Loading...
PC Agenda - 12-09-2021 - Special PC Mtg Agenda Packet - SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California For the public to attend this meeting remotely, please register in advance for this webinar: https://bit.ly/PCSpecialMtg12092021 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. December 9, 2021 Thursday 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 70 N. First St. Campbell, CA AGENDA NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public to follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov. This Special Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person 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 Special Planning Commission meeting will be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's website and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting but not participate. Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at https://bit.ly/PCSpecialMtg12092021. 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 November 23, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Planning Commission Special Meeting - December 9, 2021 Page 2 of 2 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. OLD BUSINESS 1. PLN-2021-12 Campbell's Envision General Plan Update and Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Site Methodology and Selection Review and provide feedback on Campbell’s Envision General Plan Update and the City’s Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory as part of Campbell’s Plan for Housing. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2021, 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 Corinne Shinn at the Community Development Department, at corinnes@cityofcampbell.com or (408) 866-2140. CITY OF CAMPBELL Planning Commission Action Minutes 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY NOVEMBER 23, 2021 REMOTE ON-LINE ZOOM MEETING The Planning Commission meeting on November 23, 2021, was called to order at 6:38 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Acting Chair Stuart Ching 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: Alan Zisser Commissioners Absent: Chair: Maggie Ostrowski Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Daniel Fama City Attorney: William Seligmann Recording Secretary: Corinne Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Kamkar, the Planning Commission action minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2021, were approved as submitted with minor edits on pages 7 and 9. (5-0-2; Chair Ostrowski and Commissioner Rivlin were absent) Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 23, 2021 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL REQUESTS 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-2021-144 Public Hearing to consider the Application (PLN-2021-144) ACE Hardware for a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store in a vacant tenant space (former OfficeMax) within the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, on property located at 1760 S. Bascom Avenue in the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. 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 admitted that he was surprised to see a Conditional Use Permit requirement for a retail hardware store. He understands that applies for those that are 10,000 square feet or more. He asked if there are other types of special uses with this requirement in place. Planner Daniel Fama said it also applies to grocery stores. Commissioner Zisser suggested that the customer loading parking spaces, currently placed right in front at the intersection of the entrance driveway, could be moved further down or around the right side. Planner Daniel Fama said if the Commission agrees, that can be included in the motion. Commissioner Kamkar asked about an “aisle” at the right side of the store that is open air. What is it for? Planner Daniel Fama clarified that is an existing breezeway. Commissioner Kamkar said it looks bigger than a breezeway. Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 23, 2021 Page 3 Planner Daniel Fama showed a site plan and pointed out that there is parking along that side of the building. Commissioner Kamar said that area seems a good place for customer pick up of items. Acting Chair Ching reference a letter of concern received by a rear neighbor regarding noise impacts from deliveries. He asked if ACE would operate at the back the same restricted hours that had been applied to OfficeMax. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the City Council had previously implemented restrictions applicable center-wide in terms of access to the back alley after hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Acting Chair Ching opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Acting Chair Ching closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Buchbinder spoke in support of this application. Commissioner Kamkar asked if they could be required to include EV (Electric Vehicle) chargers. Planner Daniel Fama replied that such an addition is not required for a TI (tenant improvement) to physically alter the interior space for a particular tenant. Commissioner Kamkar stated his support for this fine use and agreed with Commissioner Kamkar about his suggestion to relocate the customer loading parking spaces to the right side. Acting Chair Ching asked if the Commission has any further guidance on the potential relocation of the loading parking spaces. Planner Daniel Fama suggested the Commission defer the placement of those spaces to the discretion and approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Buchbinder supported that suggestion. Commissioner Zisser asked if there are curb modifications that the Bascom Avenue entrance associated with this project. Planner Daniel Fama replied that Public Works required they be updated to achieve current ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if the member of the public who had raised concerns about the back driveway had been contacted and advised of what process he/she could use if problems occur. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 23, 2021 Page 4 Acting Chair Ching spoke in support and suggested the addition of a bike rack. Commissioner Buchbinder said that including a bike rack is a great idea. Commissioner Kamkar said those bike racks could also accommodate scooters. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Buchbinder, seconded by Commissioner Zisser, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4628 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store in a vacant tenant space (former OfficeMax) within the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, on property located at 1760 S. Bascom Avenue, with the added requirement for a bicycle rack and having the applicant work with the Community Development Director on where best to locate the customer pick up parking spaces, and finding the project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll-call vote: AYES: Buchbinder, Ching, Kamkar, Krey, and Zisser NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ostrowski and Rivlin Acting Chair Ching said that this Commission action is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days. *** COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT Director Rob Eastwood provided a brief oral report with the following: • Congratulated the Commission for successful conducting its first live at City Hall meeting in nearly two years of Covid. • Reported on the November 17th Council Special Session on Housing. There was lots of concurrence with the Planning Commission’s recommendations. • Reminded that the PC will conduct another Special Session on the Housing Element on Thursday, December 9th, at 5:30 p.m. That meeting will also be live and held in Council Chambers. • Said that two focus group sessions have occurred. One with Affordable Housing Developers on November 22nd and the other with Business Community members held earlier today. Both sessions incorporated a robust discussion. • Explained that the main “driver” for all of these meetings is to get to the point that the CEQA work can be underway by January, 2022. There may be need for another Planning Special meeting in January. • Reported that the Planning Department is in the midst of two staff recruitments. One for an Assistant Planner position and the other for an Associate Planner position. • Stated that an SB-9 Interim Ordinance would be considered by Council on December 7th. The report for that will be available next week. An Interim Ordinance is only effective for 45 days from date of adoption by Council. It can be renewed but is intended as a short-term item. Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 23, 2021 Page 5 Commissioner Zisser asked if December 9th would be the first take of reviewing and discussion the inventory list. Is there a sense for how long that list is? Does staff have any advise on what we could be looking for? Director Rob Eastwood: • Advised that the list is long. • Added that Council concurred with the PC’s support for Options 3, 4 and 5. • Stated that other “potentials” could be sites where the owner has an interest in redevelopment and/or currently vacant sites. • Said that staff will appreciate any feedback on any sites. • Added that if there is a new suggested site, please let us know. • Said staff is seeing how far we can go with all of this in December. Commissioner Zisser asked if the sites depicted would include density and potential unit range. Director Rob Eastwood replied yes. Also, tools to make an environment where affordable development happens. Commissioner Buchbinder asked when the Commission would see the draft inventory. Director Rob Eastwood replied with the staff report for the December 9th meeting that should be distributed by Friday, December 3rd. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if there is a summary available of the meeting with the Affordable Housing Developers. Director Rob Eastwood said it would be included in the packet. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if the housing survey is now available in Spanish. Director Rob Eastwood replied yes and said staff would forward the link to it by email to the members of the Commission. Commissioner Kamkar said he understood that before SB-9, Campbell would be getting rid of its P-D (Planned Development) Zoning. Has that been scuttled? Director Rob Eastwood: • Replied, no, it has not been scuttled. • Advised that Council concurred with that intent, but it won’t be easy as we have a lot of PD Zoned parcels. • Added that Council gave clear direction to staff to make sure those existing sites will conform with surrounding uses. • Assured that the use of P-D will be minimized. Acting Chair Ching said that he understands that Campbell is underserved with parks per its population. Campbell Planning Commission Action Minutes for November 23, 2021 Page 6 Director Rob Eastwood said he doesn’t have the data on that tonight as to what the existing park ratio is and what our actual parkland includes. Acting Chair Ching asked what process could be used to identify potential areas for parks. How can that topic be brought to the Council? Director Rob Eastwood said that the City currently collects Park Impact Fees for new housing units. How those funds are used and how parks are selected requires a Master Planning process. He would need to get more information and work with the Public Works and Parks & Recreation folks. Acting Chair Ching said would be something good to consider. Commissioner Buchbinder pointed out that the Edith Morley Park is not correctly depicted on the map. Commissioner Zisser: • Asked whether anyone had raised the topic of perhaps using the existing building on the Fry’s property to be reconfigured into residential units. • Opined that would involve less cost and time. Director Rob Eastwood replied, no, he has heard little about “adaptive reuse” in relation to this site. He said a feasibility analysis would be required ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. to the next Special Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, December 9, 2021, which will likely be live at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. PREPARED BY: Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 4628 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ESTABLISHMENT OF A HARDWARE STORE IN A VACANT TENANT SPACE (FORMER OFFICEMAX) WITHIN THE HAMILTON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1760 S. BASCOM AVENUE IN THE C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. FILE NO.: PLN-2021-53 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 of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows: 1. The Project Site is zoned C-2 (General Commercial) on the City of Campbell Zoning Map. 2. The Project Site is designated General Commercial on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram. 3. The Project Site is located on the southeast corner South Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue and is adjacent to commercial uses to the north, south and west, and multi-family residences to the east. 4. The Proposed Project is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store within a 12,275 square-foot tenant space last occupied by an office supply store. 5. The Proposed Project proposes establishment "hardware stores (greater than ten thousand square feet)", which is a conditionally permitted land use within the C-2 Zoning District. 6. The C-2 Zoning District is intended to provide a wide range of retail sales and business and personal services primarily oriented to the automobile customer and accessible to transit corridors, to provide for general commercial needs of the city, and to promote a stable and attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment. 7. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies by providing a desirable service that would not alter the existing interface between this commercial property and the neighboring residences to the south. Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial and commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city’s neighborhoods. Policy LUT-5.3: Variety of Commercial and Office Uses: Maintain a variety of attractive and convenient commercial and office use that provide needed goods, services and entertainment. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4628 Page 2 of 3 Approving of Conditional Use Permit PLN-2021-144 ~ 1760 S. Bascom Ave. 8. In review of the Proposed Project, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project's traffic safety, traffic congestion, site circulation, landscaping, structure design, and site layout. 9. In review the Proposed Project, the Planning Commission also weighed the public need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the project, against any impacts it may cause. 10. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project. 11. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the Proposed Project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: Conditional Use Permit Finding (CMC Sec. 21.45.040): 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; 3. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area; 4. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate; 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed 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. Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 7. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the operation, permitting, and minor alterations of an existing private structure involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4628 Page 3 of 3 Approving of Conditional Use Permit PLN-2021-144 ~ 1760 S. Bascom Ave. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store in a vacant tenant space (former OfficeMax) within the Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center, on property located at 1760 S. Bascom Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit "A"). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of November, 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Buchbinder, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Ching NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Ostrowski, Rivlin APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Acting Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit PLN-2021-144 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a hardware store within an existing commercial tenant space located at 1760 S Bascom Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans and Project Description included as Attachment No. 2 and No. 3, respectively, of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 23, 2021, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval herein. 2. Permit Expiration: The Conditional Use Permit approved herein ("Approval") shall be valid for one (1) year from the effective date of Planning Commission approval (expiring December 3, 2022). Within this one-year period, an application for building permit(s) must be submitted. Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of an issued building permit will result in the Approval being rendered void. 3. Plan Revisions: The construction plans submitted for a building permit to perform tenant improvements for the approved hardware store shall reflect the following revisions: a. Relocated loading stalls as specified by the Community Development Director. b. Installation of bicycle racks in a quantity and location specified by the Community Development Director. 4. Operational Standards: Consistent with the Approved Project Description the approved hardware store operating pursuant to this Approval shall conform to the following operational standards. Significant deviations from these standards (as determined by the Community Development Director) shall require approval of a subsequent Modification. a. Approved Use: The approved use is a "hardware stores (greater than ten thousand square feet)" as defined by the Campbell Municipal Code and limited by the operational standards listed herein. Conditions of Approval – 1760 S. Bascom Avenue Page 2 of 6 PLN-2021-144 ~ Conditional Use Permit b. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation shall be as follows. By the end of the latest 'Business Hours' all patrons shall have exited the business. • Business Hours (Public): 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, M-F 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Sat./Sun. • Operational Hours (Staff): 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, M-F 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Sat./Sun. c. Trash Disposal and Clean-Up: Refuse and recycling receptacles shall be kept within the trash enclosure except during collection in compliance with CMC Chapter 6.04 (Garbage and Rubbish Disposal). Emptying of trash receptacles and placement of refuse and recyclable materials into the trash enclosure receptacles shall occur only during the approved “Hours of Operation." d. Landscape Maintenance: All landscaped areas shall be continuously maintained in accordance with CMC Chapter 21.26. Landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds, trash, and litter. Dead or unhealthy plants shall be replaced with healthy plants of the same or similar type. e. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris, and weeds until the time that actual construction commences. Any vacant existing structures shall be secured, by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (Section 11.201 and 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code). f. Delivery Hours: Deliveries to the rear (alley) service area shall be restricted between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, daily, consistent with Site and Architectural Review Permit (S 90-01 / M 90-11). Deliveries to the front entrance of the store are permitted during the 'Operational Hours'. g. Alley Usage: Employee usage of the rear alleyway shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, consistent with the 'Delivery Hours,' above. A notice on the inside door to the alley shall be posted to inform and remind employees of this requirement. h. Noise: Regardless of decibel level, no noise generated by the hardware store shall obstruct the free use of neighboring properties so as to unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the neighboring residents. In the event verified complaints are received by the City regarding such noise, the Community Development Director may immediately curtail the Hours of Operation, subject to commencement of a revocation hearing pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 5 (Revocation of Permit). i. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be maintained in compliance with the standards provided in CMC Ch. 21.28 (Parking and Loading). j. Smoking: "No Smoking" signs shall be posted on the premises in compliance with CMC Section 6.11.060. Conditions of Approval – 1760 S. Bascom Avenue Page 3 of 6 PLN-2021-144 ~ Conditional Use Permit 5. Revocation of Permit: Use operation of hardware store is subject to Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 21.68 authorizing the appropriate decision-making body to modify or revoke a land use approval if it is determined that operation a use has become a nuisance to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Conditions of Approval or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the property generates three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise, parking, etc.) within a twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking the Minor Modification approval. 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. 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 customer and/or employee actions; b. The number of complaints concerning the operation of an establishment regarding parking, noise, and/or other operational impacts. c. Violation of conditions of approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. Scope of Review: The scope of this project triggers the requirement for Frontage Improvements as required by Campbell Municipal Code 11.24.040. The City of Campbell’s adopted Streetscape Standards identify this portion of Bascom Avenue as an Image Street with very specific frontage improvement requirements as shown on page 9 of the document. The Bascom Avenue project frontage already conforms to the Image Street plan. However, the wheelchair ramp at the north- east corner of South Bascom Avenue/Campisi Way will need to be upgraded to an ADA compliant wheel chair ramp. The Streetscape Standards can be viewed here: (http://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/168). 7. Construction Drawings: The applicant shall submit the following permit applications prior to, or concurrent with the main Building permit application: a. Encroachment Permit for Street Improvement Plans: The frontage improvements for the project shall be shown on a separate street improvement plan as detailed here: https://www.campbellca.gov/187/Street-Improvements b. Building Permit for On-Site / Grading & Drainage Plans: The on-site grading, drainage, stormwater, landscaping, ADA and site improvements for the project shall be shown on a separate building permit plan as detailed here: https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16594 c. Street / Easement Dedication: The street / easement dedication documents required for this project shall be submitted for review by the City Surveyor as detailed here: https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/430 Conditions of Approval – 1760 S. Bascom Avenue Page 4 of 6 PLN-2021-144 ~ Conditional Use Permit 8. Right-of-Way for Public Street Purposes: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall fully complete the process to cause additional right-of-way to be granted in fee for public street purposes along the South Bascom Avenue frontage (north- east corner of South Bascom Avenue/Campisi Way) to accommodate an ADA compliant wheelchair ramp, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall submit the necessary documents for approval by the City Engineer, process the submittal with City staff’s comments and fully complete the right-of-way process. The applicant shall cause all documents to be prepared by a registered civil engineer/land surveyor, as necessary, for the City’s review and recordation. 9. Drainage System: Prior to occupancy clearance, the applicant shall refurbish, remodel, and reconstruct the on-site drainage system, as necessary, to demonstrate that the facilities are functioning normally in accordance with the requirements of the City. 10. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff to the bay. Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start at the Source: A Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999; and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document to Start at the Source (“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003. 11. Trash Capture – Install trash capture inserts (KriStar FloGard or approved equal) in all on-site storm drain catchbasins within the area of the new store. 12. Pavement Restoration: The applicant shall restore the pavement in compliance with City standard requirements. In the event that the roadway has recently received a pavement treatment or reconstruction, the project will be subject to the City’s Street Cut Moratorium. The applicant will be required to perform enhanced pavement restoration consistent with the restoration requirements associated with the Street Cut Moratorium. The City’s Pavement Maintenance Program website (https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/219) has detailed information on the streets currently under moratorium and the enhanced restoration requirements. 13. Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement, cause plans for public street improvements to be prepared by a registered civil engineer, pay various fees and deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by the City Engineer. Conditions of Approval – 1760 S. Bascom Avenue Page 5 of 6 PLN-2021-144 ~ Conditional Use Permit The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: a. Show location of all existing utilities within the new and existing public right of way. b. Removal of existing wheelchair ramp at the north-east corner of South Bascom Avenue/Campisi Way. c. Installation of ADA compliant wheelchair ramp (Detail A88A, Case A) at the corner of South Bascom Avenue/Campisi Way. d. Adjustment to the existing crosswalk pavement marking and pedestrian push button as necessary. e. Relocation of pull boxes that will be located in the area of the new wheelchair ramp. f. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as necessary. 14. Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Building Permit Final: Prior to allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings, the applicant shall have the required street improvements installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. 15. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate encroachment permits for the installation of utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. 16. Trash Enclosure Requirements: a. