions between lower intensity residential uses and higher intensity residential and
mixed-use development, are necessary to avoid adverse impacts from land uses and
densities under consideration as part of the Housing Element and General Plan. Further,
it is important to establish a variety of standards that respond best to the uses or buildings
that surround the development.
Under a form-based approach, standards may be developed and mapped to properties
based on site specific context. This allows for a distinct standard to be developed and
applied to a property, or a portion of a property, where it abuts an expressway, highway,
or industrial property distinct from the sides of the property that abuts residential uses.
Some of the approaches that are being explored are outlined as follows:
• Require a smaller, ‘house-scale’ building mass towards lower intensity uses
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 17 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figures 19 & 20: Examples of House-Scale Approach
• Require a wedding-caking (or daylight plane) towards lower intensity uses
Figures 21 & 22: Examples of Daylight Plane Approach
• Require breaks in building mass.
Figure 23: Example of Providing Break in Building Massing
• Require planting of trees, or taller fences, to buffer lower intensity uses.
Staff Recommendation and Requested Feedback: Staff recommends establishing
standards to address adjacency and context which respond to the following situations:
• Properties with shallow lots
• Properties adjacent to creeks, riparian corridors, and natural habitats
• Properties adjacent to industrial uses
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 18 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
• Properties adjacent to public parks, schools, and public facilities
• Properties adjacent to rights-of-way, such as highways and expressways
• Properties located in denser, walkable areas, such as the Downtown
In developing standards to address these situations, staff will consider potential conflicts
with the building or fire code that would prohibit windows or architectural ornamentation
(i.e., eaves) from being applied.
In developing standards which respond to adjacency and context, staff is seeking
feedback on the following discussion points:
• Are there any additional situations (adjacency situations) which should be
considered in the development of design standards?
• Are there any specific design approaches that should be considered to respond to
a particular adjacency (i.e., adjacency to creek vs. low-density residential use)?
5) Development Standards for Large Sites
The city does not have any objective standards to address how larger sites in the
community are developed, or to govern their division into smaller blocks, connected by
private streets and/or pedestrian corridors, that are in scale with, and connected to, the
surrounding community. While various goals and policies encourage physically
connected transportation infrastructure, such as the following guidance from the General
Plan and South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) Plan, the policy language is subjective, and
as such, may not enforced under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
General Plan:
• Strategy LUT-11.1a: Dead-End Streets: Connect dead-end streets with pedestrian
and bicycle paths in new developments and in existing neighborhoods where so
desired by residents.
• Strategy LUT-11.1d: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections in Development:
Encourage new or redeveloping projects to provide logical bicycle and pedestrian
connections on site, between parking areas, buildings, and street sidewalks and
to existing or planned public right-of-way facilities and encourage pedestrian
passages between street-front sidewalks and rear-lot parking areas. Ensure that
the bicycle and pedestrian connections interface safely.
• Strategy LUT-11.1e: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections Between
Neighborhoods: Facilitate the construction of connected pedestrian and bicycle
facilities (e.g., bridges, pathways, sidewalks, and bike lanes) between and within
neighborhoods that are attractive, well-lit, comfortable, tree lined and safe,
especially within one-half mile of major activity centers, schools, and parks.
SOCA Plan:
• In Area 2, the roadway system should provide an extension of Dillon Avenue to
improve circulation, provide emergency vehicle access and integrate projects in
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 19 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
this area. Emergency vehicle access should be extended to the southern portions
of Area 2. The feasibility and desirability of extending street access to the southern
portions of Area 2 should be evaluated in conjunction with review of project
proposals.
Further, the city does not have objective standards to require on-site civic open spaces,
or community amenities, when large sites are developed as directed by the following
strategies and policy from the General Plan:
General Plan:
• Strategy LUT-9.3g: Pedestrian Amenities: Incorporate pedestrian amenities such
as plazas, landscaped areas with seating, pedestrian walkways into new
developments.
• Strategy LUT-14.6c: Decorative Features: Development projects should
incorporate decorative features including plazas that incorporate amenities such
as public art, special paving, tile, and fountains.
• Policy OSP-6.3: Public Spaces and Amenities for Community Gatherings: Ensure
safe, convenient and attractive public spaces and amenities for community
gatherings and activities.
As these policies were previously implemented through the public review phase of the
site design process, new tools may be considered to ensure that larger properties are
broken up into smaller blocks. Without such standards, buildings with large footprints, and
without any physical separations, could be developed as depicted in the following
examples:
Figure 24: Large Site Development – Example #1
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 20 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figure 25 & 26: Large Site Development – Example #2
In preparing the design standards, the city can pursue adoption of “large site” standards
that would prevent the creation of superblocks, by requiring larger properties to be divided
into smaller blocks. A key consideration at this stage in the development of the Design
Standards is to determine whether the city should have large site standards, and if so,
how large a property should be before it is required to provide for the types of connections
and amenities appropriate for the scale and size of the development.
Figure 27 & 28: Outcome without Large Site Standards vs. with Large Site Standards
The following discussion is intended to explain the approach Opticos uses to divide larger
properties, and feedback received from developers which have expressed concern with
the approach.
Large Site Standards: Large site standards serve to divide large sites into smaller,
interconnected blocks, that are in more in scale with, and connected to, the surrounding
community. Smaller blocks are typically achieved by adding streets or paseos, which
provide opportunities for improved circulation, civic spaces, and building types that better
relate to adjoining uses.
As a general rule, Large Site Standards are intended for sites larger than a city block.
While sites larger than three acres, or which are least 700 feet long/deep, are generally
recommended to be divided into smaller blocks (to avoid outcomes like those illustrated
in the figures above), the city can establish its own thresholds to decide what size site will
trigger these standards. The city can also decide what improvements are required for
large sites, and what types of spaces should be used to divide sites into smaller blocks
(i.e., streets, paseos, open spaces, etc.), when required, as illustrated by the following
figures.
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 21 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
Figures 29 to 31: Potential Approaches to Dividing Large Blocks
Examples of large sites, which may warrant division into smaller blocks, have been
provided as a dedicated attachment (reference Attachment F – Large Sites).
Once a threshold is established, properties subject to the large site standards would be
required to follow a six-step process – involving dividing the site into blocks, identifying
the placement of new streets and alleys, and assigning form-based zones (i.e., T-3, T-4)
before determining where specific frontage types and design standards should be
applied.
Figure 32: Six-Step Process for the Development of Large Sites
Following the division of larger sites into smaller blocks, the property is processed the
same as any other property subject to the Design Standards.
Developer Feedback: Throughout the stakeholder outreach meetings, and in writing
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 22 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
(reference Attachment E – Developer Feedback on Large Site Standards), developers
have expressed concerns that the design requirements for large sites will be cost
prohibitive or prevent the densities under the Housing Element or General Plan from
being achieved. The following points serve to summarize key concerns from Developers
on establishing standards which plan for the development of large sites (staff responses
below each point are provided in italics):
• Requiring private streets will impact development potential and financial
feasibility.
The creation of new blocks may be done through any combination of the following
approaches: 1) pedestrian passage (paseo), 2) open space, 3) public or private
streets. Paseos, for example, may be far narrower than traditional street ROWs.
These thoroughfares and public spaces accomplish the same goals conventionally
achieved through internal driveways, fire lanes, and open space standards, while
enabling the public to benefit from the increased connectivity and open space.
• Dividing properties into smaller blocks will prohibit certain building types
which are more cost-effective to build (e.g., wrap buildings).
The large site standards will not prohibit specific product types, such as wrap
buildings; maximum block dimensions will be set to ensure that these types can
be built where appropriate. The size of buildings will depend on the form-based
zone(s) being applied to the large site, which depends on what is adjacent to the
site (site specific context). For example, the portion of a large site facing a corridor
can accommodate larger buildings than the portion that faces houses. In response
to the concern that large site standards may be cost-prohibitive, staff is pursuing
hiring a third-party consultant to provide an independent cost analysis specific to
market conditions.
• Requiring private streets will increase building height as there will be less
developable area.
As previously noted, private driveways or streets are often required to provide
adequate ingress/egress for emergency vehicles and parking. While private
streets or pedestrian connections through sites can result in a marginal reduction
in the buildable area and—depending on the desired level of intensity—could result
in slightly taller buildings needed to achieve the desired housing yield, the Design
Standards would address these changes in scale through other standards under
consideration (such as those addressing site adjacency and context).