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (CRWQCB): C.3.a.i. (7): For all new development and redevelopment projects that are subject to the Permittee’s planning, building, development, or other comparable review, but not regulated by Provision C.3, encourage the inclusion of adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff. These source control measures should include: o Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures. b. Campbell Municipal Code 14.02.030 "Stormwater Pollution Control / Requirements". The code states that no pollutants or water containing pollutants can be discharged into the City's storm drain system. Trash enclosures contain pollutants. During a rain event (or during general cleaning) water washes over and into roofless enclosures, collecting pollutants and discharging to the City's storm drain system. Applicants are required to show how new trash enclosures will not discharge pollutants into the storm drain system. One possible method is to provide a sanitary drain in the trash enclosure. o Installation of area drain in the trash enclosure and connection of area drain to the sanitary sewer. Conditions of Approval – 1760 S. Bascom Avenue Page 6 of 6 PLN-2021-144 ~ Conditional Use Permit o Installation of grade break to prevent run off from the trash enclosure (covered area) to the parking lot (uncovered area) and vice versa. c. West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD), the local sanitary sewer agency, will require a roof on the enclosure if the trash enclosure drain connects to their sanitary sewer system. CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ November 9, 2021 PLN-2021-12 Review and provide feedback on the Administrative Draft Envision Campbell General Plan Update and Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Selection. RECOMMENDED ACTION Review and provide feedback on the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Inventory for the City’s Housing Element Update (“Campbell’s Plan for Housing”). BACKGROUND Based on direction from the City Council from 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 certain provisions in the Administrative Draft of the Envision Campbell General Plan and the Housing Opportunity Sites Selection in Campbell’s Plan for Housing. Campbell’s Plan for Housing must be adopted by the City Council and submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for approval no later than January 15, 2023. Campbell’s Plan for Housing is part of the State of California’s 6th Housing Element Cycle. A major change in the Housing Element for the 6th Cycle planning period is the requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). In order to meet timelines established by HCD to complete the Housing Element by January 15, 2023, the City must begin the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation process in January, 2022. Essential to start preparation of the EIR, is the identification of all land use changes that will happen within both the Envision Campbell General Plan Update and Campbell’s Plan for Housing, including identification of Housing Opportunity Sites. The EIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts from these land use changes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is seeking feedback on two areas: (1) further policy guidance on specific land use components in the Administrative Draft Envision Campbell General Plan (non-Housing element), based on initial direction provided from the Commission and Council in September 2021; and (2) feedback on the refined list of housing opportunity sites, that have been prepared pursuant to direction from the Planning Commission and City Council in November and subsequent community input and technical analysis. Campbell’s Plan for Housing will become part of the General Plan and will need to be consistent with other elements of the General Plan. Specifically, staff is asking for focused recommendation on Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 2 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing the following items from the Planning Commission: • Recommend the addition or removal of specific sites from the Housing Opportunity Site inventory. • Recommend densities for specific sites that may differ from the staff recommendations. • Recommend a total housing opportunity site target number between 3,300 and 7,000 units. Under the initial schedule, the December 2021, Commission and Council meetings were designated to provide final feedback regarding the land use changes within the Envision General Plan Update and Campbell’s Plan for Housing, including the selection of the preferred Housing Opportunity Sites, to start the EIR process. Staff has subsequently discussed the EIR schedule with the City’s EIR consultant (De Novo Planning Group) and has identified that the City may instead use a Commission and Council meeting in January to provide final direction before starting the EIR process, while maintaining the same overall schedule to meet the HCD required deadline. As such, staff is seeking initial direction regarding the selection of specific housing opportunity sites in December, and a January 2022 meeting may be used to provide final direction, including addressing any other outstanding land use issues. Envision Campbell Administrative Draft General Plan Update The September 2021 Commission and Council meetings on the Administrative Draft General Plan were divided into four topic areas: 1) Preferred Land Use Map. How to proceed with ‘non-residential’ land use changes proposed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC); 2) Building Intensities. Whether to increase Building Intensities (floor area ratios) to a more practical level to support desired land uses (i.e., hotels); 3) Residential Density Calculation Method. Determining how residential densities should be calculated; and 4) Draft General Plan Policy Sets: Providing feedback on key issues and topics from the Draft Policy sets. The following discussion summarizes the direction from the Council to provide the Planning Commission context to comment on items requiring further guidance. 1) Preferred Land Use Map In general, the Council supported the Preferred Land Use Map recommended by the GPAC (reference Attachment 9) with the following comments and revisions: Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 3 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing • Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay The Council agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation to extend the Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan boundary further south to capture ‘additional areas leading up to the downtown’ but also requested staff to extend the boundary further east to capture the triangular area northwest of the intersection of Hamilton and Bascom.  Staff Response: Staff has prepared a revised boundary for the Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay responsive to Council direction (reference Attachment 2 – Revised Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay Boundary). The Planning Commission is encouraged to comment on the amended boundary of the Specific Plan Overlay, with an emphasis on the area leading up to the downtown recognizing it was unclear if the area plan should include the remainder of the NOCA planning area or only include the areas captured by staff. • South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA) & North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (NOCA) In reviewing a proposed change of a portion of the SOCA area from ‘Commercial / Medium-High Density Residential’ to ‘Residential / Commercial / Professional Office’ the Council provided direction to pursue potential elimination of the NOCA/SOCA plans. The following serves to provide a high-level summary of the implications of eliminating each plan and how potential impacts to land uses may be addressed. North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (NOCA) The North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (NOCA) is located northeast of downtown Campbell and serves to identify allowable land uses (neighborhood serving commercial uses and mixed-use/residential development), minimum and maximum densities, and encourage lot consolidation1 through the imposition of maximum floor area ratio limitations for smaller properties. Additionally, the NOCA plan restricts the use of the first 66-feet of properties fronting Harrison Avenue to 6-13 units per gross acre and the uses allowed to those provided by the R-D and R-M zoning designations (essentially townhomes and duets) (reference Attachment 3 – North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan). As a one-page planning document, the NOCA Plan is the least complicated of all the City’s area plans and resultantly includes few policies which warrant its retention.  Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends eliminating the NOCA plan and 1 The General Plan also includes design policies pertaining to the NOCA plan that are largely redundant with policies contained in the draft ‘Community Design’ element of the Administrative Draft General Plan. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 4 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing directing staff to take one or more of the following actions to avoid adverse impacts: o Establish a new Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use Designation land use destination for properties within the boundaries of the NOCA plan to restrict higher-intensity commercial land uses (i.e., theaters). o Rely on the ‘Building Intensities’ established as part of the Administrative Draft General Plan (see related discussion) to govern allowable floor area ratio for projects within the NOCA area. o Change the land use designation for the first 66-feet of property along Harrison Avenue to align with the intended land uses called for by the plan. o Extend the Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay Area boundaries (see separate discussion point) to include all properties within the NOCA plan area and use that area plan to capture desired land use restrictions. South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA) The South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA) is located southeast of Downtown Campbell and is divided into five unique sub-areas. Like the NOCA plan, the SOCA plan provides guidance on allowable land uses and encourages lot consolidation by permitting greater densities and floor area ratios on larger properties (reference Attachment 4 – South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan). The SOCA Plan also contains a Density Bonus Policy and Project Design Standards which cover all sub-areas. While a detailed assessment of the impacts of eliminating the SOCA plan have been provided as a separate attachment (reference Attachment 5) the following summary serves the highlight the most impactful changes: • Impacts to Maximum FAR: The maximum FAR restrictions imposed by lot size would be eliminated requiring a case-by-case determination for commercial projects. • Impacts to Sub Area 1: The area could allow for more intensive commercial land uses as governed by the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district rather than those governed by the C-3 (Central Commercial) zoning district. • Sub Area 2: The 50-foot height restriction on high-density residential land uses would be eliminated. • Sub Area 3: Mixed-use projects in this area could be allowed to accommodate more intensive commercial land uses as governed by the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district rather than those governed by the C-3 (Central Commercial) zoning district. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 5 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing • Sub Area 4: No impacts other than those separately identified (i.e., FAR). • Sub Area 5: Guidance provided in the plan to discourage automotive repair uses except on sites that were previously used for such activity and encourage ‘commercial expressway’ uses such as hotels, motels, and restaurants and a maximum FAR of 1.0 for hotels and motels would be eliminated. • Density Bonus Policy: No impact. • Project Design Standards – Limited impact to the orientation of buildings and projects along creeks. Several policies are not objective and may not be enforceable as written. Despite being longer and more complicated than the NOCA plan, the SOCA plan similarly contains antiquated policies and requirements that are no longer relevant in context of the changing character of the area and recent amendments to state law. As adverse impacts that may result from eliminating NOCA plan may be offset by other planning tools and approaches, staff sees little value in its retention.  Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends eliminating the SOCA plan and directing staff to effectuate one or more of the following actions to avoid adverse impacts: o Establish a new mixed-use land use designation that would allow for mixed-use activities provided for by Table 2-11a of the C-3 (Central Commercial) business district and commercial uses as stand-alone activities as governed by the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district and apply it to impacted properties. o Rely on the ‘Building Intensities’ established as part of the Administrative Draft General Plan (see related discussion) to govern allowable floor area ratio for projects within the SOCA area. o Rely on the elimination of the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district and establishment and application of new mixed-use and multi-family land use designations and associated development standards to govern the development of such uses rather than relying on antiquated standards of the SOCA plan. o Establish locational and operational standards for automotive repair, hotel, and motel uses as part of Chapter 21.36 (Provisions Applying to Special Uses) of the Campbell Municipal Code. o Direct staff to incorporate specific design requirements of the SOCA plan that should be retained into the Draft ‘Community Design’ Element of the Administrative Draft General Plan while making them objective. 2) Building Intensities In response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission and staff that building Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 6 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing intensities (i.e., floor area ratios) contained in the Administrative Draft General Plan may be low in comparison with industry standards, the City Council directed staff to perform additional research and return with an analysis and recommendation prior to the start of the EIR. The following discussion provides an overview of that analysis and staff recommendation. Existing Standards vs. Administrative Draft General Plan: For ease of reference the definition of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) included in the Administrative Draft General Plan reads as follows: Floor area ratio, referred to as FAR, is used to express the building intensity for non-residential uses, such as commercial, industrial, community facilities, and the non-residential component of mixed-use projects. FAR refers to the ratio of the total floor area of a building or buildings on a site, excluding parking structures and outdoor storage areas, to the lot area of the site. Further, the following table serves to compare existing FAR standards to those contained in the Administrative Draft General Plan and serve as the starting point for the analysis. Land Use Designation Existing FAR Admin Draft General Plan (Proposed FAR) Exception2 Central Commercial 1.25 No Change Up to 1.5 when consistent with findings of Downtown Development Plan General Commercial 0.4 No Change Planning Commission may increase the FAR for a specific use at a specific location when it determines that circumstances warrant an adjustment. Neighborhood Commercial 0.4 No Change Professional Office 0.4 No Change Institutional 0.4 Silent Light Industrial 0.4 No Change Research and Development N/A (New R&D zoning is proposed to replace C-M which is .4) 1.0 Up to 1.5 when robust traffic reduction measures are implemented. Office/Low-Medium Density Residential N/A (Implemented by P-D) 0.4 Residential, Commercial, Professional Office N/A (Implemented by P-D) 0.5 to 1.0 Up to 1.25 when includes residential component. Commercial and/or Light Industrial N/A (Implemented by P-D) No Change 2 It is assumed existing exceptions would be carried over into the new General Plan. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 7 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Community Comparisons Analysis: Building on the research already completed, which included an analysis of floor area ratio standards used by surrounding communities (reference Attachment 6 – Floor Area Ratio Comparisons Table)3, staff performed an analysis of projects that have been built, entitled, or proposed in the City of Campbell and neighboring communities (reference Attachment 7 – Development Projects in Campbell & Neighboring Communities). The following tables serve to summarize the results of that analysis, but it is important to note the limited sample size of the data. For the City of Campbell fourteen (14) projects were evaluated and for all other bay area communities a total of thirteen (13) as follows: City of Campbell (14 projects) Land Use FAR Average Range Commercial 0.37 0.23 – 0.43 Hotel 2.3 2.3 Office 0.98 0.83 - 1.13 Industrial (Trojan Self-Storage) 1.26 1.26 Mixed-Use (Commercial Component) 0.16 0.06 – 0.43 Other Bay Area Communities (13 Projects) (Cupertino, Fremont, Los Gatos, City of Santa Clara, San Jose) Land Use FAR Average Range Commercial 0.41 0.39 – 0.43 Hotel 0.85 0.72 – 1.30 Office 1.6 0.85 – 3.10 R&D / Industrial 0.61 0.45 – 0.76 Mixed Use (Commercial Component) 0.15 0.10 – 0.21 Building Intensity Recommendation: Based on a review of these case study examples, and comparisons with other communities, staff would advise further evaluating an increase in building intensities by land use as shown below. These draft revisions would be evaluated as part of the EIR and subject to final review and adoption by the Commission and Council at the end of 2022. Land Use Designation Admin Draft Max FAR Recommendation for EIR Analysis Difference Central Commercial 1.5 No Change N/A General Commercial 0.4 1.0 +0.6 Neighborhood Commercial 0.4 1.0 +0.6 3 This analysis helped illustrate that the City of Campbell has a lower FAR for certain land use activities (i.e., FAR up to .85 in Milpitas and 2.0 in Palo Alto for hotels) and land uses types (i.e., FAR up to 2.5 in Business Park R&D in Milpitas). Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 8 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Professional Office 0.4 1.0 +0.6 Institutional4 0.4 1.0 +0.6 Light Industrial 0.4 1.0 +0.6 Research and Development 1.5 No Change N/A Office/Low-Medium Density Residential 0.4 1.0 +0.6 Residential, Commercial, Professional Office 1.0 No Change No Change 3) Residential Density Calculation Method As an outcome of the September 2021 meeting, the Council further directed staff to discontinue the practice of calculating gross lot area to the centerline of street, in favor of adopting a more common industry standard method of calculating gross lot area which only includes the total area of a property within the lines of a lot prior to any dedication. This method of calculating density has been used to analyze Housing Opportunity Sites included in Campbell’s Plan for Housing. 4) Draft General Plan Policy Sets City Council feedback on key questions raised from the policy sets were as follows: o Mixed-Use Zoning: The Council agreed that the General Plan should establish mixed-used zone districts and policies aimed at reducing the City’s reliance on P-D (Planned Development) and C-PD (Condominium Planned Development) zoning designations. o Drive-Thru Establishments: The Council decided to allow drive-thru uses and establish policies aimed at creating locational and operational standards to make it clear when and where they may be supported in the community. o Research and Development: The Council directed staff to drop changes to these areas that would impact existing land uses and relayed an interest in exploring further development of the area as part of the Economic Development Planning effort. o Transportation Demand Management Plan: The Council agreed that clear thresholds should be established for when a Transportation Demand Management plan should be required for projects, deferring to Fehr and Peers, the consulting firm tasked with preparing the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Envision Campbell General Plan EIR, to recommend the specific thresholds. o Shuttle System: The Council indicated interest in having a shuttle system but 4 The Administrative Draft General Plan is silent on Institutional land use designations; accordingly the existing City FAR has been used as a basis. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 9 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing clarified that City funds should not be used to support such an endeavor. o Community Design Element: The Council confirmed that the General Plan should have a dedicated Element on Community Design and include a reference to it as part of the Land Use Element. Campbell’s Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Targets by Income Level As identified in the draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement, provided by ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments), the City of Campbell must plan for the development of approximately 2,977 new housing units for the 2023 and 2031 planning period (the 6th Cycle Housing Element). Using HCD’s recommended “buffer”, an additional 30% has been added to each income category. The RHNA targets are further broken-out into different income categories based on the median income level of the respective county. This is referred to as Area Median Income (AMI) and varies based upon the size of the household. The household size and income criteria for Santa Clara County are included in Attachment 8. For 2021, the AMI for a 4-person household in Santa Clara County is $151,300; the highest in the state. These income categories and RHNA targets are depicted in Table 1: Table 1 – Housing Related Income Categories Income Level % of Area Median Income Annual Household Income (4 person) RHNA Allocation Extremely Low-Income* 0% to 30% Up to $49,700 489* Very Low-Income* 31% to 50% $49,701 to $82,850 Low-Income households 51% to 80% $82,851 to $117,750 564 Moderate Income 81% to 120% $117,751 to $181,550 649 Affordable Unit Subtotal 2,190 Above Moderate-Income More than 120% Over $181,550 1,680 TOTAL 3,870 * Local jurisdictions must consider Extremely-Low Income households which are included as part of the Very-Low Income category. The City identifies 50% of the Very-Low Income category are for Extremely-Low Income households. Housing Opportunity Baseline Target To determine the number of housing units that need to be accommodated by the Housing Opportunity Sites, a Housing Baseline Target was identified. The Baseline starts with the City’s RHNA allocation with a 30% buffer is added. This buffered RHNA allocation is then reduced by the amount of potential housing units that can be provided by other sources. These other sources include pending housing projects, anticipated Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and new units resulting from State Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). This new law allows Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 10 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing the owner of a property zoned for single-family residential to split the lot and develop up to two units on each property. These projected new units have been deducted from the City’s buffered Housing Allocation Target of 3,870 units. The remaining amount of approximately 3,300 units will need to be accommodated through the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites. Table 2 below provides a complete calculation. Table 2 - Housing Baseline Target Campbell’s Draft RHNA Allocation 2,977 units Plus Recommended 30% Buffer + 893 units Total Housing Allocation Target 3,870 units Less Pending Projects (not under construction) - 160 units Less Estimated ADUs - 280 units Less Estimated SB-9 Units - 160 units Housing Opportunity Site Baseline Target ~3,300 units (3,270 rounded up) Residential Densities of Housing Opportunity Sites The specific densities for Housing Opportunity Sites is an important consideration. Density is measured as dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and typically regulated by local jurisdictions as a maximum limit. However, Campbell also has a long-standing General Plan policy of requiring projects to achieve at least 75% of the maximum allowed to insure efficient use of land consistent with the long-range housing plan for the community. There are several considerations when identifying the appropriate maximum residential density planned for Housing Opportunity Sites, especially when the goal is to provide needed affordable housing at suitable locations. The density milestones listed below will be used as common reference points to develop the Plan for Housing and discussing varying levels of density. As discussed later in this report, the preliminary methodology discussed at the November Planning Commission and City Council meetings used these density milestones to illustrate a variety of scenarios for consideration. • Default Density (20 du/ac or 30 du/ac). The first density to consider is the accepted ‘default density’ of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), as provided under State law for Housing Elements. All housing opportunity sites that enable this density level are assumed to be appropriate for affordable housing under Housing Element law, although this has not occurred in practice. State housing law requires jurisdictions within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of more than two million residents, to provide a default density of 30 du/ac. Currently, the posted results of the 2020 Census indicates that Campbell is within an MSA that meets this requirement; however, the Census results are not yet final, Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 11 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing and staff is awaiting direction from the HCD on this point. As a result, the 20 du/ac default density will likely need to be increased to 30 du/ac. • Existing High-Density Residential Density (27 du/ac). The High-Density Residential density of 27 du/ac from the current General Plan covers existing mixed-use and high-density residential lands throughout the city. The City has examples of both residential and mixed-use projects at this maximum density. • Draft General Plan Update Density (45 du/ac). The draft General Plan Update (GPU) includes a higher density land use designation for more housing at key locations at 45 du/ac. • Recommended Higher Densities (60-75 du/ac). Under this Plan for Housing effort, the project team is recommending consideration of a tailored approach to density by selecting areas for higher densities. These higher densities include the following: o Utilize revitalized shopping center or other commercial sites for mixed-use at 60 du/ac. This density level has received strong support from property owners, developers and the affordable housing community. o Provide increased residential density at the light rail stations at 75 du/ac. This density level has also received strong support from property owners, developer and the affordable housing community. Additionally, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) recommends this density near transit stations. Initial Site Selection Methodology The first step in the process of defining the site selection methodology occurred on October 16, 2021, at an informational joint study session of the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff identified a framework that would consider sites consistent with the following characteristics: • Re-Use Sites – These are sites from the existing 5th Cycle Housing Element that have not be developed and are still available and may be “re-used” if a by-right development option with 20% affordable units are provided. • Vacant Sites – These sites with none or very minimal improvements such as buildings or parking lots are considered the best opportunity sites. • Underutilized Sites – These are typically older buildings on properties that do not utilize the full extent of the parcel. • Parking Lots – Larger surface parking lots that may be considered for conversion to housing. Typically found in commercial shopping centers. • Religious Facility Sites – New state law SB 899 allows 50% of parking lots to be used for housing with no replacement parking required. • School Sites – Some schools may have surplus land that could be used for affordable teacher and staff housing. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 12 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing • City-owned Sites – Public sites can be an important strategy for new affordable housing. • Expressed Interest – Sites that may not fit into any of the other categories, but the owner has expressed a strong desire to explore new housing on the site. Other Site Selection Factors In addition to the strategy options discussed above, there are two other factors that should be considered in identifying Housing Opportunity Sites. Fair Housing Criteria for Opportunity Sites Potential housing opportunity sites must be identified and evaluated relative to the full scope of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, as well as access to opportunities and resources). Staff has prepared a series of maps that depict areas in Campbell that are within either a half mile or a ten-minute walk of the following resources: o Proximity to transit (both Light Rail and bus); o Proximity to food stores; o Access to commercial services; o Proximity to recreational opportunities; and, o Access to public schools. Greenhouse Gas and Vehicle Miles Travelled Reduction An additional key locational factor is the need to locate new housing in areas served by public transportation. In addition to furthering the long-term sustainability goals of the General Plan, this also has the potential to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled as well as reducing emissions of Greenhouse Gases. This includes areas of the city that are within ½ mile or a 10-minute walk of VTA bus stops and the City’s three light rail stations. Development Potential of Housing Opportunity Sites New state law requires the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites between ½-acre and 10 acres in size. Other size sites can be considered but additional justification is required. Once a potential site is identified, state law also requires that the City identify the realistic development potential of that site. To determine a realistic development capacity specific for the City of Campbell, the staff has modified development capability for sites smaller than one acre. Based on past Campbell experience with many projects on smaller sites, the resulting formula for realistic development potential is recommended as follows: • For sites between ½-acre and one acre, the development potential will be presumed to be 75 percent of maximum. • For any sites smaller than ½-acre, the development potential will be considered at 50 percent of maximum. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 13 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing This approach is consistent with HCD’s guidance for larger and more buildable sites. Site Selection Option Strategies Using these size, location, density criteria, regulatory planning guidelines and the specific categories discussed above, staff prepared five strategy options for a site selection methodology for additional consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at public meetings held on November 9 and November 17, respectively. Each strategy is summarized below, a comparison is also provided in Table 3. With the exception of Option 1, all of these options will require modifications to the GPAC’s recommended Update to the General Plan to allow for the type and density of residential development. Option 1 – Preferred Land Use Map Approach. This approach identifies potential housing sites using the Preferred Updated Land Use Map (see Attachment 9 - Preferred GPAC General Plan Land Use Map) and the maximum density of 45 du/acre (recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) for the High-Density Residential and Mixed Use (i.e., Residential/Commercial/Professional Office) land use designations. Although this option would not meet the City’s RHNA allocation objectives, it is included as a reference point given current GPU discussions relative to density.  Results in approximately 2,750 dwelling units – 550 units less than called for by the Housing Baseline Target of approximately 3,300. Option 2 – Preferred Land Use Map + Potential Sites based on HCD Guidance. This approach builds on the baseline efforts of Option 1 by adding potential new Housing Opportunity sites that take HCD Guidance into consideration (i.e. land improvement value, vacant sites, underutilized or unoccupied sites, parking lots, school and church sites, and sites with expressed interest).  Results in approximately 4,500 dwelling units – 1,200 units above the Housing Baseline Target of approximately 3,300. Option 3 – Density Near Transit. This strategy would designate high density Transit- Oriented Development at 75 du/acre on Housing Opportunity Sites designated as High Density Residential and Residential/Commercial/Professional Office within ½ mile unobstructed walking distance of the three existing light rail stops, while keeping all other sites at their density from Option 2.  Results in approximately 5,800 new units – 2,700 units above the baseline target. Option 4 – Revitalize Shopping Centers. This strategy would designate higher residential densities in selected underutilized shopping centers with densities of 60 du/acre. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 14 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing  This option could result in approximately 4,500 new units – 1,200 units above the baseline target. Option 5 – Housing Along Commercial Corridors. This strategy would designate higher densities along major commercial arterials corridors with densities of 60 du/acre.  Results in up to approximately 6,500 new dwelling units – 3,200 units above the baseline target. A comparison of the dwelling unit potential from each option is shown in Table 3. Table 3 – Housing Strategy Options Dwelling Unit Potential Option 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Potential 2,760 4,500 5,800 4,500 6,500 Baseline Target 3,330 3,330 3,330 3,330 3,330 Net Difference -550 +1,200 +2,700 +1,200 +3,200 On November 9th and November 17th, the Planning Commission and City Council respectively, evaluated the Housing Opportunity targets needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and several policy options and alternatives governing how housing opportunity sites are selected throughout the City with target housing types (residential densities) for development. The Commission and City Council recommended a strategy to select the best sites from Options 3, 4 and 5, sites near the light rail stations, sites along the major arterial corridors, and in underperforming shopping centers. The November 17, 2021 - City Council Report is included as Attachment 1 and summarized below. Planning Commission and City Council Feedback Planning Commission Recommendations from November 9, 2021 The Planning Commission reviewed the information regarding RHNA, the City’s Housing Opportunity target, and factors and policy options governing how housing opportunity sites are selected and provided feedback to staff on the methodology and framework for selecting sites. The Commission reached consensus on providing the following feedback the proposed Housing Opportunity Site identification and selection methodology:  Supported the proposed methodology to evaluate AFFH issues.  Supported the proposed site selection criteria.  Recommended that the City Council consider a hybrid option which selects the best sites from Options 3, 4 and 5 (i.e. concentrate most of the housing opportunity sites near transit, along commercial arterials, and in underperforming commercial or office centers). Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 15 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing  Encouraged redeveloping shopping center sites in a mixed-use format to build a strong sense of community and provide services to residents.  Consider smaller mixed use development options in the southwestern portion of the City (e.g. in the San Tomas area)  Recommended that as the individual housing opportunity sites are evaluated, the viability of the existing uses should be carefully considered in order to more accurately predict future conversion to housing. City Council Direction from November 17, 2021 After considering the Planning Commission’s recommendations and public comments, the City Council provided the following input and recommendations, with the staff responses in italics.  General support for a hybrid approach using Options 3, 4, and 5 to identify the best sites. But need to see a more context-based analysis to maintain Campbell’s character/sense of place. o Staff has refined the sites list to combine the sites from the three options and continues to refine both the sites selection and density parameters based on council feedback and additional community feedback.  In evaluating housing opportunity sites consider the existing businesses and services as well as adjacent land uses while encouraging sites throughout the City. o The sites list has been expanded to include a list of existing businesses on each site. The sites have been cross checked with the top 25 employers, sales tax producers and property taxpayers.  Encourage more “missing middle” units or townhomes in existing neighborhoods. o Staff has sought to identify more sites throughout the city based on this direction however only one new site has been identified. Senate Bill 10 addresses the same topic, and it is staff recommendation to pursue a program within the Housing Element that would consider a local program to allow up to 10 units on a parcel that meet criteria established by the city.  Indicated general support for exploring housing at the First Street Garage, Civic Center and Campbell Technology Park locations but need to see the pros and cons for each city owned site under consideration. o This report includes additional information on these sites and staff will continue explore these sites for inclusion on the site list unless directed otherwise.  Requested an analysis of economic (tax revenue) impacts of future land use changes. o A high-level discussion of potential fiscal impacts has been provided as Attachment 1.  The interplay between the city’s planned residential densities and the State’s Density Bonus Law needs to be carefully considered. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 16 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing o More information on this issue is presented in this report and densities have been reduced in some locations to address this concern.  In the Plan for Housing include policies to encourage smaller unit sizes that are more affordable. o Staff will explore this policy idea in the next phase of the project once the site list is finalized.  Requested further outreach to property owners, religious facilities, and school districts in an effort to collaborate on solutions. o Staff has reached out to and will continue to meet with key stakeholders such as those listed above as well as affordable and market rate housing developers and housing service agencies. Additional Public Outreach Since the November Planning Commission and City Council meetings, staff has continued its public outreach efforts. The results of these additional public outreach efforts will be used in identifying policy options and programs. These additional activities include the following: o Added a Spanish language version of the Housing Survey on the Envision Campbell website. To date only one response has been received. o Contacted local school districts about using parts of some school sites. o Conducted a roundtable discussion to solicit feedback from affordable housing developers (reference Attachment 16). o Met with and obtained feedback from the Campbell Chamber of Commerce on housing issues (reference Attachment 17). o Conducted a roundtable discussion to solicit feedback from market-rate housing developers (reference Attachment 18). o Conducted a fourth Community Meeting on December 1, 2021, to facilitate feedback on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites (reference Attachment 19). Housing Opportunity Site Refinements Based upon the feedback from the Planning Commission and the direction of the City Council, staff has undertaken a more detailed assessment of the initial potential Housing Opportunity Sites. As a result, the following refinements have been made to the broader methodology outlined in the discussion section of this report: o Modifications to the list of 5th Cycle Re-Use sites that have been removed from consideration. These include six 5th-Cycle sites south of the downtown and a site on Bascom Avenue have been removed based on unlikely probability of redevelopment and/or potential displacement issues created by removing existing housing. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 17 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing o Religious facility sites have been recalculated to only include that specific portion of the site that would be eligible for affordable housing development under SB 899 which allows up to half of the parking area to be used for housing with no requirement for replacement parking. o Added two additional locations (with property owner interest) have been added to the list of potential sites to allow for further analysis. These are the 18-acre Campbell Technology Park (675 Campbell Technology Parkway) and a 0.64-acre site containing Stack’s Restaurant (139 E. Campbell Avenue). These site adjustments are included shown on the maps included in Attachment 10. Housing Opportunity Site Production Based on the Planning Commission and City Council feedback, staff has focused on developing a priority list of housing opportunity sites that combines available sites from options 3, 4, and 5 previously presented. A side-by-side evaluation of the Options 3, 4 and 5 housing opportunity sites along with the sites where there is expressed development interest are summarized in Table 4 below. Based upon these preliminary results, these housing opportunity sites would have capacity for approximately 7,068 housing units. The site-by-site evaluation is shown in more detail in Attachment 11 – Housing Opportunity Site Inventory): Table 4 – Recommended Housing Sites by Strategy Option5 Site Strategies Number of Sites Acres Density (du/ac) Estimated Units Option 3 – Transit Oriented 38 37 75 2,382 Option 4 – Shopping Centers 49 49 45 - 60 2,464 Option 5 – Commercial Corridors 41 28 45 - 60 1,292 Other Sites – Owner Interest 13 24 Varies 929 TOTALS 141 138 7,068 Based upon the strategy options, the revised inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites can further be outlined by the characteristics of each individual location. The site densities are site specific and based upon the previous criteria. The proposed dwelling unit potential by site characteristics provided in Table 5 below. 5 The estimated units reflected for Option 3, 4, and 5 differ between Table 3 and 4 due to consolidation of sites that that overlapped between two options. For example, a site that was both Transit-Oriented and located along a Commercial Corridor has been only counted as a Transit-Oriented Site. The new category, ‘Owner Sites’ includes sites that were not captured by any other the three options. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 18 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Table 5 – Housing Sites by Type of Site Type of Site No. of Sites Acres No. of Units Re-Use Sites 19 17.8 1,064 Vacant Sites 2 1.3 77 Underutilized 99 80.6 4,019 City Owned 8 5.9 383 Religious Facilities 2 0.9 38 School Sites 0 0 0 Developer Interest 11 31.8 1,487 TOTALS 141 138.3 7,068 Housing Opportunity Site Inventory and Housing Opportunity Site Target As indicated above, the preliminary calculation indicates that these sites could accommodate 7,068 housing units. As Campbell’s Housing Opportunity Site Target is 3,300 units, the next step is to identify further refinement of the Housing Opportunity Sites inventory. As this mapping refinement occurs, staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider the 3,300 unit Housing Opportunity Site Target as a baseline, and that the total number of designated housing units result in a higher range of 3,300 to 5,000 units. This larger buffer will allow the City more flexibility and opportunities for residential development, creating a higher confidence that the number of identified RHNA units, including lower income housing units, will be built during the 8 year cycle. For comparison purposes, during the past RHNA cycle, roughly a third of the designated housing opportunity sites in Campbell were utilized for housing development. The preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites for Campbell’s Plan for Housing are located in many areas throughout the City. To facilitate further evaluation, the sites have been clustered into six subareas. These subareas include the following. o Bascom Avenue – Sites between Bascom Avenue and Highway 17. o Central Campbell – Sites around downtown Campbell including areas along upper Winchester Avenue and eastern Hamilton Avenue. o Winchester Avenue – Sites around the Winchester Light Rail station and sites near Edith Morley Park. o Hamilton Avenue - Sites around the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway. o San Tomas Aquino – Campbell Avenue – Sites around the intersection of San Tomas Aquino Road and Campbell Avenue. o South Campbell – Sites along southern Winchester Avenue and sites in southwestern Campbell (San Tomas Neighborhood Area Plan). The locations of these subareas are shown in Figure 1. Specific Subarea maps are Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 19 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing provided in Attachment 10. Figure 1 – Housing Opportunity Site Area Locations Further Map Refinements At the December 9, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing, staff will lead a discussion with the Commission that further evaluates and refines these Housing Opportunity sites. Recommended refinements to the maps based on stakeholder input and staff analysis will be presented as desk items for this meeting and used to guide this discussion. During the evaluation, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following questions:  Are these Housing Opportunity Sites the locations that staff should be evaluating further? Should any sites be removed or added?  Are the recommended densities appropriate?  How many units, more than the 3,300 units in the Baseline Target, should staff be planning for? During this refinement process, staff recommends the Commission and Council use the Housing Opportunity mapping process to focus on community development themes, incorporating feedback received from stakeholders. While the Plan for Housing is closely regulated, it is ultimately a local land use plan and can carry forward a vision in combination with important housing goals. More focused themes can be considered – absorbing the community feedback provided– and provide Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 20 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing a value-added outcome and an opportunity for community building. Staff has identified the following themes: Theme 1 – Transformation of East Campbell Avenue between the Community Center, Downtown and the Pruneyard as a mixed-use, walkable, a one-mile-long promenade with ground floor retail/commercial and residential above Theme 2 – Buildout a Residential/Mixed-use area within the Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan around the former Fry’s Site - focusing on this area as a key Campbell Gateway from Highway 17, incorporating infrastructure improvements, good urban design, and pedestrian access to the light rail station. Theme 3 – Create a new TOD Urban Village around the Winchester Light Rail station, creating an attractive and walkable mixed-use area with high quality urban design implemented through the development of a Station Area Plan. Theme 4 – Potential rebuild of the San Tomas Neighborhood Shopping Center as a mixed-use space. Theme 5 – Focused Mixed-Use Development in key areas along Hamilton (Hamilton and San Tomas) and along Winchester and Bascom – incorporating a new “Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial” land use designation where it fits best with the existing or planned context. Theme 6 – Identify and dispersed opportunity sites in the rest of the city – specifically designed to fit into the context of the surrounding neighborhood. These themes are not mutually exclusive and can be considered in combination. In this way growth and change can be channeled in a focused manner to achieve a multitude of city goals from improved walkability, reduced emissions, high quality public spaces and a revitalized and invigorated retail and office environment. ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE CONSIDERATIONS During the November meetings, the Commission and Council raised a number of topics relating to Campbell’s Plan for Housing. The following discussions provide additional information for the Commission to consider. Strategies for Distributing Housing Citywide Both the Planning Commission and City Council provided feedback about the need to provide housing opportunities throughout the City beyond the sites identified under Strategy Options 3, 4, and 5. In response to this direction, staff evaluated the potential for housing opportunity sites in the southern and southwestern portion of the City where Housing Opportunity Sites have been previously identified. This area includes the San Tomas neighborhood, subject to Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 21 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing the San Tomas Neighborhood Area Plan (STANP) After evaluating the development possibilities in this area, staff identified two potential housing opportunity sites in the San Tomas neighborhood. The first is a vacant two-acre parcel located south of the intersection of Elam Avenue and Inwood Drive. The other potential site is the existing commercial location at the corner of San Tomas Aquino Road and Smith Avenue (i.e. the Farm Milk Dairy store and adjacent parcel with a small commercial building and single- family residence). The property owner of the Farm Milk Dairy Drive-In (900 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.) also owns two adjacent residential parcels. The site is occupied by several older structures and can be considered an underutilized site. The property owner has previously requested a General Plan Amendment to allow for mixed-use or residential development. While there a few larger partially developed properties in this area, most of the southwestern portion of Campbell is developed with individual single-family residences on lots that are generally between 6,000 to 10,000 square feet in area with some areas having larger lots of 16,000 sq. ft. This area is also under resourced from an AFFH perspective (e.g., access for food stores, commercial services, and transit). This area also sees the bulk of the ADU production in the City given the larger lot sizes. As a result, going forward there is also likely to be comparatively more ADU and SB 9 related development in this area. This will help add dispersed housing throughout the area which has the potential to be both rental and ownership and will tend to be smaller and more naturally affordable than many other forms of new housing. However, to further allow for potential housing development on sites not initially designated as housing opportunity sites, including the southwest and southern areas of the city that have less designated sites, staff is recommending that the City consider adoption of a program within the Housing Element that encourages the creation of multi-family homes of up to 10 units on parcels at locations that meet location and size requirements using the provisions of Senate Bill 10. This new law authorizes a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site. Per the law, these rezoning actions are not subject to CEQA. The details and provisions of this type of program could be considered further in 2022 as the City further evaluates policies and programs to support housing development. This program could provide “missing middle” homes (refers to both neither low or high density and not low- and high-income households; but densities and people in the “middle”) such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and small apartment buildings (which in some cases can be designed to look like single family homes) and could facilitate the distribution of more new housing city wide consistent with fair housing requirements and Council direction. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 22 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Target Residential Densities and Density Bonus Considerations At the November Council meeting, the Council requested further information on the potential implication of the use of density bonus increases on housing opportunity sites and the higher residential densities shown. As shown in the initial housing opportunity sites mapping, staff has recommended that the majority of housing opportunity sites have a higher residential density than currently allowed under Campbell’s General Plan, with base residential densities of 60 to 75 dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to California State Density Bonus Law, all residential projects over five units in California are eligible to request a density bonus and waivers and concessions of development requirements when providing affordable units. The size of the density bonus is dependent on the type and percentage of affordable units being proposed. A density bonus results in additional affordable units being provided which can be an important strategy to achieve the City’s housing goals. Examples of state law density bonus increases is depicted in Table 6 below. TABLE 6 – State Density Bonus Increases Base Density 35% Density Bonus 50% Density Bonus 80% Density Bonus HCD “Default Density” 20 du/ac 27 du/ac 30 du/ac 36 du/ac Current General Plan High Density 27 du/ac 36 du/ac 41 du/ac 49 du/ac New HCD “Default Density” * 30 du/ac 41 du/ac 45 du/ac 54 du/ac GP Update Maximum Density 45 du/ac 61 du/ac 68 du/ac 81 du/ac HE Density for Shopping Centers 60 du/ac 81 du/ac 90 du/ac 108 du/ac HE Density near Light Rail Stations 75 du/ac 101 du/ac 113 du/ac 135 du/ac * Applicable “Default Density” when the population of Santa Clara County exceeds two million based upon the final results of the 2020 US Census. State Density Bonus Law A developer/property owner may choose to use the provisions of the Density Bonus law on any residential site where affordable housing is proposed, regardless of base density. State Density Bonus law was modified by Assembly Bill (AB) 1763 (2019) to allow sites within ½ mile of a major transit stop to be eligible for “unlimited” density and up to three additional stories or 33 feet in exchange for 100% affordable housing developments. While the Density Bonus provisions may result in additional affordable units, the City cannot count or rely on future Density Bonus units to meet its RHNA requirements since use of those provisions cannot be required and there is no way to determine ahead of time how many projects would utilize it or how much of a density bonus would be requested. However, the use of the State Density Bonus will result in the production of Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 23 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing additional affordable housing units that will assist the City in meeting its RHNA targets. At the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Attorney identified that it is likely that the state density bonus requirements would override Campbell’s voter initiated maximum 75 foot building height limit. Issues related to this topic are discussed under Future Implementation Considerations section of this staff report. A review of recently approved and/or constructed 100% affordable housing projects in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties shows densities of 70 to 140 du/ac with an average unit size of 643 square feet in buildings typically of 4 to 5 stories (See Attachment 12 – 100% Affordable Housing Developments). This demonstrates that affordable housing at relatively high densities can be compatible with many areas of Campbell. City-Owned Sites Based on Commission and Council feedback, staff has identified four city-owned sites for further consideration for potential housing. This includes the City’s Corp Yard, part of the Community Center, portions of the Civic Center, and the First Street parking garage. Based on the location of these properties, consistent with the initial target residential densities identified for opportunity sites under Options 3, 4, and 5, staff has identified potential housing unit development potential for City-owned sites is provided in Table 4 below. Table 4 – City Owned Housing Opportunity Sites Site Location Area Potential Density Potential Units Corp Yard Sam Cava Lane near Los Gatos Creek Trail 2.6 acres 75 du/ac 195 Community Center Parking lot next to Winchester Blvd. 1.5 acres 60 du/ac 90 Civic Center Southwest corner of Harrison Avenue and Grant Street 0.5 acre 45 du/ac 23 First Street Garage First Street garage 1.3 acres 45-60 du/ac 98 TOTAL 383 Corporation Yard The City’s corporation yard located at 500 Sam Cava Lane is in an excellent location for new housing since it is located within a 5-minute walk of the Downtown Light Rail station and the downtown itself. It is surrounded on two sides by recently approved and built housing and bordering the Los Gatos Creek trail on the remaining side. Any consideration of housing development at the Corporation Yard must first consider a suitable and available site for relocation. Staff is continuing to evaluate potential relocation alternatives, including a potential joint use corporation yard with other public agencies. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 24 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Community Center The Community Center was formerly Campbell High School and was acquired by the City in the 1980’s. Consistent with the Winchester Boulevard Plan, a potential housing site at the Community Center could be on the parking lots facing Winchester Boulevard just north of the Orchard City Banquet Hall facility. As the Community Center contains a wide variety of existing facilities for use by the Campbell community, staff recommends that any consideration of housing at the Community Center be contemplated as part of a broader master planning effort, that holistically looks at the site as a campus, evaluating longer term enhancements and modifications. Civic Center The northeast corner of the Civic Center contains a “temporary” parking lot that was installed in the late 1990s. This portion of the Civic Center is highly visible as you enter downtown from the north. Under the Measure O project, employee parking will be relocated to this area (from its existing location to be replaced with the new Police facility). Any new housing development would need to accommodate for the employee parking and additional challenges include designing a compatible structure considering the location next to the historic Ainsley House and the single-family homes across both streets from the site and an evaluation of the loss of parking for the Civic Center. First Street Parking Garage The First Street Parking Garage was built in the 1970s and was created as part of a Parking Assessment District. The site is very close to the Downtown Light Rail station and enjoys pleasant walking access to the station platform without having to cross any streets. Redevelopment of this parking garage into housing would need to identify how the existing parking is retained or replaced and additional challenges would include providing a transition to the existing single-family homes to the south. School Sites Staff has consulted with the local school district superintendents regarding housing needs in Campbell and the potential use of school district land in Campbell for teacher housing. To date, staff has not received any indication from any of the school districts that they are interested in converting district owned lands to housing. As a result, no school sites are included in the inventory of potential Housing Opportunity Sites. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Staff conducted a virtual community meeting on December 1, 2021, to solicit public feedback on the preliminary list of Housing Opportunity Sites. Approximately 32 interested persons participated and were divided into three moderated breakout rooms to facilitate informal discussions. The key public comments include the following. General Comments: • The sites near the VTA stations should be higher density. • Density around downtown seems high, especially abutting Single family residential Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 25 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing neighborhoods. • There should be another density bracket which splits 20-45 du/acre into two sub-categories; perhaps 20-30 du/acre and 30-45 du/acre? • City should increase development impact fees. • Concerned that more intense development will make Campbell seem more like Cupertino. • Consider sales tax revenue generation before rezoning for housing or mixed-use. Preserve existing big businesses to prevent a loss for sales tax revenue by way of a housing overlay • Concerns about how putting residential uses on commercial sites will affect small businesses. • Churches can provide Below Market Rate housing. • The current 20-45 du/ac range is very broad. Winchester Avenue Area (Map 1) • Rather than making densities around downtown at 45 du/ac, take advantage of VTA station to go higher. • Sites #132 (City Corp Yard), #8 (First St. Parking Garage), and the surface parking lots along Orchard City Drive should be 60 du/acre. • Increase the density for sites near the Winchester Station ( #188, 168, 5, 121, 31, and 119) to 75 du/ac. • Go higher density around VTA lines. • Areas along Winchester Boulevard should be lower density because of adjacent single-family residences. • Likes higher density along Winchester Boulevard. • Don’t put housing on the Community Center. • Site #214 (Campbell Technology Center) is too remote, site access is limited, and Union Avenue is already impacted. • Site #56 on Dillon Ave. should be removed, it doesn’t make sense. • Concerned about site #132 (Corp Yard) and having to relocate the Corp Yard. Bascom Avenue Area (Map 2) • Site #137 (Fidelity Investments building) should not be a housing site. • Site #202 (Fry’s) should be high density. Central Campbell Area (Map 3) • Do not put housing at the Community Center. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 26 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Hamilton Avenue Corridor (Map 4) • Site #162 (Llewelyn/Uplift site): The 20-45 du/acre can be broken down to something new, like 20-30 du/acre and 30-45 du/acre. The current 20-45 du/acre is very broad. • Concerned that housing on site #162 (Llewelyn) will result in additional traffic in the neighborhood, an area that is already impacted by people trying to avoid traffic congestions in other areas. San Tomas Aquino – Campbell Avenue Area (Map 5) • All these sites listed are good opportunity sites. • Likes mixed-use in this area. • Concerned that the area is too remote and has limited transit access. South Campbell Area (Map 6) • Site numbers 9,14,16,15,10,11 (Auto repair center along Winchester Avenue) there are significant constraints on these parcels, the proposed 60 du/acre may not be practical or possible. NEXT STEPS The recommended Housing Opportunity Site Inventory and Map will be presented to the City Council on December 16, 2021. Based on feedback and direction from the Commission and Council, staff will further refine the housing opportunity site maps to bring back a final housing opportunity site inventory for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in January 2022. Between the December and January meetings, staff will contact property owners of identified Housing Opportunity Sites to identify potential interest in housing development. Changes to GPAC Recommended General Plan Based upon the final inventory of preferred Housing Opportunity Sites, changes to some of the other General Plan Elements may be needed. These changes could involve modifications to the Land Use Plan as well as modifications to the land use descriptions including, but not limited to, the allowable uses, residential densities, and floor area ratios. Based upon the final inventory of housing opportunity sites, additional changes to the General Plan Update may also be necessary. These changes will be presented to the Planning and City Council in January 2022. Future Implementation Considerations Implementing Campbell’s Plan for Housing will require changes to the City’s existing planning and housing programs. These changes will involve modifications to the GPAC’s recommended Updated General Plan and Land Use Map, as well as changes to the Municipal Code and Zoning District Map. Changes to the Updated General Plan could involve modifications to the proposed Land Use Plan and changes to the land use descriptions. Changes to the land use descriptions Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 27 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing could involve allowing residential uses in commercial areas, increasing residential densities, and providing policy guidance on future high-density development. Based upon changes to the Updated General Plan, changes to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map would also be necessary. Some of the changes would include increases in the allowable densities, modifications to development requirements, and modification to the permitted uses to allow residential land uses in zoning districts where they were not previously permitted. Also, the reuse of some of the 5th Cycle Housing Element housing opportunity sites would require changes to the Zoning Map. At this time, staff is evaluating the use an Overlay Zone for affordable housing development. This could also help manage some of the density bonus concerns created by recent State law changes. The Overlay Zone could also apply to parcels included on the final adopted Housing Opportunity Sites List and Map. The Overlay Zone could also include density and design parameters from the approved Housing Element. For Housing Opportunity Sites in non-residential zones, staff recommends that existing permitted land uses be allowed to continue to avoid creating legal non-conforming conditions which could have serious consequences for both property and business owners. Some of the consequences could include restrictions on the expansion of existing uses or the establishment of new previously permitted non-residential uses. Development of the Plan for Housing Beginning in January 2022, the identification of Plan for Housing policy options will be identified. These will be presented to the Commission and Council. Some of the initial policy questions include, but are not limited to, the following: • Provide further direction on the creation of a Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan; • Review the potential adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning District as part of Campbell’s Plan for Housing; • Identify needed modifications to the Administrative Draft Envision General Plan Update; • Determine where mixed-use development should be required (as opposed to allowed) on Housing Opportunity Sites; • Explore increased funding for affordable housing projects; and • Consider creation of a ministerial approval processes for affordable housing projects. Based on the direction from Council, staff will then finalize the inventory and map and prepare them as amendments to GPAC’s recommended Update to the General Plan to incorporate the requirements for Campbell’s Plan for Housing and facilitate the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2021 Page 28 of 28 PLN-2021-12 | Administrative Draft General Plan & Campbell’s Plan for Housing Prepared by: _________________________________ David Hogan, AICP, M-Group Project Manager Reviewed by: _________________________________ Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, M-Group, Principal in Charge Reviewed by: _________________________________ Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Approved by: _________________________________ Rob Eastwood, AICP, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. November 17, 2021 - City Council Staff Report 2. Revised Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay Boundary 3. North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (NOCA) 4. South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA) 5. Detailed South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA) Impact Assessment 6. Floor Area Ratio Comparisons Table 7. Development Projects in Campbell & Neighboring Communities 8. 2021 Santa Clara County Income Table 9. Preferred GPAC General Plan Land Use Map 10. Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites Maps 11. Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory 12. 100% Affordable Housing Examples 13. High Level Fiscal Impact Considerations 14. Letters of Interest 15. Public Feedback 16. November 22, 2021 – Affordable Housing Developers Meeting 17. November 23, 2021 - Business Community Meeting 18. November 30, 2021 – Market-Rate Developers Meeting 19. December 1, 2021 - Community Meeting #4 City Council Report TITLE: Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Site Methodology and Selection (PLN-2021-12) RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council review the provided information and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and provide direction on policy options and the methodology used for selecting the City’s Housing Opportunity Site Inventory within the City’s Housing Element Update (Attachment A) . BACKGROUND California Housing Law requires jurisdictions to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of current and future residents by regularly updating their locally adopted ‘Housing Element’ (hereinafter ‘Campbell’s Plan for Housing’). Per State adopted deadlines, Campbell’s Plan for Housing must be adopted by the City Council and submitted for approval to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by no later than January 15, 2023. On October 19, 2021, the City held an informational study session to brief the City Council and Planning Commission on the process and requirements to update Campbell’s Plan for Housing for the 2023-2031 planning period (Attachment B – October 19, 2021, Joint Study Session Report). On November 9, 2021, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Housing Opportunity Site Methodology and Selection process. Comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission, as well as from the public in attendance, have been included in the discussion. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting will be provided to the Council as a desk item once available. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to meet the deadline established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to complete the Housing Element by January 15, 2023, the City must begin the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation process in January 2022. Essential to start this EIR preparation is the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites within the Housing Element, as the EIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts from any land use changes associated with the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites. Item: Category: Meeting Date: 1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS November 17, 2021 1.1 Packet Pg. 3 Housing Methodology Page 2 of 28 Staff is proposing the City Council utilize a two-step process to identify potential Housing Opportunity Sites as follows: 1. Identify preferred policy options and methodology to identify Housing Opportunity Sites and related residential densities (tonight’s meeting). 2. Finalize the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Maps (December 16th meeting). As the first step in the process, the purpose of this meeting is to obtain direction from Council on the preferred policy options and methodology to identify Housing Opportunity Sites and related residential densities (hereinafter “Methodology”). This report outlines key factors to consider as part of that methodology, including: 1) legal requirements; 2) mapping criteria and objectives; 3) the densities and type of housing that should be planned for in the community; and 4) feedback from the public received during the outreach process on these factors. In addition, this report also describes how the City can account for housing production from development that does not rely on Housing Opportunity Sites, including pending and approved projects (“pipeline projects”), Accessory Dwelling Unit production trends, and anticipated units resulting from the recent passage of Senate Bill 9. Based on these factors, staff has prepared initial strategic policy options to facilitate a discussion on how to identify the potential Housing Opportunity Sites and the residential densities of development proposed. The staff report includes the Planning Commission’s recommendations. It is not the intent of this meeting to focus on the merits of any potential individual housing site (specific parcels) but rather, to focus on the key principles and strategies in determining where, and at what density, housing should be developed within the City. Staff is also requesting that the Council provide direction on the idea of using some city-owned property for future affordable housing. Community input has included suggestions to consider the First Street parking structure, some portion of the Community Center, and/or other city-owned sites (Attachment P – City-owned Properties). Based on the recommendation of the Commission and policy direction from the City Council on the preferred mapping approach, the second step in the process will be to finalize the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Maps. These draft maps, prepared based on Commission and Council feedback, will then be circulated to solicit public feedback, planned to include focus group meetings with real estate and affordable housing developers, and a 4th Community Meeting to be held on December 1, 2021. The goal is to present a Draft Housing Opportunity Site Map to the Planning Commission and City Council in December (City Council meeting on December 16th) with a summary of the public feedback and input collected to date. Based on direction 1.1 Packet Pg. 4 Housing Methodology Page 3 of 28 from the Commission and Council regarding potential Housing Opportunity Sites, the EIR process will begin in 2022. Ongoing review of the draft Housing Element will continue in 2022, including an evaluation of housing programs and policies that support housing production and housing needs in Campbell. The Planning Commission’s comments and recommendations are included in the report, at the end of each discussion topic below, shown in italics. Further, a summary of points which there seemed to be strong consensus have been included at the end of the report. DISCUSSION This report consists of the following components 1. Discussion of the number of housing units the City must accommodate within the Housing Opportunity Sites inventory (identified as the Housing Allocation Target). 2. Discussion of the housing units expected to be developed during the next Housing cycle that do not depend upon Housing Opportunity Sites (identified by staff as the Housing Unit Baseline1) 3. Discussion of the Housing Opportunity Sites Mapping process, including a consideration of sites that are re-used from the prior Housing Element, and criteria used to identify new Housing Opportunity Sites, including locational factors and specific parcel selection criteria. 4. Discussion of the types of residential densities and corresponding Housing types that should be planned for Housing Opportunity Sites. 5. Presentation of public feedback obtained from the Campbell community and stakeholders during public engagement process, concerning the location and type of housing to be included in the Plan for Housing. 6. Presentation of the Commission’s recommended options to the Council on the factors and criteria on how housing opportunity sites should be selected and what the target densities should be. 7. Discussion on the potential use of City-owned properties as Housing Opportunity sites. 1. Housing Allocation Target As identified in the draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) received from ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), the City must plan for the development 1 The baseline accounts for sites carried over from the prior planning cycle and anticipated unit production (e.g., projects in the pipeline, and anticipated new accessory/jr. dwelling units and units from SB 9). 1.1 Packet Pg. 5 Housing Methodology Page 4 of 28 of approximately 2,977 new housing units for the 2023-2031 planning period per state law. While the City’s RHNA is technically subject to change, pending the outcome of ABAG’s RHNA appeals process to be completed by the end of 2021, staff does not anticipate the City’s allocation will change significantly, if at all, from the current figure as appeals are unlikely to be successful and the total number of units assigned to the region will not be reduced. HCD recommends that cities plan for housing 15% - 30% above the RHNA to account for underproduction of actual sites due to unanticipated site constraints. A higher housing goal is also beneficial to assist the city in meeting its overall housing requirements given that not all sites will yield new housing during the planning period. This total amount, including a 30% buffer proportionately distributed by income level, identified by staff as Campbell’s "Housing Allocation Target” is illustrated in Table 1 below: Table 1 - Housing Allocation Target Campbell’s Draft RHNA Allocation 2,977 units Plus Recommended 30% Buffer +893 units Total Housing Allocation Target 3,870 units The Housing Allocation Target is further broken-out into different income categories based on the median income level in Santa Clara County (Attachment C – 2021 Santa Clara County Income Table). The Area Median Income (AMI) varies based upon the size of the household and represents the income level at which half of all households in Santa Clara County earn less and half of all households earn more. For 2021, the County-wide AMI for a 4-person household is $151,300; the highest in the state. The income categories are as follows: o Very Low-Income households have incomes of less than 50% of the AMI. o Low-Income households have incomes of between 50% and 80% of the AMI. o Moderate Income households have incomes of between 80% and 120% of the AMI. o Above Moderate-Income households have incomes greater than 120% AMI. Housing for these households is affordable at normal market rates. The Housing Allocation Target by income category, including the 30% buffer, is provided in Table 2 below: Table 2 – Housing Allocation Target by Income Level Income Level Number of Units Percentage of Total RHNA Very-Low Income 978 25% 1.1 Packet Pg. 6 Housing Methodology Page 5 of 28 Low Income 564 15% Moderate Income 649 17% Above-Moderate Income 1,680 43% Total 3,870 100% On this introductory topic, the Planning Commission received staff’s report and had no comments on the RHNA or the methodology for calculating total Housing Allocation Target. 2. Housing Unit Baseline To accommodate the Housing Allocation Target, the City will need to identify how housing units will be developed. As a precursor to identifying new Housing Opportunity Sites needed to accommodate the Housing Allocation Target, staff has first identified other sources of housing production that are expected to occur during the 2023-2031 cycle. Identified as the “Housing Unit Baseline”, this includes housing “pipeline” projects that are currently under review or approved, future accessory dwelling units, and units anticipated to be produced as a result of the recent adoption of Senate Bill 9. This new law requires the City to ministerially review and approve lot splits in single-family zoned areas with up to two new homes per parcel. While some additional housing units may be produced from development activities such as minor subdivisions and development of small vacant lots, housing production from these activities is expected to be nominal in the 2023-2031 cycle – and therefore has not been included. The following discussion describes the assumptions on housing unit production in establishing the Housing Unit Baseline: • Pipeline Projects – A list of pending and approved projects has been included as a separate attachment (Attachment D – Pending Projects) which identifies all housing projects under construction, approved, under review, or having submitted a preliminary application for a potential housing project. Units under construction are generally counted toward satisfying the City’s current 2015 - 2023 RHNA (as they have already had building permits issued). Most of the remaining projects on the list have been included in the 6th cycle with the anticipation that they will have issued building permits at some point after June 30, 2022 and prior to the end of the eight-year planning period in 2031. Based on the qualifying projects on the list, there are 160 housing units in seven projects that are “pending”. These housing projects include: planning applications that may be approved, projects that will receive a certificate of occupancy, or projects that will have building permits issued after June 30, 2022. Housing projects that begin construction after that date can be counted as part of the 2023-2031 Plan for Housing. Staff anticipates that all pending projects (except those under construction) will have issued building permits within the eligible date range. 1.1 Packet Pg. 7 Housing Methodology Page 6 of 28 • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs – Over the last three years (from 2018 to 2020), 67 ADUs were built in the City of Campbell. 2018 2019 2020 ADUs 5 8 54 Based upon recent trends and changes in state law that have streamlined ADU permitting, staff estimates that the average annual production over the next eight years will consist of 35 ADUs and Junior ADUs being produced each year for a total of 280 accessory dwelling units over the planning period. • SB 9 – Senate Bill 9, which was signed into law on September 16, 2021, and becomes effective January 1, 2022, allows a single-family parcel to be subdivided into two lots and two residences to be constructed on each lot. The Terner Center at UC Berkeley completed a detailed analysis of anticipated housing production throughout California as a result of SB 9 and found that approximately 700 new units would be made “financially feasible” in Campbell by the passage of SB 9. Based on this study and the past development trends associated with ADU production as a result of similar modifications in State laws, staff has conservatively estimated there will be very few permits issued in the first two years of the planning period (2023 and 2024) and that the number of units constructed will increase each year to approximately 40 new dwellings per year by 2030, in similar quantities to current ADU production. This would result in an average of 20 units being constructed each year. Staff’s assumptions for SB 9 unit production are indicated below: Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 TOTAL Number of Units 0 2 8 10 20 40 40 40 160 Summary of Housing Unit Baseline Table 3 summarizes the Housing Baseline Target from the three identified sources. As is depicted below, the City may credit pipeline projects, ADUs and SB 9 units (600 units total) against the City’s required 3,870 units. The remaining amount of approximately 3,300 units will need to be accommodated through the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites. 1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Housing Methodology Page 7 of 28 Table 3 - Housing Baseline Target Total Housing Allocation Target with 30% Buffer 3,870 units Less Pipeline Projects (not under construction) - 160 units Less Estimated ADUs - 280 units Less Estimated SB-9 Units - 160 units Housing Opportunity Site Target ~3,300 units (3,270 units up) Planning Commission Discussion Concerning the identification of the Housing Opportunity Sites Target, the Planning Commission, had questions concerning the assumptions relating to the unit estimates for the Pipeline Projects, ADUs, and SB9 projects. The Commission accepted the Target as the City’s starting point to identify and select of Housing Opportunity Sites. However, the Commission also encouraged and recommended that the City aim higher and plan for more housing given the severity of the housing crisis and the need to realize the much higher housing goals than in the past. 3. Housing Opportunity Sites Mapping Process The Housing Opportunity Sites mapping process will need to identify the locations for approximately 3,300 additional dwelling units. In approaching this mapping process, staff identified the following procedural steps for identifying sites: 1. Identify the potential Housing Opportunity Sites from the prior Housing Element that may be carried forward for use in this housing plan. 2. Identify criteria for selecting new Housing opportunity sites, including, (a) Locational factors, including consistency with State Laws addressing Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and (b) criteria for selecting individual parcels to be identified as a Housing Opportunity Site, such as its size and development potential. (1) Previous Housing Opportunity Sites Campbell’s current 2015 – 2023 Housing Element identifies 128 Housing Opportunity Sites for housing production. Of these, approximately 87 sites encompassing 41 acres of land have not been developed and have been identified by staff as suitable Housing Opportunity sites in this next Housing Element. In other words, only 32% of the planned sites have been used for housing. The remaining sites are suitable Housing Opportunity Sites and are expected to accommodate approximately 1,100 dwelling units. State law places several requirements on the re-use of Housing Opportunity sites from a prior Housing Element. To re-use a Housing Opportunity Site from a previous housing 1.1 Packet Pg. 9 Housing Methodology Page 8 of 28 element, State law requires the City designate those sites for a minimum density of 20 units per acre and allow housing to be ‘by-right’ development if at least 20% of the housing units are for lower income households. The City must adopt a program to allow the ‘by-right’ development through a rezoning action (either by amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance and/or amending the City’s Official Zoning Map) within three years of the approval of the Plan for Housing by HCD. Table 4 below shows how the inclusion of the Previous Housing Opportunity sites in addition to the Housing Unit Baseline will reduce the total additional housing units needed by mapping New Housing Opportunity Sites to approximately 2,200 units. Table 4 - Additional Housing Opportunity Site Unit Needs Source Units Housing Unit Baseline 3,270 Less Available 5th Cycle Sites 1,108 Additional Housing Units Needed ~2,200 (2,162 rounded up) (2) Criteria for Identifying New Housing Opportunity Sites In identifying Housing Opportunity Sites in Campbell to be designated for housing production, the City must consider several factors and requirements, including the proximity of housing to available services, conformance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements, and the placement of housing near transit to reduce reliance on automobile usage and conform with State greenhouse gas reduction objectives. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing One of the changes to Housing Element law (AB 686) specifies a requirement that local governments Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). AFFH is defined as: “Taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected classes.” In the context of Campbell’s Plan for Housing, AFFH relates to the need for the City to locate affordable housing in areas that are not under resourced. As part of this AFFH effort, the State Housing and Community Development Department identified a list of amenities and resources that all members of a community should have equitable access to. These include important community resources such as public transportation, food stores, public education, and parks/recreational amenities. Historically in California, areas with limited access to these resources also often have higher levels of overcrowding, lower incomes, and higher percentages of people of color that are ethnically or racially segregated. These areas are described as Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP). 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Housing Methodology Page 9 of 28 Potential housing opportunity sites must be identified and evaluated relative to the full scope of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, as well as access to opportunities and resources). Staff has prepared a series of maps that depict areas in Campbell that are within either a half mile or a ten-minute walk of the following resources: o Proximity to transit (both Light Rail and bus); o Proximity to food stores; o Access to commercial services; o Proximity to recreational opportunities; and, o Access to public schools. The use of the half mile distance is based upon HCD’s threshold for proximity to transit and the ten-minute walk criterion is based on actual walking time to the particular resources. The combination of all of these factors onto a single map show areas of Campbell residents of future housing opportunity sites will have greater access to these resources and thus should be considered a higher priority area for locating affordable housing (Attachment E – AFFH Resource Maps). Separately, staff prepared maps identifying areas in Campbell with higher levels of overcrowding, lower incomes, and concentrated of people of color (Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) based upon information from the Bureau of the Census (Attachment F – R/ECAP Map). Based on AFFH principles, additional affordable housing should not be planned for development in these areas. Greenhouse Gas and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction An additional key locational factor is the need to locate new housing in areas served by public transportation. In addition to furthering the long-term sustainability goals of the General Plan, this also has the potential to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled as well as reducing emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Staff has prepared maps that show the areas of the city that are within ½ mile or a 10-minute walk of VTA bus stops and the City’s three light rail stations. Summary of Mapping Locational AFFH Factors and reduced VMT / GHG Goals Based on the AFFH and Reduced VMT/GHG mapping products, there are several geographic areas in Campbell that are highlighted that should be considered as a higher priority for locating Housing Opportunity Sites (see Map 1 and Map 2 below). Map 1 – Access Characteristics Based on the AFFH maps that show the areas of the city with the highest access to resources (proximity to food stores, parks, commercial services, and schools), the areas most favorable for housing include the areas described below and shown on the map: 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Housing Methodology Page 10 of 28 (A) the areas east of the intersection of Hamilton and San Tomas Expressway, (B) the areas southeast of the intersection of San Tomas Aquino and W. Campbell Avenue, (C) the area southwest of Downtown, between Winchester and San Tomas Expressway, and, (D) the areas just west of Bascom Avenue in the southeast portion of the city. In addition, there are higher resource areas mapped in the areas near the Pruneyard and the intersections of Bascom and Campbell, the central areas south of downtown and along Campbell and Hamilton in the western part of the City. Map 2 – Transit Score Maps showing areas with better access to transit, include a higher priority for areas within a ½ mile of Campbell’s VTA light rail stations. The map is weighted, showing a lighter color for bus stops and a darker color for areas covered by both bus and light rail service (Attachment G – Transit Score Map). 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Housing Methodology Page 11 of 28 Taken together, a review of a combination of these factors indicates that the higher priority areas for locating housing are near the city’s light rail stations, and in certain central areas of the city and near several commercial corridors and shopping centers. Map 3 – Social Characteristics The AFFH maps show higher Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (also known as R/ECAP) in the Rosemary neighborhood located north of Hamilton, and in the area east of San Tomas Expressway, should be avoided for siting new lower income housing. Map 4 – Combined Factors The combination of these three maps create a single ‘heat’ map that demonstrates which parts of the City are more desirable to locate additional housing from an AFFH 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Housing Methodology Page 12 of 28 perspective. Staff recommends that the majority of housing opportunity sites be located in and around higher resourced areas. To create this map, the scores resulting from the public transit and access resources are reduced by the scores associated with the evaluated R/ECAP issues. The end result is a map of the consolidated AFFH resources. (Attachment H – Combined Factors Map). Selection of Potential Housing Opportunity Sites (Specific Parcels) To identify specific individual parcels in the City that could be eligible as possible Housing Opportunity sites, staff reviewed HCD’s guidance and considered the following factors: • Parcel Size. A new State law (AB 1398) requires that sites deemed appropriate for affordable housing must be between ½-acre and 10 acres in size, unless evidence can show otherwise. • Improvement Value / Age of Buildings. Sites occupied by older structures or that are underutilized can also make ideal locations for future housing projects. Using these sites can facilitate the modernization and redevelopment of sites and buildings that are not being used. • Vacant Sites. While there are not many vacant sites within Campbell, these locations are available for housing development without having to demolish existing structures. • Underutilized or Unoccupied Sites. The redevelopment of underutilized or unoccupied sites provide an opportunity to replace a vacant building and redevelop a site for housing consistent with the Updated General Plan. • Parking Lots. Parking lots provide an opportunity to construct additional housing on upper floors while retaining the ground floor for parking. 1.1 Packet Pg. 14 Housing Methodology Page 13 of 28 • School and Church Sites. Many churches and schools have areas that could be used to provide affordable housing. • Development Interest. Over the eight-year planning cycle, the City has seen interest by developers and property owners in developing their properties. It is generally understood that HCD considers interest from property owners and developers to support the feasibility of Housing Opportunity Sites, and as a result, properties which have been explored for redevelopment or formally submitted Letters of Interest (Attachment N) have been included as another criteria. Using these criteria, staff developed a Draft Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory of specific parcels that could serve as likely locations for future housing (Attachment I – Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites Map). To make the information easier to review, the City has been displayed in four map quadrants. The four maps depicting these recommended housing opportunity sites is contained in Attachment O. Adjustments to Development Potential based on Parcel Size HCD requires that the City identify realistic development potential on all Housing Opportunity Sites. To determine a more realistic development capacity, staff has proposed to modify development capability on each site based on its size. For sites larger than one acre, no reduction is proposed. For sites between ½-acre and one acre, the development potential will be presumed to be 75% of the maximum. For any sites smaller than ½-acre, the development potential will be capped at 50% of the maximum. This is consistent with HCD’s guidance for larger and more buildable sites (sites between a half and ten acres). Planning Commission Discussion The Commission’s discussion of the principles of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing raised several higher-level General Plan topics such as, how to provide for food stores and other resources in under-served areas (such as the San Tomas area) with fewer resources, based on the lower score. The Commission also discussed the impact that self-driving cars would have in the future and noted that it may have a transformative impact on how residents gain access to services in areas underserved by bus and light rail. The Commission suggested no changes to the proposed methodology used to identify housing opportunity sites. 4. Housing Types and Residential Densities There are several considerations to identifying the appropriate residential density planned for Housing Opportunity Sites with the goal of providing the needed affordable housing at suitable locations: 1.1 Packet Pg. 15 Housing Methodology Page 14 of 28 • The first density to consider is the accepted “default density” of 20 du/ac2, as provided under State law for Housing Elements. All housing sites at this density level are assumed to be affordable under Housing Element law, however this historically has not occurred in practice. • Another milestone density is the High-Density Residential density of 27 du/ac from the current General Plan which covers existing mixed-use and high-density residential lands throughout the city. The City has examples of both residential and mixed-use projects at this maximum density. However, this density is generally considered too low to support Transit Oriented Development and/or highly affordable projects. • The draft General Plan Update includes a higher density land use designation for more housing at key locations at 45 du/ac. This density is an increase over the existing limit but may not be high enough to fully support Transit Oriented Development within a nearly “built out” context like Campbell. • Under this Plan for Housing effort, staff is recommending consideration of a tailored approach to density using higher densities in specific locations: o Utilize revitalized shopping center sites for mixed-use at 60 du/ac. o Provide increased residential density at the light rail stations at 75 du/ac These density levels can be used as common reference points to develop the Plan for Housing. The Options described in this report utilize these density milestones to create a variety of scenarios for consideration. Housing Type Examples Through the Envision General Plan Update Process, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has recommended that Campbell’s High Density residential designation be increased from 27 du/ac. to 45 du/ac. A typical housing development under this higher density designation, depending on average unit sizes, would consist of either a 3 to 5 story apartment building, or a 5-story mixed-use building with underground parking. Examples of projects at these density ranges and higher are provided below: 2 Pursuant to Government Code 65583.2 - Housing Element Default Densities for suburban counties. 1.1 Packet Pg. 16 Housing Methodology Page 15 of 28 Density Building Heights Building Types Examples 27 du/ac 2 to 3 stories 3-story mixed use with housing over retail Stacks Restaurant, 139 E. Campbell Ave. 45 du/ac 2 to 4 stories Townhouses and flats with underground parking Seattle Lower Queen Anne Neighborhood Townhomes 1.1 Packet Pg. 17 Housing Methodology Page 16 of 28 60 du/ac 4 to 5 stories 5 levels of housing over garage 300 Railway Ave., Campbell, CA (St. Anton Apartment Building) Considering the City only establishes ‘base’ densities, which may be increased through a density bonus (under AB 1763 [2019], up to 80% density bonus and unlimited density within ½ mile of transit) for affordable housing, careful application of densities for certain areas and properties is critical. Planning Commission Discussion The Commission raised a question about the default density. As the default density is based on both the populations of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (Santa Clara and San Benito Counties) and the city, and the recent 2020 census revealed that the MSA now has a population of just over two million people, Campbell’s default density under the relevant government code section should be considered 30 dwelling units per acre instead of the current 20 du/ac. Normally cities rely on published findings by HCD on this matter. However, given the housing needs and goals of the city, staff was encouraged to consider changing now to the higher default density. The Planning Commission also had limited discussion including comments that 60 dwelling units per acre was the density at which affordable projects became financially feasible. Staff noted the letter received by VTA (Attachment N – Letters of Interest) referencing the desired density of development to support Transit Oriented Development. 5. Public Feedback on Housing Development Locations and Types As part of the City’s community outreach program for the Plan for Housing, the City has taken the following steps to date: • Participated in a “Let’s Talk Housing’ meeting on August 18, 2021, through the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative. 1.1 Packet Pg. 18 Housing Methodology Page 17 of 28 • Branded the Housing Element Outreach effort as “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” and attempted to reduce the use of planning acronyms and jargon which is less familiar and less likely to resonate with the public. • Added a dedicated Housing Element webpage to the Envision Campbell website and updated the City’s website to direct the public to this site. • Sent postcards to over 18,000 Campbell addresses. • Released a public survey which has received over 348 responses to date. • Contacted over 4,300 individuals through email notifications in advance of each public meeting and community workshop. • Conducted outreach through Nextdoor, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and the City’s homepage. • Created a unique Housing Element website and sign-up options for stakeholder engagement. • Staffed a booth at the Farmer’s Market (October 10, 2021) (see photograph on next page) and Octoberfest (October 17, 2021) with Housing Element information. • Held a Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission and City Council on October 19, 2021, which the public were invited to attend. Further, on October 21st, October 25th, and October 27th, the team held a series of community meetings which served to educate and solicit feedback from the community. The first two meetings had between 40 and 50 attendees, where the third had approximately 70 participants overall and about 25 attendees at any given time. The ‘open house’ format of the third meeting encouraged attendees to drop in and join separate break-out rooms targeting specific topics of interest. 1.1 Packet Pg. 19 Housing Methodology Page 18 of 28 Based on the public feedback collected to date, the most common locational preferences were: 1. Near light rail stations. 2. Along major arterial streets (Bascom, Winchester, and Hamilton). 3. Near the Downtown. 4. On the Fry’s Electronics property. 5. In shopping centers with large parking lots. 6. In under-utilized properties. 7. In Industrial and Research and Development properties near Dell Avenue. 8. At the Community Center. 9. On church or school sites. For a more detailed summary of public input received to date, please refer to Attachment J – Community Meeting Summaries, Attachment K – Community Survey Results, Attachment L – Public Feedback, Attachment M – Octoberfest Feedback Maps, and Attachment N – Letters of Interest). Public Comments During the public comment segment of the meeting, 12 members of the public provided public testimony. A summary of their comments is provided below. • New housing should be concentrated around the Light Rail stations, along main commercial arterials, and in redeveloping shopping centers (i.e. Options 3, 4, and 5). • Concerns about locating new housing in single-family areas. • Avoid putting high density housing immediately adjacent to single family homes. • New housing should be dispersed around the City. • Locate additional housing in the employment area around Dell Avenue. • Avoid putting new housing at the Campbell Community Center. • Want to protect Campbell’s “small town feel”. Planning Commission Discussion The Commission recognized the level of community outreach the City had conducted and several Commissioners noted how the number of latinx/hispanic was a smaller percentage than percentage of latinx/hispanic residents in the City and asked if the survey could be translated into Spanish to try to increase the response rate. 6. Options for Locating Housing Opportunity Sites Based on a consideration of (a) the available identified parcels to serve as Housing Opportunity sites (b) the locational factors including AFFH, reduced VMT/ GHG Goals, the different types of residential densities and housing products, and (d) feedback from the community on preferred housing location and types, staff has prepared several 1.1 Packet Pg. 20 Housing Methodology Page 19 of 28 policy options for Council to consider in providing direction for planning future housing in Campbell to meet the Housing Allocation targets. Staff recommends that the City Council also evaluate these different strategies in the context of the larger General Plan Update. Examples include: Adding a large number of future residents in one area may lead to the need for more land set aside for parks or schools; or locating additional housing in economically viable shopping centers and employment areas could have impacts on the City’s overall economic health. For historical context, Campbell to date has used two basic approaches to the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites on a citywide basis. The first is to concentrate housing opportunity sites in specific high priority areas around transit. This was the approach in the 2015 – 2023 (5th Cycle) Housing Element where the sites were generally clustered around the three light rail stations. Another option is to disperse sites throughout the City. This was the approach of the 2009 – 2015 (4th Cycle) Housing Element. The potential housing unit production mapping strategies are described below. These maps and tables were provided to the Planning Commission and will be presented as part of staff’s presentation to the City Council. These various strategic policy options were proposed to facilitate a discussion of how future Housing Opportunity Sites should be identified and prioritized (Attachment O – Strategy Option Maps). Option 1 – Preferred Land Use Map Approach This approach would identify potential housing sites using the Preferred Land Use Map and maximum density of 45-units per net acre recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) for the High-Density Residential land use designation and Residential/Commercial/Professional Office land use designation as part of the Envision Campbell General Plan update process. While the map has been modified to incorporate feedback provided by the City Council at its meeting of September 29, 2021, the effort substantially reflects a status quo approach to the existing General Plan land use designations and, as a result, would rely on remaining Housing Opportunity Sites identified from the RHNA 5th cycle, and the net increase in units which can be anticipated from the increase in density3. Based on an initial review of this approach, approximately 2,750 dwelling units or 550 fewer units than what is called for by the Housing Baseline Target of approximately 3,300 units. 3 This option also screens out sites developed in the last 20-years and accounts for the difference in switching from gross to net acres in density. 1.1 Packet Pg. 21 Housing Methodology Page 20 of 28 As this Option would identify housing opportunity sites based largely on existing land use designations and locations that currently allow residential uses, instead of prioritizing factors such as access to public transit or amenities, it would likely result in higher Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions when compared with other options. Further, while it would offer less change to existing land use patterns and result in the lowest impact to commercial, institutional, and industrial land uses in the community – it would also poorly address issues of socio-economic inequality in the community as it would only further reinforce existing land use patterns which did not consider Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing objectives or principals when they were established. Option 2 – Preferred Land Use Map + Potential Sites based on HCD Criteria Taking the results of Option 1 and adding potential new Housing Opportunity sites considering HCD Criteria (i.e., land improvement value, vacant sites, underutilized or unoccupied sites, parking lots, school sites and religious facilities, and sites with expressed interest) approximately 4,500 dwelling units or 1,200 units over the Housing Baseline Target of approximately 3,300 units may be anticipated. This option uses the density contained in the GPAC’s draft Land Use Plan. As this approach also does not reflect public feedback, or broader planning objectives (such as reducing VMT), options exploring these opportunities have been outlined below. 1.1 Packet Pg. 22 Housing Methodology Page 21 of 28 Option 3 – Density Near Transit This strategy would designate high density Transit-Oriented Development (at 75 du/ac) on all Housing Opportunity Sites designated as High Density Residential and Residential/Commercial/Professional Office within ½ mile of the three existing light rail stops, as well as the former Fry’s Electronics site, while keeping all other sites at their density from Option 2. This increased density was only assigned to sites a half-acre or larger in size. This option results in up to approximately 5,800 new units. This exceeds the Buffered RHNA Allocation by approximately 2,700 units. This Option would concentrate more of the housing opportunity sites around the existing Light Rail Stations. This increase in units in these areas has not been included in the draft General Plan Update. This Option results in more of the proposed housing being located in higher resource areas. This option is the most likely strategy to reduce citywide VMT and GHG emissions. 1.1 Packet Pg. 23 Housing Methodology Page 22 of 28 It is important to note that this option also overlaps with feedback provided from the VTA (Attachment N – Letters of Interest). Option 4 – Revitalize Shopping Centers This strategy would designate higher residential densities in redeveloped shopping centers, or Housing Opportunity Sites with General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial land use designations, with densities of 60 du/acre. The First Street Parking Garage and Summerwinds Nursery are also included in response to public comment. This option could result in up to approximately 4,500 new dwelling units. This exceeds the Housing Baseline Target by approximately 1,200 units. This option would more evenly spread the housing opportunity sites around the City. The draft General Plan Update does not currently envision this type of residential density in many of these areas. Some of these proposed housing units may be located in areas with fewer resources. Like Option 2, this option may increase citywide VMT and GHG emissions. 1.1 Packet Pg. 24 Housing Methodology Page 23 of 28 Option 5 – Housing Along Commercial Corridors This strategy would designate higher densities along major commercial arterial corridors, as well as the First Street Parking Garage, with densities of 60 du/acre could result in up to approximately 6,500 dwelling units. This exceeds the Housing Baseline Target by approximately 3,200 units. This option would also spread the housing opportunity sites throughout most of the City and would be more consistent with the draft General Plan Update than Option 4. Some of these proposed housing units would be located in areas with fewer resources and could result in higher density projects adjacent to existing single-family areas. Like Option 2, this option is likely to result in a higher increase in citywide VMT and GHG emissions. 