• Requiring a multitude of building types will make the project financially
infeasible.
Higher-intensity zones (accommodating five or more stories) will not specify
building types. For sites large enough to engage distinct contexts at different
edges, the standards propose to achieve contextual compatibility by differentiating
building forms when abutting low-rise neighborhoods vs. commercial corridors.
Wherever zones that generate house-scale buildings are mapped on large sites,
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 23 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
the standards intend to require a minimum of two distinct building types to address
concerns about excessive repetition. A developer can choose to include more than
two building types if desired.
• Large site standards may not account for easements in determining the
minimum size subject to the requirements.
The large site standards can account for easements and other site conditions
impacting the amount of developable land within the property. The standards also
provide for minor modifications to certain development standards to accommodate
site-specific constraints.
Staff Recommendation & Requested Feedback: Recognizing that the Housing
Element and General Plan contemplate land use densities that are two, to three times
higher than those allowed today, and will allow for housing on large sites which previously
did not allow housing (e.g., San Tomas Aquino Plaza Shopping Center, Frys) staff
recommends establishing large site standards to govern the development of sites larger
than a city block. To avoid the standards from being overly regulatory, staff would also
recommend limiting the number of distinct product types (i.e., townhomes, apartments,
mixed-use) that would need to be built on a property (relative to its size) to allow for cost-
effective construction.
In developing standards for large sites, seeking is seeking feedback on the following
discussion points:
• What size (i.e., acres, lot width/depth) should be used to the threshold for when
large site standards are imposed?
• What amenities (e.g., private streets, open spaces, art, civic spaces) should be
required for large sites?
• How should larger sites be divided (i.e., by paseos, private streets, open space)?
• Should concessions be offered to offset the impact of complying with large site
standards (i.e., reduced parking).
Project Schedule / Next Steps
Following the subject meeting, the consultant and staff will work to refine the key
development standards and prepare for the community meeting series in January.
2022
• November 8 – PC Meeting (key standards, walkability map, etc.) (subject meeting)
• November 15 – CC Meeting (key standards, walkability map, etc.)
• November 22 & 29 – PC/CC Meeting (Housing Element mapping refinement)
2023
• January /February – Review of Administrative Draft, Test Fits, Refinement of
Standards & Form-Based Zones
Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2022 Page 24 of 24
PLN-2022-90 | Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
• March – Adoption of Design Standards
This timeline keeps the project on schedule for an anticipated adoption in March of 2023
with the General Plan and Housing Element.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no specific fiscal impacts associated with this item.
Prepared by: _________________________________
Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Prepared by: _________________________________
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Approved by: _________________________________
Rob Eastwood, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
A. Walkability Map
B. Current Parking Standards and Density Bonus Parking Standards
C. Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Parking Data
D. Parking Standards Comprehensive Survey
E. Developer Feedback on Large Site Standards
F. Large Sites
Campbell Multi-Family
Development + Design
Standards
Campbell, CA
November, 2022
Walkable +
Drivable Areas
26 616026
Hamilton
Winchester
Downtown Campbell
SAN JOSE
CAMPBELL
LOS GATOS
SARATOGA
17HAMILTON
DELL1STWINCHESTERSAN TOMASVIRGINIABASCOMCENTRALBUDD 2NDRINCON
CAPRIBENTDARRYLCARLYNMIDWAYGALE
WALDO ALMARIDAMCGLI
N
C
Y
ERINLEIGHRIDGELEY
SILACCI
SMITH
HAZEL
AUDREY
LOVELL 3RDELAM RAILWAYWHITE OAKSPATIO
CA
M
D
E
N
CAMPBELL
MCCOY
EL SOLYO
NIDOHARRIETSUNNYOAKSWESTMONT SALMARWALNUTSTEINWAY
HACIENDA HARRISONHYDE
ALICEVILLARITA GRACELINDA DILLONKENNETHAPRILGAYVICTORGRANT
EMORY4THDOTCHERRY
REDDING
C
A
L
A
D
O
SPRINGFIELD
HARDYSONUCABUCKNAM
THERESAPAYNE
CAMEO
HOLMESCONNIE
ROSEMARY
YORKADRIEN CURTNERDALLASCRISTICHESTHERTIMBER COVEENSENADA
FRIAR
CAMBRIANMILTONLENOR
SHELLEYHUNT CENTRAL
P
A
R
K
BOISE
ABBOTTROBINADLERMILLICH MCBAINLISAMONICA
CATALPA
SHEFFIELD
VALEPALO S
ANT
O
DAVID
PARR
PAULA
SOBRATOCIVIC CENTER RICHLEEBURROWSDUNSTERPHANTOMPOPLARCOLLEEN
GWENPAGESHAMROCK
APRICOT
ECHO
MARILYNKUEHNISCHRISTOPHERFEWTRELL
HACKCR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
HOFFMANABBEYLA PAZELWOODPEGGYLONGFELLOWPETERSALERNOMOREINWOODGILMANNADINE
KENNEDYFULTON
VALLEY
CRAIGMICHAELJEFFREY
RICKY DEL PRADOSAN TOMAS AQUINOEBBETSSUNNYSIDESUNBERRY MONTEMAR
SHADY DALE
OLD ORCHARDEMERSONEL MORO
WESTONSHADLEMO
Z
A
R
T
WE
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
LAURA LATIMERARCCAMPISI
WALTERS LOYALTONEL CAMINITO
DENVER
REGASBLANDJANE ANNROSE
NORMANDYREGINA
ARROYO SECO
ROBWAY
TURNER EDENLLEWELLYNARCHERDIVISION
BISMARCK
SH
A
R
PCALIFORNIAMUNRO
HOLLISLA PRADERA
ONTARIO
O
L
YM
P
I
A
GRI
F
F
I
T
HSONDRACLOVERWILTON
CHAPMANWREN EILEENHURSTUNIONHEDEGARD
WENDELL MC GLINCEYWATSON
CROCKETTSUPERIORRANCHEROWHITEHALLLA PALOMABEDALRADFORD
P
O
L
L
A
R
D SAN TOMAS EXPWY TO SB SR 17KEITH
SCOTT
BEARDENPECANCOVENTRYGINDENBRANBURYMORRENEWARWICKFLORENCEFAWN MARIANNAKINGS
LOUISELOST
L
A
K
E MONETAWB CAMDEN AVENUE TO NB SR 17RAVENSCOURTOAK PARKPALOMAR REALOBURNTOLWORTHKIM
PARKHURSTGOMES
MARGARETJIM ELDERCENTURYFLAMINGOPENNY
FAIRBANKS
ROBNICK GEORGEFORMANMILLER
TUBBY
HAZELWOOD
LA C
O
R
O
N
A LOWELLHAWTHORNE
QUEENS
HERBERTCHARLESTONMONTE VILLA
VALLEY FORGE
DOVERBROWNI
N
G DRY CREEKSAFFLEJOHN KIRKCORLISS EL PATIOMANXDE CARLI
LO
R
E
T
T
A
WB SR
8
5
T
O
S
B
S
R
1
7
HERITAGE VILLAGE MITCHELLMISSION
LORELEI
LANA
MORRISO
N BARBANOALLEN
PLUM BLOSSOM
BRIARWOODDEL ROY
LOTTIEWINSLOWSAINT PAULPICADILLY
DELLALAWNDALEGLENN
CORASALERNOLATIMER
CAMPBELL
MCBAIN
DIVISION MONICAPETERPARR BASCOMUNION17HARRISONUNNAMEDS
A
N
T
OM
A
S
HAMILTON
EMORYCA
M
D
E
N POPLARABBOTTMILTONCAMDENRINCON
BASCOMCAMPBELL
HARRIET ABBOTTPEGGYLATIMER
KENNETHMILTONMONICACROCKETT3RDWalkablity
Walkable + Transit-Served
Drivable (Auto-Oriented)
Potentially Walkable
(Not in MFDDS)
Walkable Main Streets/Centers
Groceries
Transit Service
VTA Light Rail Station
VTA Light Rail
Half Mile Distance from VTA Light
Rail Station
High Frequency Bus Routes
Half Mile Distance from Major Bus
Route Intersection
Certain standards, such as parking
requirements and setbacks, may be
modified depending on proximity/
access to high-quality transit, centers
of activity, and daily necessities.