1.1 Packet Pg. 25 Housing Methodology Page 24 of 28 Potential Adjustment Factor: Medium Density An adjustment factor that may be considered in tandem with Options 3, 4, or 5 would be designating any identified housing opportunity sites not located in areas considered in Options 3, 4 or 5 for medium density residential development (20-units per acre). This would allow for the identification of more housing opportunity sites spread throughout the city but allow certain sites to be developed at lower residential intensity, if they are not located in the TOD areas, shopping centers, and commercial corridors as described under Options 3, 4, and 5. This option would most likely be consistent with the draft General Plan Update and would have VMT and Greenhouse Gas impacts similar to Option 2 (would likely result in higher Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions when compared with other options). Conclusion As described, Options 2 through 5, generate a sufficient number of total units and each has the potential to provide a strategy that could further the implementation of the Plan for Housing. Additional research, community feedback, and input from the Planning Commission and City Council will lead to further refinement and some sites being removed from further consideration. It is important to note that this initial assessment does not allocate the housing units into specific income categories since staff wants to hear from the City Council on which strategies to pursue as part of Campbell’s Plan for Housing. Planning Commission Discussion 1.1 Packet Pg. 26 Housing Methodology Page 25 of 28 The Commission felt that Options 3, 4, and 5 all had merit and recommended that the City Council consider a consolidated approach which selected the best sites from each option. The Commission also recommended that additional areas, such as the San Tomas and Dell Avenue areas, also be considered for new housing and avoid locating additional housing on the site of the Campbell Community Center. The Commission also suggested that additional meetings with housing developers be conducted to test assumptions about development feasibility. Staff will continue to reach out and meet with interested parties to discuss the critical success factors for housing development. 7. Considerations for using City-owned Sites for Housing Given the fiscal challenges involved in developing affordable housing projects, another tool Campbell may consider is the use of City-owned lands for affordable housing development. Under this approach, as both the property owner and regulatory authority, the City can directly dictate the terms for housing development, requiring a higher percentage of Below Market Rate housing, a 100% affordable housing project, and/or mixed-use development. The City can also financially benefit from the sale or lease of the property and may incorporate additional terms into an agreement to provide any identified community benefits. Several other jurisdictions in the South Bay have used this approach and it is one of the most effective tools available to produce affordable housing. The City may also consider allowing the property for market rate housing development, however as Campbell has traditionally produced enough market rate housing through residentially zoned parcels to meet RHNA needs, the public benefit would be significantly less. However, the conversion of city owned land to housing results in tradeoffs including the loss of the property as a community asset and its potential pre-existing value or future value to be used to provide community services, benefits, and amenities, such as recreation, parking, or administrative services. In total, the City of Campbell owns approximately 24 properties, many of which are not viable as housing opportunity sites (Attachment P – City-owned Properties). An evaluation of the use of any of these properties for a non-governmental purpose (such as affordable housing) carries its own unique considerations, including the benefit of the property to the community and any specific legal agreements controlling how the property can be used. Staff recommends the Council first provide direction relating to the use of City-owned property for affordable housing and if the properties should be explored further as part of this Housing Opportunity Sites evaluation. If provided with affirmative direction, Staff would return in December with a greater in-depth study of potential sites to consider for potential housing development. Based on public feedback and initial mapping conducted by the consultant team, the Preliminary Housing Opportunities Sites Map (Attachment I) identifies three City-owned properties as potential housing opportunity sites: 1) the First Street parking garage; 2) the surface parking lot behind the Opa’s building downtown; and 3) the Community 1.1 Packet Pg. 27 Housing Methodology Page 26 of 28 Center, based on their location and size. A consideration of any of these sites for housing would need to consider at minimum replacement parking requirements (all three sites), the loss of any recreational / park amenities (Community Center), and neighborhood context and compatibility (all three sites). Future Policy Issues Next year when development of the rest of Campbell’s Plan for Housing continues, there will be many policy issues to consider. Some of these potential policy/program issues include: A) Policies and Programs to address Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Issues. B) Policies to encourage the construction of affordable housing, including density bonuses, sliding density scales, average maximum unit sizes and funding programs. C) Creation of development standards which addresses potential issues with mass, bulk, and neighborhood compatibility. SUMMARY OF PLANNNG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS In summary the Planning Commission had the following consensus on the proposed Housing Opportunity Site identification and selection methodology. ➢ Supports the proposed methodology to evaluate AFFH issues. ➢ Supports the proposed site selection criteria. ➢ Recommends that the City Council consider a hybrid option which selects the best sites from Options 3, 4 and 5 for housing opportunity sites while concentrating most of the opportunity sites near transit, along commercial arterials. ➢ Explore adding mixed-use development to higher-income areas with limited access to commercial services and grocery stores (i.e., San Tomas Area Neighborhood). ➢ Encourage redeveloping shopping center sites in a mixed-use format to build a strong sense of community and provide services to residents. ➢ Recommends that as the individual housing opportunity sites are evaluated, the viability of the existing uses should be carefully considered to more accurately predict future conversion to housing. 1.1 Packet Pg. 28 Housing Methodology Page 27 of 28 NEXT STEPS Based upon the direction provided by Council, staff will provide a proposed Housing Opportunity Site map. The draft Site Map will be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council in December 2021. Based upon Council’s direction, staff will finalize the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory Maps and General Plan Land Use Plan to facilitate the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Approved by: Brian Loventhal, City Manager 1.1 Packet Pg. 29 Prepared by: David Hogan, AICP, M-Group Project Manager Prepared by: Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, M-Group, Principal in Charge Housing Methodology Page 28 of 28 p. City Owned Properties 1.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: a.Draft Methodology for the City’s Housing Opportunity Site Inventoryb.October 19, 2021, Joint Study Session Reportc. 2021 Santa Clara County Income Tabled.Pipeline Projectse.AFFH Resource Mapsf.R-ECAP Map g.Transit Score Maph.Combined Factors Mapi.Preliminary Housing Opportunities Sites Mapj.Community Meeting Summariesk. Community Survey Resultsl.Public Feedback - Redactedm.Octoberfest Feedback Mapsn.Letters of Interest o.Strategy Option Maps Hamilton Specific Plan Overlay Boundary Administrative Draft General Plan (Before) Reflecting Council Direction (After) 1 North of Campbell Avenue Area (NOCA) The NOCA Area is located northeast of downtown Campbell. Amended: Month Day, Year (City Council Res. No. ______) Adopted: November 6, 2001 (City Council Res. No. 9950) Originally Adopted: August 7, 1990 (City Council Ordinance No. 1807) 2 Campbell General Plan DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Land Uses Residential uses as governed by Section 21.08.060 – R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district, office uses as governed by Section 21.10.030 – P-O (Professional Office) zoning district, and commercial uses as governed by Section 21.10.040 – C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district of the City of Campbell Municipal Code shall be allowed throughout the North of Campbell Avenue Area as stand-alone uses or as part of a mixed-use project. Exception: Residential uses fronting Harrison (within the first 66-feet) shall be those uses as governed by Section 21.08.040 – R-D (Two-Family Residential) zoning district and Section 21.08.050 – R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district. No mixed-use development shall be allowed within this area. Floor Area Ratio & Density The minimum and maximum floor area ratio and density for projects throughout the North of Campbell Avenue Area shall be as follows: Minimum Parcel Size (Net Acres) Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum & Maximum Units Per Gross Acre < 1.0 0.3 Up to 8 1.0 to < 2.0 0.6 8 to 13 > 2.0 to < 3.0 0.8 8 to 20 ≥ 3.0 1.0 8 to 20 Exceptions: 1. Floor area of residential uses and/or residential components of mixed-use projects shall not be counted against the maximum allowable floor area ratio. 2. Properties fronting Harrison Avenue (first 66-feet) shall be permitted up to a maximum density of 13-units per gross acre. A1-10 South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA) The SOCA Area is located southeast of downtown Campbell. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Land Use Sub-Area 1 (Railway Avenue) The following land uses are allowed in this area: Campbell General Plan A1-4 • Commercial land uses as governed by Sections 21.26.020 and 21.26.030 of the C-3 (Downtown Business District) Ordinance with the clarification that office uses may be allowed on the ground floor without a use permit. • Mixed-use development containing residential and commercial uses as permitted by Sections 21.26.020 and 21.26.030 of the C-3 (Downtown Business District) Ordinance. • The maximum floor area ratio for uses in Area 1 is shown on the following chart. Modifications or additions to the floor area of buildings existing at the time of adoption of this policy may exceed the floor area ratios contained in the following chart with the approval of the Planning Commission. The modification shall not substantially reduce the potential of comprehensive redevelopment of the area. Minimum Acreage Minimum Lot Size Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.00 acres 0 sq. ft. 0.30 0.50 21,780 0.40 0.75 32,670 0.50 The allowable dwelling unit densities for residential projects are contained in the following chart. Minimum Acreage Minimum Lot Size Allowable Density Range 0.50 acres 21,780 sq. ft. 12-16 DU/ACRE 1.00 43.560 12 to 20 1.25 54,450 12 to 24 1.50 65,340 12 to 27 Sub-Area 2 (High Density Residential) The following land uses are allowed in this area: • High density residential uses within the range of 21 to 27 dwelling units per gross acres are permitted in this area. Projects may consist of rental or ownership units. • Projects must contain a minimum of 1.5 acres. Future applications for development of a portion of Area 2 containing less than five acres shall prepare a master plan delineating a conceptual development approach for the remainder of the Area. The intent is to ensure that the remainder of Area 2 can be developed in a logical, orderly manner. The City Council must accept the master plan prior to approval of a site specific project. • The maximum height of all structures shall be 50 feet, excluding architectural features. Minor variations in the height limitation may be allowed by City Appendix A1: SOCA A1-5 Council if the variations are found to enhance the architectural quality of the project. • Modifications or additions to the floor area of buildings existing at the time of adoption of this policy may be allowed with the approval of the Planning Commission. The modification shall not substantially reduce the potential for comprehensive redevelopment of the area. Sub-Area 3 (Dillon/Gilman) The following land uses are allowed in this area: • Commercial uses as governed by Sections 21.24.020 and 21.24.030 of the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Ordinance. • Attached residential units. • Mixed-use developments containing residential and commercial uses as permitted by Sections 21.26.020 and 21.26.030 of the C-3 (Downtown Business District) Ordinance. The allowable dwelling unit densities for residential projects are contained in the following chart. Minimum Acreage Minimum Lot Size Allowable Density Range 0.50 acres 21,780 sq. ft. 12-16 DU/ACRE 1.00 43.560 12 to 20 1.25 54,450 12 to 24 1.50 65,340 12 to 27 The maximum floor area ratio for industrial and commercial uses is shown on the following chart. Modifications or additions to the floor area of buildings existing at the time of adoption of this policy may exceed the floor area ratios contained in the following chart with the approval of the Planning Commission. The modification shall not substantially reduce the potential for comprehensive redevelopment of the area. Minimum Acreage Minimum Lot Size Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.00 acres 0 sq. ft. 0.20 0.46 20,000 0.25 0.69 30,000 0.30 1.03 45,000 0.35 Sub-Area 4 (Old Camden Ave.) The following land uses area allowed in this area: Campbell General Plan A1-6 • Industrial uses as governed by Sections 21.32.020 and 21.32.030 of the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Ordinance. • Commercial uses as governed by Sections 21.24.020 and 21.24.030 of the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Ordinance. • The maximum floor area ratio for uses in Area 4 is shown on the following chart. Modifications or additions to the floor area of buildings existing at the time of adoption of this policy may exceed the floor area ratios contained in the following chart with the approval of the Planning Commission. The modification shall not substantially reduce the potential for comprehensive redevelopment of the area. Minimum Acreage Minimum Lot Size Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.00 acres 0 sq. ft. 0.20 0.46 20,000 0.25 0.69 30,000 0.30 1.03 45,000 0.35 Sub-Area 5 (Expressway Commercial) The following land uses are allowed in this area: • Industrial uses as governed by Sections 21.32.020 and 21.32.030 of the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Ordinance. • Commercial uses as governed by Sections 21.24.020 and 21.24.030 of the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Ordinance. • Expressway-oriented commercial uses such as hotels, motels and restaurants are strongly encouraged in this area. When approving new developments, which do not propose expressway-oriented commercial uses, the City shall adopt findings that the development does not preclude or hinder opportunities for a major expressway-oriented commercial project. • Automobile repair uses are generally discouraged except where the site has previously been utilized for an automobile repair use and where the project will not be disruptive to the redevelopment of the Area. The maximum floor area ratio for uses in Area 5, except for hotel/motel uses, is shown on the following chart. Modifications or additions to the floor area of buildings existing at the time of adoption of this policy may exceed the floor area ratios contained in the following chart with the approval of the Planning Commission. The modification shall not substantially reduce the potential for comprehensive redevelopment of the area. Minimum Acreage Minimum Lot Size Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.00 acres 0 sq. ft. 0.20 0.46 20,000 0.25 Appendix A1: SOCA A1-7 0.69 30,000 0.30 1.03 45,000 0.35 The maximum floor area ratio for hotel or motel uses shall be 1.0. Density Bonus Policy The City shall grant a density bonus for projects, which meet the requirements contained in the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. Project Design Residential Entries Entries to residential units along a public street shall be oriented to the street. Public Street Elevations The public street elevation of residential projects should create a neighborhood appearance and provide visual interest by incorporating architectural elements such as porches, projecting eaves and overhangs, dormer elements, variation in building wall planes and roof elements and well-defined unit entries. The building design should provide a pedestrian scale, which reduces the perceived mass of the structures. Visibility into Private Developments Residential projects shall be designed to provide visibility into the core of the project where the project adjoins streets or the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Public parking for trail users should be provided where possible. Building Mass along Los Gatos Creek Structures adjoining the Los Gatos Creek Trail shall be designed to minimize the perceived mass of the building as viewed from the Trail and to enhance the project’s appearance as viewed from Highway 17. The following techniques may be utilized to accomplish this objective: • Minimize the width of building elevations facing the trail (eg: orient the side of the structure towards the trail). • Provide movement and variation in building wall planes. • Provide variation in roof elements. • Step-back upper story elements away from the Creek Trail. • Provide tree species with large, dense canopies to screen the structures. Access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail Additional public pedestrian/bicycle access points to the Los Gatos Creek Trail should be provided in the SOCA area. The City should evaluate future projects for opportunities to provide additional public access connections. Trail Amenities Projects adjacent to the Los Gatos Creek Trail shall provide trail amenities such as drinking fountains and benches along the trail for public use, as appropriate Campbell General Plan A1-8 Grading Grading for projects in Area 2 should reflect and retain the natural topography of the site. Parking The City shall ensure that new projects provide adequate on-site parking to meet the project’s parking demands. The City may require the submission of parking studies as necessary to document that project parking needs are fulfilled on-site. Shared parking arrangements may be considered for mixed use projects. The City shall require the necessary parking studies to ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided under the shared parking concept. Structured Parking Facilities Structured parking facilities shall be submerged to the maximum extent possible. Structured parking shall be architecturally treated to be consistent with the overall architectural design of the building. Circulation Dillon Ave. Extension In Area 2, the roadway system should provide an extension of Dillon Avenue to improve circulation, provide emergency vehicle access and integrate projects in 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. Dell Ave./Camden Ave. In conjunction with new development in Area 5, safety improvements to the on and off- ramps from San Tomas Expressway to Dell Avenue should be evaluated. Consideration should be given to abandonment of the existing road linking Dell Avenue to Camden Avenue and construction of an extension of Dell Avenue easterly to Camden Avenue. Landscaping Street Tree Plan The City shall develop a specific street tree plan for the SOCA area, which identifies the tree species that will be required along streets in the area. The City shall also develop a streetscape standard for Railway Avenue, including plant materials, pedestrian walks, pedestrian lighting and street furniture. Views from Highway 17 and the Creek Trail Landscaping shall be located to screen and filter views of buildings. Tree groves shall be provided along the eastern edge of Areas 2 and 3 to screen projects as viewed from Highway 17 and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Project Tree Types Projects shall incorporate a mix of evergreen and deciduous tree types to provide tree screening throughout the year. Appendix A1: SOCA A1-9 Fencing along Los Gatos Creek Solid fencing is strongly discouraged along the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Applicants are encourage to use landscaping to define project boundaries along the Creek Trail frontage rather than fencing. Naturalized Plant Materials Naturalized plant species are encouraged immediately adjacent to the creek trail. Public Improvements Area Wide Improvements Project applicants shall be required to participate in SOCA area-wide improvements, as specified in conditions of approval. Light Rail Transit Light rail transit is strongly encouraged on the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, including resident-serving light rail stations. SOCA Plan – Detailed Impact Summary SOCA Sub Area 1: This sub-area allows for commercial and mixed-use land uses as governed by the C-3 (Central Commercial) zoning district. Since the uses allowed by the C-3 zoning district were amended in 2021, it should be noted that the City established a separate land use table within the C-3 zoning district to avoid impacting Sub-Area 1 of the SOCA Plan (Table 2-11a) and it is those uses that apply to the area. o Key Impact(s): If the SOCA plan were eliminated, the Medium-High Density Residential / Commercial Land Use Designation would default to uses allowed by the General Commercial (C-2) zoning designation instead of those provided for by Table 2-11a of the C-3 zoning district. As the C-2 zoning designation is generally less restrictive than those provided for by Table 2-11a, new uses could be introduced which could impact the character of the area such as adult day care facilities, alternative fuel/recharging facilities, and ambulance services. Further, if the SOCA plan were eliminated, the maximum floor area ratio allowed by Sub-Area 1 would default to those provided for by the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district. As the P-D zoning district does not establish a maximum floor area ratio, the decision-making body would need to establish such a limit on a case-by-case basis and/or in consideration of minimum parking requirements. SOCA Sub Area 2: This sub-area allows for High Density Residential land uses within the range of 21-27 units per gross acre and allows for a building height of 50-feet which is higher than that provided for properties with a comparable land use designation (i.e., R-3 zoned properties are limited to 40-feet/3-stories). Sub Area 2 separately has requirements for minimum development sizes and requires projects proposed at less than five-acres in size to create a master plan for the remainder of Area 2 which are antiquated requirements and may be found unenforceable. o Key Impact(s): If the SOCA Plan were eliminated, the height restrictions would no longer apply allowing for the maximum height allowed for by the P-D zoning district. As the P-D zoning district does not have a height restriction, the City-wide maximum height limit of 75-feet would apply. Separately, with the elimination of the SOCA plan, the antiquated portions of the plan would be eliminated thereby avoiding complications in permit processing. SOCA Sub Area 3: This sub-area allows for commercial uses as governed by the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district, attached residential units, and mixed-use developments as permitted by the C-3 zoning ordinance. o Key Impact(s): If the SOCA Plan were eliminated, Sub-Area 3 would lose its restrictions to floor area ratio resulting in a case-by-case determination for exclusively commercial and predominantly commercial mixed-use projects (greater than 66% commercial) and no limit on residential and predominantly residential mixed-use projects absent some other objective standard being applicable. The elimination of the SOCA plan would also have the impact of allowing for more intensive ‘general commercial’ uses to be part of mixed-use projects, than otherwise allowed by the C-3 zoning ordinance. SOCA Sub Area 4: This sub-area allows for industrial uses as governed by the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and commercial uses as governed by the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district). o Key Impact(s): If the SOCA plan were eliminated, the maximum floor area ratio allowed by Sub-Area 4 would default to those provided for by the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district. As the P-D zoning district does not establish a maximum floor area ratio, the decision-making body would need to establish such a limit on a case-by-case basis and/or in consideration of minimum parking requirements. SOCA Sub Area 5: Like Sub-Area 4, Sub-Area 5 allows for industrial uses as governed by the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and commercial uses as governed by the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district). The key distinction is that Sub-Area 5 discourages the establishment of automotive repair uses except on sites that were previously used for such activity (without establishing a time limit), strongly encourages ‘commercial expressway’ uses such as hotels, motels, and restaurants, and allows for a maximum of 1.0 for hotels and motels. o Key Impacts(s): If the SOCA plan were eliminated, the maximum floor area ratio allowed under Sub-Area 4 would default to those provided for by the P-D (Planned Development) zoning district. As the P-D zoning district does not establish a maximum floor area ratio, the decision-making body would need to establish such a limit on a case-by-case basis and/or in consideration of minimum parking requirements. Further, if the SOCA plan were eliminated City-staff and decision- makers would no longer overtly encourage commercial expressway uses or discourage automotive repair uses in the area – but such uses would remain discretionary and be considered on a case-by-case basis. SOCA - Density Bonus Policy: The SOCA Plan provides the following guidance on density-bonus projects: “The City shall grant a density bonus for projects, which meet the requirements contained in the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance.”. In short, this policy is antiquated and unnecessary as the City must grant a density bonus for projects that comply with state law. o Key Impacts(s): None. SOCA – Design Requirements: The SOCA Plan contains several design standards pertaining to: 1) Residential Entries; 2) Public Street Elevations; 3) Visibility into Private Developments; 4) Access to Los Gatos Creek Trail; 5) Trail Amenities; 6) Grading; 7) Parking; 8) Structured Parking Facilities; 9) Circulation; 10) Landscaping; and 11) Public Improvements. Many of these standards are not objective and serve as suggestions to encourage development of a project. o Key Impacts(s): If the NOCA Plan were eliminated, those design standards which could have been found to be objective on a residential project may no longer be enforceable. The City would maintain discretionary-review authority over projects that are commercial, or predominantly commercial (66% or more) to impose standards and requirements as appropriate to further objectives of the General Plan. Floor Area Ratio Comparisons Table Agency Zoning District Maximum Floor Area Ratio (Existing; see Draft GP for New) Exception(s) City of Campbell Professional Office (P-O) 0.40 Planning Commission can increase F.A.R. for a specific use at a specific location when circumstances warrant adjustment. Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) General Commercial (C-2) Central Business District (C-3) 1.25 The planning commission or City Council can approve FAR up to 1.5 if all the following exist: 1. Development scale and intensity does not create adverse traffic and parking impacts on the Downtown, and 2. The design, scale, and context of the project are consistent with the goals and objectives established in the Downtown Development Plan Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) 0.40 Planning Commission can increase F.A.R. for a specific use at a specific location when circumstances warrant adjustment Light Industrial (M-1) 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. Public Facilities (P-F) Agency Zoning District Maximum Floor Area Ratio Exception(s) City of Cupertino Administrative (OA) & Professional Office (OP) 0.40 None General Commercial (CG) None Light Industrial (ML) & Industrial Park (MP) 0.40 Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) Transportation (T) None Agency Zoning District Maximum FAR Exception(s) City of Morgan Hill Administrative Office (CO) 0.50 * An FAR of 0.6 is allowed for industrial uses. An FAR of 0.5 is allowed for non-industrial land uses. Neighborhood Commercial (CN) General Commercial (CG) Service Commercial (CS) Highway Commercial (CH) 0.40 Commercial Industrial (CI) 0.50 or 0.60* Light Office Industrial (IO) 0.60 Campus Industrial (IC) 0.50 Light Industrial (IL) 0.60 General Industrial (IG) 0.60 Agency Zoning District Maximum Floor Arear Ratio Exception(s) Town of Los Gatos Office (O) 0.40 (Including any type of accessory building *If a building exceeding FAR of 0.60 is destroyed involuntarily, reconstruction to the amount of prior floor area shall be allowed Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) 0.50 (Including any type of accessory building *FAR for new buildings or expansions of gross floor area of existing buildings must not exceed 0.60. *If a building or buildings exceeding FAR of 0.60 are destroyed involuntarily, reconstruction to the amount of prior floor area shall be allowed. Central Business District (C-2) 0.60 The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for new buildings or expansions of gross floor area of existing buildings must not exceed .60. In the event a building or buildings that exceed a FAR of .60 within the C-2 zone are destroyed involuntarily, reconstruction to the amount of prior floor area shall be allowed. Highway Commercial Zone (CH) Intended for vehicular oriented uses and sales along highway frontages, intermingled with compatible retail, service and administrative activities. 0.50 (Including any type of accessory building None Controlled Manufacturing (CM) 0.50 (Including any type of accessory building Commercial-Industrial (LM) 0.50 (Including any type of accessory building Resource Conservation (RC) Permitted uses include small family day care homes and residential care facilities Agency Zoning District Maximum FAR Exception(s) City of Milpitas *Per Milpitas General Plan 2040 Land Use Element Adopted March 9, 2021. Zoning Code Update TBD. Administrative & Professional Office (CO) 0.50 None Neighborhood Commercial (C1) 0.75 None General Commercial (C2) 0.50 None Highway Services (HS) Personal and business services primarily oriented to the automobile customer and transient residential uses such as motels or mobile home parks 0.50 None Town Center (TC) Administrative, business, entertainment, dining, and cultural activities in the geographic center of the City 0.85 Minimum of 0.35 FAR required for non-residential component in mixed projects with residential component Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use (NCMU) • Mix of active neighborhood commercial-serving uses on ground floor (e.g., grocery stores, specialty retail, restaurants, plazas or walk-in personal services • Multi-family dwelling units allowed at 1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of new or rehabbed retail and commercial services 0.75 City Council may consider residential-only projects if projects are 100% affordable to “low” and “very low” income categories to increase affordable housing stock Mixed Use (MXD) Residential, retail, entertainment, office and commercial service uses within the framework of a pedestrian-oriented streetscape 21-30 residential units per gross acre 0.75 Non-residential and Mixed Use Projects FAR of 2.5 for non-residential buildings may be considered for individual sites with a CUP • No FAR or density limits for hotels • Buildings which include both non- residential uses and residential uses on the upper floors shall be considered "non- residential," • Square footage for the following uses does not contribute to the FAR calculation: o Retail, restaurant, childcare or commercial service Very High Density Mixed Use (VHDMU) Residential, office, commercial, hotel, and medical uses 1.5 2.5 FAR permitted on individual sites via approved CUP by Planning Commission if: cont. 41-75 residential units per acre excluding density bonuses Non-residential and Mixed Use Projects • Proposed use is a hotel or office use that creates “substantial new jobs” as determined by the City Council. • Extremely high quality design • Building size and massing are compatible in scale to surrounding buildings Buildings do not shade public parks and plazas > 30% between 10 AM and 3 PM Manufacturing (MFG) Light and heavy industrial uses such as: • Manufacturing • Packaging • Processing • Warehousing and Distribution Ancillary support uses 1.0 None Business Park R&D (BPRD) Professional and light industrial uses in a campus-like setting such as: • Business Parks • High-intensity office buildings (Land use definition not yet codified) • Light manufacturing parks • Light Industrial Allows integration of following use at one location to enable existing firms to grow/expand operations on-site: • R&D • Office • Small warehouse Light Manufacturing 2.5 The following uses are allowed on-site via CUP as “minor uses associated with a primary employment-generating use” • Health & fitness centers • Restaurants & cafes • Limited convenience and retail • Day care facilities Light Industrial (M1) 0.40 None Heavy Industrial (M2) Industrial Park (INP) 1.0 Institutional (I) None Agency Zoning District Maximum FAR Exception(s) City of Palo Alto CN (Neighborhood Commercial) .4 FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict -- Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the following limitations: (A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and (B) No room stays in excess of thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues. -- (e) Exempt Floor Area (1) When an existing building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the chief building official, does not increase the usable floor area, and is either necessary to conform the building to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regarding disability related access, or is necessary to implement the historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as floor area. For the purposes of this section disability related upgrades are limited to the incremental square footage necessary to accommodate disability access and shall be subject to the Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site. Disability related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of existing buildings and shall not qualify for grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise redeveloped. CC (Community Commercial) N/A CC(2) (Community Commercial) 2.0 CS (Service Commercial) .4 | 2.0 for hotels CD-C (Mixed Use) When Excluding Residential: 1.0; 2.0 for hotels When Including Residential: 1.0 (residential); 1.0 (non- residential) CD-S (Mixed-Use) When Excluding Residential: 0.4; 2.0 for hotels When Including Residential: .6 (residential); .4 (non-residential) CD-N (Mixed-Use) When Excluding Residential: 0.4 When Including Residential: .5 (residential); .4 (nonresidential) Note: Standards are derived from multiple sources and represent a good faith effort to detail the developed standards and exceptions of jurisdictions. Hyperlinks (blue text) reference out to actual code sections and not all code sections are codified (i.e., Milpitas). Staff makes no assertion as to the accuracy of the data summarized in these tables when used for other purpose. For reference only. Development Projects in Campbell & Neighboring Communities Revised 12-2-21 Projects in Campbell (14 Projects) Property / Project Name Address Zoning Land Use FAR Lot Size Total Housing Units Ground Floor Commercial Gross Floor Area Unless otherwise noted (In Sq. Ft.) 2575-2585 S. Winchester Blvd. 2575-2585 S. Winchester Blvd. P-D Mixed-Use 0.22 14,411 15 apartments 3,210 Aqui PLN 2004-95, 96 & 97 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue C-PD Mixed-Use 0.43 36,994 sq. ft. 0.85 acres 22 condominiums 1-Bedroom (7 units) 2-Bedroom (14 units) 3-Bedroom (1 unit) 25.8 units per gross acre Ground floor retail: 11,240 “Mezzanine retail”: 4,760 Parkview Cresleigh at Del Grande PLN 2016-383 540, 558, 566 E. Campbell Avenue 24 & 34 Dillon Avenue C-PD Mixed-Use 0.09 69,696 sq. ft. 1.63 acres 59 condominiums 35% density bonus 20% affordable units 36.2 units per gross acre 6,512 Onyx PLN 2004-114 PLN 2004-115 1815 S. Bascom Ave. *912 Campisi Way is current address C-PD Mixed-Use 0.09 52,272 sq. ft. 1.2 acres 45 condominiums *26.8 units per gross acre 4,850 Penny Lane PLN 2007-172 651, 655 & 671 W. Hamilton Avenue C-PD Mixed-Use 0.06 174,240 net sq. ft. 4 acres 43 Condominiums 65 Townhomes 11,149 Revere – Baywest PLN 2011-312 PLN 2012-86 1677 S. Bascom Ave. *1725 S. Bascom Avenue is current address P-D Mixed-Use 0.07 200,376 sq. ft. 4.6 acres 168 Apartments 1-Bedroom (70 units) 2 Bedroom (90 units) 3 Bedroom (8 units) 15,295 Trojan Storage PLN2018-337 & 338 680-700 E. McGlincy Lane M-1 Self-Storage 1.7 91,277 sq. ft. 2.1 acres 640 sq. ft. 155,817 sq. ft. (basement and three levels above ground) 1700 Dell - Dollinger Properties PLN 2018-148 / 381 1700 Dell Avenue P-D Office 0.83 196,020 sq. ft. 4.5 acres NA Office Building: 161,870 sq. ft. (4 floors) Parking Garage: 146,478 sq ft. (5 floors +1 underground level) Project Name Address Zoning Land Use FAR Lot Size Total Housing Units Ground Floor Commercial Gross Floor Area Unless otherwise noted (In Sq. Ft.) Creekside @ 17 8x8 Headquarters PLN 2013-237 / 238 675 Creekside Way P-D Office 1.13 151,937 sq. ft. NA 172,772 sq ft. (5-story of office building with 2 levels of underground parking) 900 W. Hamilton Ave PLN 2010-030 900 W. Hamilton Ave P-D Retail Grocery Gas Station Furniture Store Restaurant 0.23 348,480 sq. ft. 8 acres NA 80,494 sq. ft. Fry’s Building 600 & 610 E. Hamilton Avenue P-D Retail Warehouse Badminton Facility 0.49 322,780 sq. ft. 7.4 acres NA 156,572 sq. ft. Hilton Garden Inn 577 Salmar Avenue C-2 Hotel Restaurant & Bar 2.3 37,960 sq. ft. NA 86,251 sq. ft. 5-stories 142 rooms Kirkwood Plaza 1570-1820 W. Campbell Avenue C-1 Retail Professional Office Medical Office Restaurant Performing Arts Health Club 0.32 511,076 sq. ft. 11.7 acres NA 164,117 sq. ft. Two buildings are two story (Ground floor retail and office on second floor) Hamilton at Almarida 501-525 E. Hamilton Avenue C-2 Retail Personal Services Restaurant Tutoring Center 0.43 346,382 sq. ft. 7.9 acres NA 149,517 sq. ft. (two- two story buildings) Projects in Other Communities (12 Projects) Community Project Name Address Zoning Land Use FAR Lot Size Total Housing Units Ground Floor Commercial Gross Floor Area (In Sq. Ft.) Unless otherwise noted Cupertino Marina Plaza 10122 Bandley Drive 10145 N. De Anza Blvd. Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Multi-Unit Residential Commercial Hotel Hotel with parking: 0.72 Hotel w/o parking: 0.41 Retail: 0.10 223,027 sq. ft. 5.12 acres 188 Apartment Units 22,593 sq. ft. 4-story,125 room hotel 2 underground parking levels 159,859 sq. ft. Apple Park One Apple Park Way Mixed Use P-D Planned Industrial Zone Office R&D 0.45 7.67 million sq. ft. 175 acres NA 3.42 million sq. ft office and R&D Fremont *Tesla R&D Manufacturing @ Kato Road PLN 2020-1057 47700 Kato Road Tech Industrial Includes advance manufacturing R&D PC approved increase from 0.48 to 0.6 9.3 acres NA Third floor 29,745 sq. ft. addition to existing 198,597 building for R&D use **Warm Springs Tech Center PLN2017-86 Reliance Way Warm Springs Innovation District Planning Area 10 of Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan R&D Industrial 0.76 21.5 acres 936,540 sq. ft. NA 4 R&D buildings totaling 584,205 sq ft (4 floors each building) 1 industrial building totaling 108,595 sq. ft. (1 floor) 4 story parking structure integrated w/ 14,985 sq. ft. amenity building for tenant needs (e.g. bike storage, fitness center, meeting space * Fremont’s Industrial zoning districts allow FAR increase from 0.35 to .45 by right for manufacturing and warehouse uses **Fremont’s Warn Springs / South Fremont Community Plan requires a master plan for developments on greater than five acres Community Project Name Address Zoning Land Use FAR Lot Size Total Housing Units Ground Floor Commercial Gross Floor Area (In Sq. Ft.) Unless otherwise noted Los Gatos North 40 Specific Plan Phase 1 Los Gatos Boulevard Between Lark Ave & Burton Rd Mixed Use Commercial Mixed-Use 0.21 Includes Commercial and Commercial parking garages 901,193 sq ft. 20.7 acres 320 Units 437,480 sq. ft. Condos Apartments Townhomes Rowhomes Commercial Floor Area 67,991 sq. ft. Commercial Parking Garage Area 120,402 sq. ft. North 40 Specific Plan Phase 2 Westside of Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark Avenue and Burton Road Mixed Use Commercial North 40 Specific Plan Area Office Component >3.1 101,930 sq. ft. 2.34 acres 120-200 units 20-40 du/acre Office 320k sf City of Santa Clara Data Center 1200-1310 Memorex Drive Light Industrial Data Center Office Storage New electrical substation 1.4 FAR proposed 0.6 maximum is allowed Requesting modification to 85 foot building height (Max 70 feet allowed) 399,881 sq. ft. 9.2 acres NA Four story data center: 472,920 sq. ft. Attached Six story 57,520 sq. ft. Gross floor area: 560,440 Summer Hill Mixed Use 2232-2240 El Camino Real Change from Community Commercial to Planned Development Retail Apartments 0.15 119,354 2.74 acres 151 Apartments for Seniors 130,435 sq. ft. 17,909 sq. ft. AC Hotel by Marriott 2970 Lakeside Drive Light Industrial 7-story, 188-room Hotel 4-story parking structure Surface parking lot 1.3 excluding parking 2.0 including parking 74,052 sq. ft. 1.70 acres NA Hotel 94,200 sq. ft. Parking Structure: 55,500 sq. ft. Scott Boulevard Office Project PLN2016-12232, 13705, 1021 3375 Scott Boulevard Light Industrial Office 0.99 252,034 sq. ft. 5.8 acres NA 6-story office building 237,107 sq. ft. 2-story amenity building 13,643 sq. ft. 4-story parking garage Lake Park Office Development Project 3001 Tasman Drive Light Industrial Office 0.85 176,418 sq. ft. 4.05 acres of 19.26 acre parcel NA 4-story office building 150,000 sq. ft. Two 6-level parking structures Community Project Name Address Zoning Land Use FAR Lot Size Total Housing Units Ground Floor Commercial Gross Floor Area (In Sq. Ft.) Unless otherwise noted San Jose Costco Warehouse Westgate West CP21-022 (Would replace OSH, Ethan Allen, Goodwill and Smart & Final) 5285 Prospect Road General Commercial Retail Warehouse 0.39 FAR 422,096 sq. ft. (Per Permit File CP21-022) NA 166,058 sq. ft. Jaguar Dealership Expansion 4040 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Commercial Motor Vehicle Sales 0.43 74,405 sq. ft. NA Remove 3,742 sq. ft. 1-story building Add 10,150 sq. ft. on-story building auto dealership showroom to exiting 21,605 sq. ft. building 2021 SANTA CLARA COUNTY INCOME LEVELS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE Household Income Categories Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low (0-30% of AMI) $34,800 $39,800 $44,750 $49,700 $53,700 $57,700 $61,650 $65,650 Very Low (30-50% of AMI) $58,000 $56,300 $74,600 $82,850 $89,500 $96,150 $102,750 $109,400 Low (50-80% of AMI) $82,450 $94,200 $106,000 $117,750 $127,200 $136,600 $146,050 $155,450 Median Income $100,900 $121,050 $136,150 $151,300 $163,400 $175,500 $187,600 $199,700 Moderate (80-120% of AMI) $127,100 $142,250 $163,400 $181,550 $196,050 $210,600 $225,100 $239,650 Above Moderate (Over 120% of AMI) Household Incomes Greater than the maximum Moderate Household Income Category UV85 UV 17 UV17 UV85 Doyle Rd Foxworthy AveBascomAveEden AveW e s tmont Ave Stokes St Latimer Ave Knowles Dr Camden Ave Hacienda Ave DryCree k RdDarryl DrBudd Ave Central AveRo s s Av e P o t r e r o D r Woodard RdSaratogaAve3Rd StVallejo DrBucknall Rd M c GlinceyL n Rincon Ave Hurst AveGrimsby Dr H a r r is A v e Del l AveC u r tn e r A v e Capri DrAlmarida DrC entr a l P a rkD r WhiteOaks Av ePhelps AveMidwayStUni on AveVirginia AveDelMarAveNewJerseyAveBoynton AveWeston Dr1St StRobinLn Vanderbilt Dr White Oaks RdSanTo masAquinoRdSobratoDrTheresa AveHarrisonAveNorth la w nDrEl wood DrEnsenadaD rTopaz AveL i nda Dr LantzAveErinWayD allas DrSa lmarAvePazEmory AveSunnyoaks Ave Southwest ExpyQuito RdS A R A T O G ASARATOGA L O S G A T O SLOS G A T O S S A N J O S ESAN J O S E S A N J O S ESAN J O S E CITY OF CAMPBELLGENERAL PLAN UPDATE Preferred Land Use Map Legend Low Density Residential <3.5 Low Density Residential <4.5 Low Density Residential <6 Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mobile Home Park Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Central Commercial Professional Office Light Industrial Research and Development Commercial/Light Industrial Office/Low-Medium Density Residential Residential/Commercial/Professional Office Institutional Open Space Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay City of Campbell Surrounding Cities Unincorporated Santa Clara County January 14, 2020 LosGatosCreekSanTom asAquinasC reekLosGatosC r e e kLosGatosCreekHamilton Avenue Corridor These two areas changed from GeneralCommercial to Residential/Commercial/Professional Office. Camden and Winchester Blvd. Corridors These areas changed from GeneralCommercial to Neighborhood Commercial. South of Campbell Avenue This area changed from Commercial/High-MediumDensity Residential to Residential/ Commercial/Professional Office (RCPO). The Commercial/High-Medium Density Residential designation hasbeen eliminated due to its similarity and redundancywith the RCPO designation. Bascom Avenue Corridor - West This area changed from General Commercialto Residential/Commercial/Professional Office. Bascom Avenue Corridor - East This area changed fromGeneral Commercial toNeighborhood Commercial. ³0 1,000500 Feet 1:24,000 Sources: City of Campbell; Santa ClaraCounty. Map date: January 14, 2020. Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay This area has been identified for a future specificplan to allow for mixed-use, high density residentialdevelopment. The specific plan would addressconnectivity and access to the VTA station east ofSR 17, address infrastructure financing strategiesand requirements, design and land use, etc. HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE MAPS SUBAREA MAP 1 – WINCHESTER AVENUE AREA SUBAREA MAP 2 – BASCOM AVENUE AREA SUBAREA MAP 3 – CENTRAL CAMPBELL AREA SUBAREA MAP 4 – BASCOM AVENUE AREA SUBAREA MAP 5 – SAN TOMAS AQUINO – CAMPBELL AVENUE AREA SUBAREA MAP 6 – SOUTH CAMPBELL AREA Address Acres Max. Density Max. Units Notes GP Year Built 1 1901 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2310 2.77 75 208 PruneYard Shopping Center GC 1970 2 70 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 0.35 60 21 Alka Montessori (Former Taco Bell)NC 1995 5 2365 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 3.80 60 228 Safeway CC 1993 6 470 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.45 75 34 Behind St. Lucy's. Metal Warehouse HDR 1960 7 700 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6814 0.51 20 10 Vacant Lot LMDR 0 8.1 S 1ST ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0029 1.30 20 98 1st St Garage CC 0 8.1 , , 0.00 45 0 Civic Center CC 0 8.2 46 S 1ST ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0029 0.00 45 0 Civic Center CC 0 9 3225 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 0.22 60 13 MiMiz Day Care GC 1956 10 3303 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6813 0.92 60 55 car repair center (7 shops)GC 1974 11 3375 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 0.57 60 34 car repair center (7 shops)GC 1981 12.1 60 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2515 0.82 60 49 Goodwill store NC 1968 12.2 210 HARRISON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1410 0.66 60 40 Fastenal store at corner of Harrison/Salmar RCPO 1967 13 570 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0210 0.59 60 35 Shell Station at Hamilton/Salmar GC 0 14.1 3255 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 0.25 60 15 Modern Rug & Upholstery Cleaners GC 1988 14.2 3245 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 0.23 60 14 Formerly a Veterinarian Office GC 1965 15 3275 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 0.60 60 36 Auto Haus Los Gatos Service. Auto Repair shop.GC 1976 16 3265 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845 0.22 60 13 Small vacant office building GC 1990 24 577 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 0.91 60 55 Adleson, Heiss and Kelly Law group GC 1990 30 2470 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4807 0.61 75 46 Two story retail (insurance , enterprise rent-a-car)RCPO 1980 31 2290 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3429 0.62 60 37 Valley TMJ Center Single storey corner retail (Dentist/martial arts)CC 1981 32 2460 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 2.39 75 179 Retail (summerwinds Nursery)RCPO 1978 33 2105 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3271 4.15 60 249 Lincoln Court - Mixed use commercial GC 1990 34 2250 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424 0.26 60 16 California Wheels autostore, retail CC 1966 35 500 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0210 1.87 60 112 Staples GC 1971 36 2240 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424 0.15 60 9 Coach's restaurant corner lot CC 1966 37 2006 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3400 0.36 60 22 dry cleaners, subway, psycho donuts corner retail CC 1982 38 442 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.40 75 30 Wood classic, cabinet maker HDR 1977 39 2120 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.33 60 20 Firestone Complete Auto Care Tire Shop corner lot CC 1970 40 2110 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.34 60 20 VCA Winchester Animal Hospital CC 1973 41 2100 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.16 60 10 Slabsides (Motorcycle retail store)CC 1947 42 2096 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.09 60 5 Crossfit Standard Strength Gym. CC 1945 43 2092 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.05 60 3 vacant lot used as parking CC 0 44 2082 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.06 60 4 Copy Co. Retail CC 1940 45 2066 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427 0.20 60 12 Euro Garage (Automobile services) corner lot CC 1953 46 180 KENNEDY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4115 0.46 75 35 California Windows and Fireplace HDR 1988 47 38 E RINCON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2917 0.27 60 16 single story retail (Rincon automative)CC 1961 48 2140 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3422 0.28 60 17 Rotton Robbie gas station retail CC 1960 51 700 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403 3.90 60 234 Three story mixed use (International culinary center, gym American Barbell Club)GC 1985 56.1 227 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3003 0.13 60 8 Single Family residential, opposite Engineering machine shop MHDR/C 1940 56.2 262 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0238 3.58 60 215 Single story retail (real estate)GC 1975 57 150 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0205 0.77 60 46 Khanh's restaurant GC 1978 62 176 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.40 75 30 Pacific Helix Distributing concrete Contractor MHDR/C 196563150 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.48 #N/A #N/A Strong Bodies fitness, gymnasium MHDR/C 198068494 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1414 0.70 75 53 Cobe Construction, large office RCPO 1980 77 500 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.08 75 81 Sierra Pacific Turf Company Industrial warehouse RCPO 0 87 871 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614 0.24 60 14 Classic Car Wash Corporate office GC 0 89 57 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 0.10 75 8 Single family home MHDR/C 1880 90 63 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 0.19 75 14 Single family home MHDR/C 1914 91 71 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 0.29 75 22 Leslie Hardwood flooring, CMS Plumbing MHDR/C 1979 92.1 85 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 0.18 75 14 Two story warehouse MHDR/C 1979 92.2 101 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005 0.19 75 14 Single story warehouse Commercial MHDR/C 1978 93.1 136 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.28 75 21 Vacant lot MHDR/C 0 93.2 130 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.29 75 22 K.C Customs, Inc. construction company and anothe company.MHDR/C 1956 94.1 100 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.28 75 21 Single story residentail? commetcial at the back MHDR/C 1966 94.2 90 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.21 75 16 Single Family home between Commercial lots MHDR/C 1899 95 80 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3013 0.36 75 27 Two story professional offices (Pacific systems, Law offices, Supreme air systems)MHDR/C 1970 97 140 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006 0.21 75 16 Commercial use MHDR/C 1986 100.1 2029 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203 0.73 60 44 Shell Gas Station GC 1971 100.2 980 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2303 0.91 60 55 The Original Hick'ry pit (corner lot)GC 1984 100.3 2045 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203 0.76 60 46 Montebello Road Vintage Oddities retail store.HDR 1900 101 1845 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2321 0.97 75 73 Palms at the Pruneyard RCPO 1963 102 1845 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2321 1.28 75 96 Palms at the Pruneyard RCPO 1961 106 393 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0243 0.31 60 19 Two story retail or mixed use GC 1960 115 400 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.44 75 33 Industrial (Almaden constructiondry wall contractors)HDR 1985 116 1475 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0624 3.54 60 212 Creekside Business Center GC 1980 119 2260 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424 0.51 60 31 Car wash, corner of Winchester and Kennedy CC 1969 120 390 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.12 75 9 Single story industrial (Layer 1 networks)HDR 1986 121 2375 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.57 60 94 Retail Stripmall (Goodwill, Safeway, Bank of the West) CC 1964 122 442 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.31 75 23 Single Story warehouse HDR 1960 123 132 KENNEDY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4115 0.14 75 11 One-shot fire extinguisher warehouse store, corner lot HDR 1985 124 166 KENNEDY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4115 0.35 75 26 AAA floor and interior and other stores HDR 1963 126 120 KENNEDY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4115 0.12 75 9 Great Metal Designs, corner lot HDR 1970 127 152 KENNEDY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4115 0.37 75 28 true sound home audio store HDR 1963 130 2026 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3420 0.37 60 22 Blue Sky restaurant CC 1960 131 142 KENNEDY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4115 0.33 75 25 true sound home audio store HDR 1962 132 290 DILLON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 2.60 45 195 Corp Yard HDR 0 134 1555 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.00 60 60 Vacant (former Hooters)GC 1977 135 971 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614 1.14 60 68 Confidance Landscaping GC 1967 136 877 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614 1.20 60 72 Advanced Home improvements GC 1974 137 851 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0600 1.23 60 74 Pacific Western Bank GC 1990 138 705 CREEKSIDE WY, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.26 60 76 Creekside @17 parking lot GC 0 139 45 3RD ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 0.64 75 48 Stacks Campbell corner lot CC 2000 140 409 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0208 