0 1000 2000500
ft¯
Attachment A
1
Parking Standards
Unit Size City Parking Standard Density Bonus Difference
Single-Family 2 spaces
(one covered)N/A
(Bedroom Count Dependent)
N/A
(Bedroom Count Dependent)
Small-Lot Single-Family 3 spaces
(2 covered, ½ uncovered, ½ guest)
Studio to One Bedroom 2 ½ spaces 1 space +1.5 spaces
Two or more Bedrooms 3 spaces 2 spaces +1 space
Four or more Bedrooms N/A 2.5 spaces +.5 space
N/A -Residential (C-3)2 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces Varies by unit size; may overlap with
Density Bonus Transit standard
Unit Size City Transit Standard Density Bonus Transit
Studio to One Bedroom 2 spaces
.5 spaces per bedroom
(11% low/20% mod)
&
.5 spaces per unit
(all low-income)
+1.5 spaces
Two or more Bedrooms 2.5 spaces
+1.5 spaces
(11% low/20% mod)
&
+2 spaces
(all low-income)
*varies for more than 2 bedroom
Attachment B
Parking Reform Ideas
Shoup-style reforms
In Old Pasadena: meters established in commercial areas (“Parking Benefit District”) in 1993,
revenue directed entirely to street improvements. Metering is active on Sundays and evenings,
supported by the business community. Retail sales went up considerably; Old Pasadena is now
an excellent destination. A classic case study.
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/SmallChange.pdf
ITE requirements
In areas not covered by AB 2097, we should at least reduce our requirements to ITE levels for
non-residential uses. This is the same “double-dipping” thing we’re doing with adjacency: ITE
adds a buffer, we add a buffer in the rules, then we add a buffer on top of that at application
time, and that’s how parking lots get hugely inflated.
Bike substitution
Some cities allow a portion of parking spaces used for bike parking.
Santa Cruz: up to 10% of spaces,
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=58671
Palo Alto: max(2 spaces, 10%),
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-81031
Reduce traffic
Lots of suggested policies here:https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm28.htm#_Toc128220494
Some policies reduce traffic as well as reducing parking volumes:
●Smaller parking stalls. (Compact spaces 20% smaller, 25% compact -> 5% more parking.)
●Valet parking. (Capacity +20-40%)
●Parking pricing. (Aim for 85% occupancy, variable fees.) (Price elasticity of parking is -0.1 to
-0.3; implementing pricing reduces drive-alone commuting by 10-30%.)
●Unbundle parking.
●Walking/Cycling improvements.
○https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm25.htm
○Requires better infrastructure for mode shifting.
Overflow parking arrangements for unusual peak parking situations, e.g., special events. Establish
shuttle services, allow pricing for owners to rent out parking for events.
Automatic enforcement
https://www.passportinc.com/blog/digital-parking-enforcement-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work/
It’s possible to enforce parking rules based on license plate recognition, without requiring police
time. This also makes it fair. More investigation is required.
Transportation improvements
This requires improvements to infrastructure as well, so a broader scope.
Four-type model of cyclists:
https://blog.altaplanning.com/understanding-the-four-types-of-cyclists-112e1d2e9a1b
Most people who actually commute by bike are unrepresentative; a lot more would commute by
bike if it were safer.
Level of Traffic Stress analysis is helpful here:
https://blog.altaplanning.com/level-of-traffic-stress-what-it-means-for-building-better-bike-networ
ks-c4af9800b4ee
Ideally, we’d provide routes between areas with separated or buffered bike lanes so you don’t
have to ride in traffic. Costs are generally comparatively low, and it works well with reducing
parking levels/pricing remaining parking.
Further reading
Lots of case studies here:https://parkingpolicy.com/
Map of case studies here:https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map/
Category Use Per Campbell ITE Reference NotesEducation, Public Assembly and Recreation Commercial day care center Type 565 (Day Care Center)We require 1/employee + 1/5 childrenStudent0.24Employee1.22Schools/Instructional Elementary/junior high Classroom 1.50 1.80 Type 522 (Middle/Junior High School)We also require 1/75ft assembly space; assumed 20 students/class.
High school Classroom 10.00 5.98 Type 530 (High school)We also require 1/75ft assembly space; assumed 23 students/class.
Commercial schoolsStudios, smallStudios, largeTutoring center, smallTutoring center, largePublic facilities Community/cultural/ recreational center Libraries, museums, art galleries 1000sqft 5.00 2.35 Type 590 (Library)
Public assembly Places of public assembly Entertainment and recreation Arcades and indoor amusement/recreation centers 1000sqft 5.00Bowling alleys Lane 4.00 4.39 Type 437Health/fitness centers 1000sqft 6.70 4.73 Type 492 (Health/Fitness Club)Pool and billiard rooms Table 4.00 2.69 Type 438 (Billiard Hall)Only 2 observationsPrivate clubs 1000sqft 5.00Skating rink 1000sqft 2.50 5.80 Type 464 (Roller skating rink)Only 1 observationTennis/racquetball/handball or other courts Theaters, concert halls, banquet facilities Seat 0.30 0.38 Type 441 (Live theater)Numbers are per attendeeManufacturing and Processing General manufacturing, industrial, and processing use1000sqft 2.50 0.65 Type 110 (General Light Industrial)Research and development, laboratories 1000sqft 3.30Warehouses and storage facilities (not incl. mini-stora1000sqft 2.50 0.39 Type 150 (Warehousing)Motor Vehicle and Related Motor vehicle parts and supplies 1000sqft 2.86 1.70 Type 843 (Automobile Parts Sales)Motor vehicle repair and maintenance 1000sqft 1.69 Type 943 (Automobile Parts and Service Center)Campbell requires 2 spaces per service bay plus 4.44/1000sqft non-service areaGasoline stations 1000sqft 4.00 8.11 Type 960 (Super Convenience Market/Gas StationITE graph is not well correlatedMotor vehicle etc. sales etc.1000sqft 3.08 Type 841 (Automobile Sales (Used))Campbell requires 1/450sqft of indoor or outdoor showroom space, 1/225sqft office space, 1/750sqft warehouse spaceSelf-service vehicle washing Full-service vehicle washing Retail trade Banks and financial services 1000sqft 2.86 2.39 Type 710 (General Office)Building materials, hardware stores, garden centers e1000sqft 3.33 3.36 Type 862 (Home Improvement Superstore)Campbell also requires 1 space per 1000sqft exterior display spaceFurniture stores 1000sqft 2.50 0.96 Type 890 (Furniture Store)Retail stores, speculative commercial buildings 1000sqft 5.00 2.91 Type 820 (Shopping Center)But up to 4.58 in DecemberWarehouse retail stores 1000sqft 3.33 2.73 Type 857 (Discount Club)But up to 5.58 in DecemberServicesServices, general 1000sqft 4.00 2.39 Type 710 (General Office)Hotels and motels room 1.00 1.18 Type 310 (Hotel)Campbell also requires 1 per employeeProfessional offices 1000sqft 4.44 2.56 Type 712 (Small office building)Medical services
Medical, dental clinic, offices, and laboratories 1000sqft 4.44 2.56 Type 712 (Small office building)Hospitals, extended care bed 1.25 3.74 Type 610 (Hospital)Campbell also requies 1/400sqft office areaRestaurantsEating/drinking establishment (no drive-through) seat 0.33 0.47 Type 932 (High-turnover sit-down restaurant)Campbell also requires 1/200sqft non-dining spaceEating establishment (with drive-through) seat 0.33 0.44 Type 934 (Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-ThrougCampbell also requires 1/200sqft non-dining spaceDrive-in restaurant Take-out restaurant
Jurisdiction Existing Parking Requirements - Citywide Existing Transit Oriented (within 1/2 mile) Parking Requirements Parking Reduction Strategies Under Consideration Notes/Exceptions:
Single-Family Small-Lot Single-Family (Townhomes, attached residential etc.)Studio to One-Bedroom Two or more Bedrooms Studio to One-Bedroom Two or more Bedrooms
City of Campbell 2 spaces (one covered)3 spaces (2 covered, 1/2 uncovered, 1/2 guest)2.5 spaces 3 spaces 2 spaces 2.5 spaces
Program H-3a: Update the Municipal Code to reduce parking requirements. The following parking reduction strategies in areas adjacent to light rail, and other parts of the City which will not present impacts to residential neighborhoods, shall be considered:
• Reducing the parking requirements to require no more than two parking spaces per unit
• Provide incentives for reduced parking in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (program H-1c)
• Remove guest parking requirements
• Allow parking to be unbundled from residential units
• Consider allowing a combination of unbundled and assigned parking in housing developments
• Consider relationship to permit parking programs in the right of way
In Downtown City requires 2 spaces per residential unit
Palo Alto -------
Saratoga 2 covered spaces within a garage 2.5 spaces for each unit (one within a garage)2.5 spaces for each unit (one within a garage)N/A N/A
Policy 3.1: Reduced Parking for ADUs. Reduce or eliminate parking requirements for deed restricted,
affordable ADUs or JADUs pursuant to State Law. Consider whether to further reduce off street parking
space.
San Jose See notes Pending elimination of Parking Requirements Citywide.
Pending public hearing in November 2022 to consider
elimination of Parking Requirements Citywide; excepting
obligations related to SJ Sharks.
Monte Sereno 2 covered spaces and 2 uncovered (3 uncovered if no on-street parking)1 covered and 1 uncovered N/A N/A N/A N/A None
Gilroy 2 Spaces (1 covered. 1 uncovered)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A None
Multi-family has different regulations. Downtown has different
regulations. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!
/Gilroy30/Gilroy3031.html
Mountain View 2 Spaces (1 covered)
Small-Lot Single family = 2 spaces/unit (1 covered) + 0.5 guest space / unit
Rowhouse:
- Studio = 1.5 space/ unit, 1 space covered + 0.3 guest space / unit
- 1-bedroom or more = 2 covered spaces + 0.3 guest space/ unit
Townhouse:
- 2 spaces / unit (1 covered) + 0.6 guest space / unit
Studio or 1-bedroom
smaller than 650 sf =
1.5 spaces (1 covered space) / unit
1-Bedroom larger than 650 sf =
2 spaces / unit (1 covered)
2 spaces (1 covered) / unit N/A N/A
Program 1.1.d: Zoning Ordinance Update
-Complete a review of development standards in one or more zoning districts and modify standards to
address feasibility constraints. Reviewed development standards could include open area, parking (including
parking for 100% affordable housing projects), TDM, and other standards that may create constraints on
development.
In addition to required parking for multi-family, 15% of parking
spaces required will be reserved for guest parking
Precise Plan (El Camino Real, San Antonio, and buffer zones
of East Whisman)
- Studio and 1-bedroom: 1 space / unit
- 2-bedroom and larger: 2 spaces / unit
- Guest parking: 15% of the parking spaces required will be
reserved for guest parking
Precise Plans (North Bayshore and outside buffer zones of
East Whisman)
-No Parking Minimums
Downtown Precise Plan
- Studio and 1-bedroom: 1.5 space / unit + 0.3 guest space
/unit
- 2-bedroom and larger: 2 spaces / unit + 0.3 guest space /unit
-If in Parking District, can pay a parking in-lieu fee for guest
parking instead of providing it on-site
County of Santa Clara 2 Spaces (1 covered) +1 for an ADU 2 Spaces (1 covered) +1 for an ADU 1 per bedroom plus one per
employee
1 per bedroom plus one per
employee 1 per bedroom plus one per employee 1 per bedroom plus one per
employee None.
ADU and SB9 state exceptions only. Ag employee housing
requires 1 spot per unit or 1,200 sf of living space, whichever
yields a greater amount of parking.
Sunnyvale
City of Santa Clara 2 covered spaces 2 spaces per unit w/ at least 1 being covered N/A N/A 1 per unit (Residential units with a floor area of less than five
hundred fifty (550) square feet: 0.5 space per unit.)1 per unit The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to grant a minor modification (25% of requirement) of the
automobile parking space and loading space requirements.
City of Milpitas 3 bedrooms or fewer: 2 spaces (covered or uncovered)
4 or more bedrooms: 3 per unit + 1 for each addt'l bedroom N/A Studio: 1 covered/unit
1 Bedroom: 1.5 covered/unit
2-3 bedrooms: 2covered/unit
4 or more bedrooms: 3 per unit plus 1 addt'l space for each addt'l bedroom (at least two covered)
Studio: Min. 0.8 covered; Max. 1.0 covered
1 Bedroom: min. 1.2 covered; Max. 1.5 covered
Min. 1.6 covered; Max. 2.0 covered
Guest Parking: 15% of total Program 20: Specific Plans - Establish minimum zoning densities and maximum parking standards. Address shared parking and unbundled parking
Morgan Hill 2 covered per unit 2 covered per unit 2 to 2.5 spaces (Two Bedroom 1 covered and 1 uncovered per unit) (Three Bedroom 1 covered and 1.5 uncovered per unit)N/A N/A None In downtown:
• Units 600 sq.ft. or less 1 space per unit
• Units 600-1,350 sq.ft. 1.5 spaces per unit
• Units greater than 1,350 sq.ft. 2 spaces per unitTown of Los Gatos 2 spaces (covered or uncovered)2 spaces (covered or uncovered) per unit plus one visitor parking space for each residential unit other than detached single-family or two-family dwellingN/A N/A policies and implementation programs in draft Housing Element to study or consider reduced parking except as required for reduced parking requirements for ADUs
and SB9
Los Altos Hills 2 covered and 2 uncovered N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A None ADU and SB9 unit requires one additional uncovered parking
Los Altos Pending
Cupertino 2 covered + 2 open 2 open + 0.8 open
October 27th, 2022
City of Campbell – Rob Eastwood / Stephen Rose / Planning Commission / City Council
70 N 1st Street
Campbell CA 95008
Re: San Tomas Plaza Housing Redevelopment
Dear Mr. Eastwood, Mr. Rose, Planning Commissioners, and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your ongoing work on Campbell’s Housing Element Update.
On behalf of US BWG SAN TOMAS PLAZA, LLC we request that the San Tomas Plaza Shopping
Center (listed as 100 N. San Tomas Aquino Rd. in the draft housing element) be subject to
objective design standards that allow for large lot subdivision - such that a single multifamily
building could be designed and constructed on a lot larger than 4-acres. Our knowledge as
multifamily developers and market research indicates that the 9.23-acre site must be
developed as two “wrap style” buildings, each on its respective lot, in order to meet the 60
unit/acre density in a cost-effective manner. The location of the property does not lend itself to
a higher density product type, such as a “podium” building typology, as the unit price of
construction is driven to a level not supported by rents in our micro submarket of Campbell.
Generally, construction of a podium building costs between $25,000-$40,000/unit (depending
on design factors) more than a wrap building.
Our understanding is that the current Opticos draft of Multifamily Design Standards would limit
single-building lot sizes to 3-acres or less. Please reconsider this aspect of the current Design
Standards, which makes our redevelopment economically infeasible.
We look forward to submitting a formal application for housing after the adoption of the
Housing Element Update and Objective Design Standards in 2023.
Sincerely,
Pete Beritzhoff
Bay West Development
Santa Clara Square
•Block Perimeter: 1,490 feet
•Block Area: 3.24 acres
Downtown Campbell
•Block Perimeter: 1,120 feet
•Block Area: 1.77 acres
South of Campbell
Avenue
•Block Perimeter: 1,760 feet
•Block Area: 3.35 acres
Frisco, Texas (Block 1)
•Block Perimeter: 2,040 feet
•Block Area: 4.79 acres
Frisco, Texas (Block 2)
•Block Perimeter: 1,830 feet
•Block Area: 3.50 acres
Paseo Villas, San Jose
•Block Perimeter: 1,370 feet
•Block Area: 2.57 acres
To: Chair Ching and Planning Commissioners Date: November 8, 2022
From: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner
Subject: Desk Item – Multi-Family Development and Design Standards (Item 1;
PLN-2022-90)
City staff has received the attached correspondence from David Hopkins from the Sares
Regis Group regarding the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards on tonight’s agenda. A letter contains the following summarized concerns:
• Development Standards for Large Sites: Use net buildable land area to determine a large site
• Adjacency to creeks, riparian corridors, and natural habitat: If a property provides a setback from sensitive areas, the property should not be treated different
simply because of adjacency
• Retail: Do not require ground floor retail for properties outside of the center of shopping districts
• Architectural Design Standards: Restrictions, such as step-backs and daylight planes will likely result in fewer feasible housing developments.
Enclosed: Sares Regis Letter
City of Campbell
MEMORANDUM
Planning Division