0.19 60 11 Two story church GC 1988 141 1661 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 0.56 75 42 BTM motors RCPO 1960 142 1667 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 0.33 75 25 Pacific Hand car wash RCPO 1959 143.1 1737 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0607 0.36 75 27 Jack in the Box RCPO 1994 143.2 1657 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 0.35 75 26 Reed Animal Hospital RCPO 1978 144 980 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0615 0.41 75 31 The Original Hick'ry pit (corner lot)RCPO 1969 145 1777 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0635 1.34 75 101 Retail strip mall, Metro PCS, Eric's Deli café RCPO 1980 Address Acres Max. Density Max. Units Notes GP Year Built 146 1825 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2309 0.64 75 48 Sherwin-William Paints RCPO 1968 147 910 CAMPISI WY, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-9842 1.84 75 138 Two Story commercial office structure RCPO 1985 148 371 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0208 0.20 60 12 Single story retail (liquor store)GC 1975 150.1 , , 1.50 20 90 Community Center OS 0 150.2 , , 0.00 20 0 Community Center OS 0 150.3 , , 0.00 20 0 Community Center OS 0 150.4 110 W LATIMER AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1105 0.00 20 0 Community Center OS 0 151 1675 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107 0.70 60 42 S Methodist Church I 0 152 2060 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3207 1.11 60 67 Denny's Corner lot GC 1976 153 1980 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2307 0.47 60 28 US Bank corner lot GC 1980 154.1 1960 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2306 0.28 60 17 vacant Lot next to Taco Bravo GC 1966 154.2 1940 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2306 0.36 60 22 restaurant Weinerschnitzel GC 1968 155 1970 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2307 0.50 60 30 Philz Coffee GC 1975 157 49 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0504 0.99 60 59 Corner lot, Burger King GC 1977 158 62 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2562 0.20 60 12 World Mission Baptist Church NC 1982 159 499 E HAMILTON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0208 1.23 60 74 Bed, Bath adn Beyond (2 story)GC 1971 160 510 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0511 0.59 60 35 Jack in the Box GC 1976 162 251 LLEWELLYN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1940 5.54 30 166 Uplift Family Services (non-profit)I 1989 163 430 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.15 75 11 Industrial warehouse with large parking lot (painter)HDR 1986 164 60 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505 1.21 60 73 Wells Fargo Bank GC 1971 165 1769 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107 1.95 60 117 The Home Church / Strip mall w. large parking lot CC 1963 166 1805 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1152 0.40 60 24 Campbell Star Smog / Tire Pros (corner lot)CC 2009 167 1763 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107 3.49 60 209 The Home Church / Strip mall w. large parking lot CC 0 168 2400 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.60 60 96 Retail Stripmall (Goodwill, Safeway, Bank of the West) CC 1957 170 525 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0211 1.00 60 60 Kohls GC 2006 172 200 HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 0.46 60 28 low density 2 story apartment complex GC 1978 174 2053 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419 0.17 60 10 retail next to gas station (hair salon, printing)CC 1949 175 2065 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419 0.19 60 11 Salon (Retail)CC 1990 176 2015 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419 0.53 60 32 retail next to gas station (hair salon, printing)CC 1983 179 54 W RINCON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2808 0.18 45 8 "54 Rincon" site P-O 0 180 20 MISSION WY, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2817 0.34 60 20 SFH residence CC 1924 181 535 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1400 0.79 75 59 Single story retail (Contract flooring, Loraine Lawson Fine Arts, Window and Door)RCPO 1971 182 2175 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3425 0.47 60 28 Corner retail (CZ Glass / restaurant / barber/salon)CC 1962 183 2195 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3428 0.22 60 13 Camelot / Viking Appliance Repair service (corner lot ) CC 1957 184 2235 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3436 0.40 60 24 Retail strip mall (barber, cobbler, drapery, cleaners, salon)CC 1976 185 2205 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3428 0.23 60 14 Rxclusive high road to health (temporarily closed / Gymnasium)CC 2001 186 2245 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3436 0.37 60 22 Dairy Queen restaurant, corner lot CC 1964 187 2265 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3426 0.27 60 16 Haley Pastry, retail shop CC 1947 188 2325 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4058 0.54 60 32 strip mall, corner lot (El Greco Grill restaurant, retail, 7-11)CC 1974 190.1 2507 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-5311 1.56 75 117 Single story retail (small theatre, salon, laundromat)RCPO 1971 190.2 2523 S WINCHESTER BL, #A-#G CAMPBELL, CA 95008-5337 0.70 75 53 Single story retail (salon, ATM, beauty supplies, fancy foods RCPO 1979 190.3 2565 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.73 75 130 Single story retail (Campbell motors, auto shops)RCPO 1976 191 2415 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4801 3.27 75 245 Retail Stripmall (Dollar Tree, Luigi's Pizza and Pasta) RCPO 1968 192 2345 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 0.31 60 19 Corner single storey retail (liquor store, smoke shop)CC 1991 194 380 INDUSTRIAL ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4110 0.12 75 9 Two story industrial (Applied Micro Technologies)HDR 1991 195 851 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0402 0.54 60 32 Hash House restaurant GC 2012 196 770 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403 0.69 60 41 Social Security Administration GC 1980 197 750 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403 0.70 60 42 US Bank GC 1975 198 430 DARRYL DR, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1826 1.16 60 70 Little Tree Montessori school GC 1977 200 450 MARATHON DR, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0918 0.77 60 46 single story medical offices (chiropractor, Sarah's care)RCPO 1977 201 890 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0457 0.53 60 32 City Pizza, Subway Sandwiches, Smoke Shope, Cosmo Proof store RCPO 1987 202.1 600 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0233 3.87 75 290 Single story tall structure ( Argonaut Windows)GC 1972 202.2 600 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0233 3.41 75 256 Single story tall structure (Campbell Bintang Batminton)GC 1972 203 850 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404 1.92 60 115 Petsmart RCPO 1970 204 816 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404 1.04 60 62 Oakmont Produce, Morita's Picture Framing, C&L Liquors, single story retail RCPO 1972 205 780 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404 0.91 60 55 Oakmont Produce, Morita's Picture Framing, C&L Liquors, single story retail RCPO 1975 206 1501 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1616 0.42 60 25 Kelly Moore paints, corner lot NC 1979 207 100 N SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1620 3.00 60 180 Warehouse next to Laundromat NC 1972 209 1440 ELAM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 2.15 20 43 Vacant Lot on Elam west of Smith Creek LDR<6 1900 212.1 479 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1413 0.94 75 71 Retail, Quality First Home improvement RCPO 1969 212.2 423 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1413 0.77 75 58 Single story industrial (nternet solutions, Screen solutions)RCPO 1968 214.1 675 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 4.98 30 149 Campbell Technology Park R&D 2000 214.2 695 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 4.43 30 133 Campbell Technology Park R&D 2000 214.3 635 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 3.75 30 113 Campbell Technology Park R&D 2000 214.4 655 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008 4.90 30 147 Campbell Technology Park R&D 2000 217.1 801 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0402 1.16 60 70 Nageen Restaurant GC 1976 217.2 781 W HAMILTON BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0402 0.75 60 45 The Redwood Shopping Center, Payless Shoe Store, Riverside Cleaners, Hamilton Euromarket, SoccerkrazeGC1979 218.1 1200 SMITH AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4558 0.12 20 2 Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels NC 1949 218.2 900 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422 0.12 20 2 Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels NC 1958 218.3 920 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422 0.25 20 5 Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels NC 1939 219 1627 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 0.23 45 10 Sherry Hand Yoga RCPO 1949 220 1645 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0630 0.35 45 16 Retail strip (Ethnic foods, African Carribean Market Plus, Matra Bloomi puja, Salon and nail spa) RCPO 1957 221 1639 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605 0.32 45 14 Retail strip (Ethnic foods, African Carribean Market Plus, Matra Bloomi puja, Salon and nail spa) RCPO 1962 222 400 GRANT ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1408 1.02 20 23 City parking lot I 1899 223 1308 PARSONS AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 0.27 20 5 Residential Lot P-O 0 224 1980 HAMILTON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 6.04 45 272 Springbridge Int'l School I 0 EXAMPLES OF 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING Examples of 100% Affordable Projects M-Group December 2021 1 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Belmont Firehouse Square Under Construction Family Housing 66 .72 92 2.44 4 stories 53 ft. .71 Avg. Unit Size: 735 s.f. Burlingame The Village Under Construction Workforce & Senior 132 .84 132 3.75 5 stories 61 ft. 1.1 Avg. Unit Size: 647 s.f. Conversion of public parking lot into affordable housing. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects M-Group December 2021 2 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Cupertino The Veranda Complete Senior Housing 19 .56 34 3 Stories Avg. Unit Size: 350 s.f. Foster City Alma Point Complete Senior Housing 66 .52 127 3.05 4 stories 60 ft. .59 Avg. Unit Size: 588 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects M-Group December 2021 3 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Menlo Park Sequoia Belle Haven Complete Senior Housing 90 2.91 31 ? 3 stories .87 Avg. Unit Size: 587 s.f. Mountain View 1701 W. El Camino Real Under Construction Up to 60% AMI + Veterans 67 .49 137 2.31 5 stories 55 ft. .46 Avg. Unit Size: 430 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects M-Group December 2021 4 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Palo Alto Wilton Court Under Construction 30-60% AMI + adults with developmental disabilities 59 .46 127 2.0 4 stories .69 Avg. Unit Size: 367 s.f. Redwood City Arroyo Green Complete 2021 Senior Housing 117 1.36 86 2.36 4 stories 81 ft. 6 in. .50 Avg. Unit Size: 559 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects M-Group December 2021 5 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size San Mateo Kiku Crossing Approved Family up to 80% AMI 225 2.41 93 4.2 7 stories 74 ft. .73 Avg. Unit Size: 820 s.f. San Mateo Peninsula Station Complete 2010 Family Housing 68 1.0 68 1.95 4 stories 62 ft. 1.7 Avg. Unit Size: 996 s.f. Examples of 100% Affordable Projects M-Group December 2021 6 City Project Status Type Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build. Height Parking Spaces Per Unit Average Unit Size Sunnyvale 1178 Sonora Court Pending Family up to 80% AMI 176 1.26 140 3.9 7 stories 75 ft. 5 in. Not available 1 HIGH LEVEL FISCAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS Background The City Council at their meeting of November 17, 2021 asked for a financial analysis of the Campbell’s Plan for Housing list of Housing Opportunity Sites. While the project does not include a budget for a detailed financial analysis, staff provides the following as a narrative description of some of the fiscal impact considerations involved in planning for over three thousand new homes in the community. Changing Paradigm The city planning world is changing quickly with the raft of new housing laws every year. Another moving target is the role of retail stores in our communities. This is especially true now that the retail landscape is rapidly changing with on-line purchasing increasing nationally from 14.3% in 2018, to 15.8% in 2019, to 19.6% in 2020. (Source: https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/). Retail sales will continue to occur in physical locations but will shift toward shopping experiences in unique places with walkable public spaces1. Since everyday items can be easily purchased and delivered without having to leave the home, most people will shop in person only when there is a compelling reason to do so. Numerous studies have documented the “over-retailing” of America and how we are now in a period of mall and retail store closures. However, demand for high quality spaces is strong. We see this locally with the consistent draw of Santana Row, downtown Los Gatos and Downtown Campbell of course. What is the expected fiscal impact to the City? New residential development is typically seen as a cost burden on cities while new commercial or industrial development is seen as a net positive for city’s fiscal position. However, property tax at 25.3% is the single largest revenue source for the City of Campbell followed by sales taxes at 18.5% of revenues (Source: City’s Adopted FY 2022 Digital Budget Book). The City receives one percent of every sales tax dollar, plus 0.25% district sales and use tax, and nearly 11.49% of every property tax dollar. From a revenue point of view, it is possible that newly constructed housing developments could yield a net increase in property taxes to the city that would eclipse any direct sales tax loss due to business 1 There are of course conflicting views of the future of retail; one such view is expressed in the following article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/e-commerce-needs-real-store-locations-now-more-than-ever-11637836200 2 displacement. The City’s current budget notes a positive trend linked directly to residential land uses: “Property tax is the General Fund’s largest revenue source and has been the one bright spot during the COVID-19 pandemic; fueled by increasing housing prices, increasing demand for larger work-from home spaces, and very low mortgage interest rates.” There is the prospect of some existing sales tax generating businesses being displaced by new housing development. Some of the housing strategies being considered would replace existing commercial uses. A review of the Principal Sales Tax Producers (i.e. the Top 25) shows that three (3) businesses are on the preliminary opportunity site list that envision a total redevelopment of the property: • Sierra Pacific Turf Supply – 510 Salmar Ave. • Dasher Technology Services – Campbell Tech Park – 685 Campbell Technology Parkway • SummerWinds Nursery – 2460 S. Winchester Blvd. The following two (2) businesses are on sites where a partial redevelopment is envisioned with the majority of the existing uses remaining: • CVS/Pharmacy – San Tomas Shopping Center – 148 San Tomas Aquino Rd. • Safeway Stores – 2341 S. Winchester Blvd. The following business from the Principal List of Employers are on sites where partial redevelopment is envisioned: • Kohl’s Department Store – 525 E. Hamilton Ave. However, new residents also require access to city-provided services such as police, fire, recreation and all the other essential services provided by the city. This leads to the question of whether increased service demands and the loss of one or more key revenue producers would exceed the revenues from new investments in housing. To provide some perspective on this type of question we consider a case study. Case Study – City of Walnut Creek Presented below is an analysis conducted for the City of Walnut Creek in 2018 by Keyser Marsten Associates, a highly respected Bay Area economic and fiscal impact report consultant. Walnut Creek is a city in Contra Costa County bisected by Interstate 680 and has a population of approximately 70,000. “The project is a Specific Plan update that would increase the City’s service population by approximately 3,300 people. Service population is defined as 100 3 percent of residents residing within a jurisdiction plus 50 percent of employees working in the jurisdiction. Calculating service population in this manner is an accepted practice in fiscal impact analyses and is intended to reflect the fact that local employment contributes to the jurisdiction’s daytime population, thereby increasing demands for governmental services. As shown in Table 4, the residential component is anticipated to generate a slight annual fiscal surplus of approximately $150,000 per year. This result is consistent with other fiscal impact studies for infill residential developments in upscale Bay Area communities.” Source: https://www.walnut-creek.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17127/636651855717830000 This analysis shows how the increased property taxes from new residential construction, combined with new retail spending by the new residents can lead to an anticipated net fiscal surplus for residential development. Campbell has a relatively high rate of sales tax of $369.17 per resident compared to the benchmark cities in the adopted budget. This would indicate that the pattern of high captures sales per resident would hold for new residents. Conclusion As planning for new housing is a state mandate, it cannot be avoided but it can be done in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the community. Campbell’s Plan for Housing seeks to add rather than replace important businesses that people and the community at large rely on for both essential services and city revenues. 4 As Campbell is very nearly built out, this effort has sought to locate those properties that are most likely to be redeveloped over the next 10 years. As most well-located sites being identified are commercial land uses, and retail land uses are going through a transition period, it is expected that some retail space will be lost even with the inclusion of mixed- use development. However, this high-level overview of the issue holds out the possibility that in a well- positioned City like Campbell with a strong retail track record and high property values, new housing does not always have the negative fiscal impact previously assumed. Alternatively, if the city has fiscal impact concerns, an adequate number of sites have been identified so that some limited number may be removed from consideration if the City Council decides to do so, as long as the City is able to meet its housing goals. Hotel Parcel Retail Parcel Office Parcel Housing Opportunity Site 1 Housing Opportunity Site 2 F&F CAMPBELL, LLC 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard San Diego, California 92126 (858) 271-4682 FAX (858) 271-4682 November 17, 2021 City of Campbell City Council 70 N 1st Street Campbell CA 95008 Dear Mayor Gibbons and City Councilmembers: On behalf of F&F Campbell LLC, I appreciate Staff’s consideration of 600 E. Hamilton Ave. (formerly Fry’s Electronics) as a potential Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element update. We strongly support guidance of Transit-Oriented Development density at 85 du/ac or higher. The scale of our subject site, and proximity to transit, offer a unique opportunity to provide a substantial amount of much needed housing at an underutilized property – while helping the City meet RHNA goals. Since the vacation of Fry’s Electronics, we have evaluated numerous iterations of schematic housing plans as well as plans for other uses. We look forward to working with the City to further develop our design documents at the conclusion of the Housing Element update if appropriate uses and densities are adopted. Lastly, I am encouraged to see that the Commission recommended that additional meetings with housing developers be conducted to test assumptions about development feasibility. We are happy to participate in this dialogue going forward. Sincerely, Brett Feuerstein Brett Feuerstein Managing Member F&F Campbell, LLC 1 Stephen Rose From:allen ishibashi <allen.ishibashi@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:15 AM To:Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Subject:11/9/21 Housing Study Session Rob and Stephen,   It took a while, but I got through all the material for tonight's study session and I wanted to let you both know that I  think you did an excellent job on the staff report, and associated materials. I really like Option #3 and I think it makes the  most economic sense (so units are actually developed).     Of particular interest is the letter from the Campbell Technology Park, and how they have struggled financially (will soon  be at 30% occupancy). I see that this letter just came in on November 4th but I am curious if you intend to add this site  to the Housing Site Inventory maps? Although not perfect, this site does have a number of advantages as a housing site.  Edith Morley Park is located directly across the street and because of my 5 years on the Parks Commission, I know this is  the most underutilized park in all of Campbell. Thinking like a developer, the owner of this site could approach the  adjacent mobile home park for a pedestrian access easement so that residents on this site could more easily access  Union Avenue (but this is not necessary). Half the battle in developing new housing is a willing seller.     The Pruneyard letter is also very good as this one of the best sites in the entire City for High Density housing (75  units/Ac).     Thank you  Allen       From:allen ishibashi To:Liz Gibbons; Paul Resnikoff; Anne Bybee; Susan M. Landry; Sergio Lopez Cc:Campbell City Managers Office; Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Subject:100% Affordable Housing Site in Campbell Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:40:25 AM Attachments:Site Map.pdf Mayor and Council Members, My name is Allen Ishibashi, I live in Campbell, and I attended the Study Session last night.Based on the study session, I understand that a 100% affordable housing development would be very helpful in meeting our next RHNA allocation and there appears to be strong Councilsupport for this. I believe that I have identified one of the best sites in Campbell for a 100% affordable housing development, and the City would have 100% control over its development(so it could actually happen). I want to give a little background on myself so that you understand that my opinion is wellgrounded. I started my career as a commercial real estate appraiser, then I worked for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency for 5 years (buying and selling development sites), and I haveworked for the Midpeninsula Open Space District for the last 10 years as their Sr. Real Estate Agent (I bought an industrial building in Campbell, a 40,000 SF office building in Los Altos,and I am selling our old headquarters in Los Altos to the County of Santa Clara for a 100% affordable development). I also have a master’s degree in public administration (mastersproject was on affordable housing), a California Real Estate Broker’s license, and I hold the Senior Right of Way Agent designation from the IRWA. The site that I believe would be most successful in the development of a 100% affordable housing development is the City’s 1st Street Parking Garage Property (APN: 412-07-019). Amap is attached. This site is approximately 1.34-acres and an affordable housing development could be developed above the existing garage (the existing garage and new housing would bestructurally independent). This garage is under utilized but it could be maintained and operated in essentially the same fashion as it is now. The beauty of real estate is you can be as creativeas you want to be to solve big problems. Please find a list pros and cons below: Pros: 1. The City could structure a deal where it sells the property to the County and keeps the public parking. One way this could occur is a condo map could be placed over theparking garage (Redevelopment did a deal like this in San Jose). 2. County has $800 million for the development of 100% affordable rental propertiesunder measure A and they are hungry for sites (you have leverage). 3. The new residents could also use the parking garage thus resolving one of themajor issues with 100% affordable developments (under-parked). 4. Depending on the structure of the deal, the City could make $6-$10 million on thesale. 5. The location could not be better, as it is adjacent to the light rail station and in avery walkable area. 6. The location would allow a very dense development and it would shadow to thenorth on an existing higher density development not the single-family houses. 7. The City could reserve residential units in the new building for City Staff (I didthis on the Los Altos deal I am doing with the County). 8. Property taxes would not be impacted as the site is already exempt. Cons: 1. Requires creative thinking and creative deal making. This is who I did the affordable housing deal in Los Altos with: Consuelo Hernandez, AICP Director, Office of Supportive Housing (408) 510-8595 consuelo.hernandez@hhs.sccgov.org If interested, I am willing to volunteer any time required to discuss this proposal and to help inany way that I can. Thank youAllen Ishibashi 408-416-1823 1 Stephen Rose From:Bill Baron <bill@bsm-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:01 AM To:Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Cc:Bill Baron Subject:Campbell Housing--State of California Mandate Dear Mr. Eastwood & Mr. Rose:    Once again, I very much appreciate the efforts being made by way of community outreach by both of you and  the greater City of Campbell.  I enjoyed participating in last night’s Community Meeting #2 regarding the  future of housing in the City of Campbell.    For years, our region—including the City of Campbell—has been and remains in a “housing crisis”.  So much so  that I’m not sure if our collective historic actions own up to the phrase “crisis”—or at least what it used to  mean.  Housing supply has been and remains far outpaced by demand/job growth.  New housing production— of all types—is well below what has been otherwise identified as the target.  The reasons for this are  many.  New statewide laws have recently been enacted that, in effect, demand action by local jurisdictions or  else the state will force it.  Ergo, a “state mandate”.    According to the Regional Housing Needs Analysis (“RHNA”) as codified by the Association of Bay Area  Governments (“ABAG”), the City of Campbell needs to smartly facilitate/deliver—not fantasize about— somewhere between 3,000 and 3,900 (30% increase recommended by city staff/consultants) housing units  between 2023 and 2031—or else the State of California will do so for the City.  By far better for the City of  Campbell to navigate its own destiny as you are attempting to do.      A few additional thoughts to those offered by me last night:    1. The City should consider a dramatic increase in its FAR to smartly marry/merge the City of Campbell’s  75’ Height Limit in logical areas along transit/traffic corridors (outside of the core downtown Campbell  area) so as to maximize density while minimizing impacts to established Campbell neighborhoods.  FAR  should dramatically increase to 5:1 or 6:1 in lieu of considerably lower FAR’s.    2. The City should consider designation of sites/lands to be intensified within its current GP update and  codify same with a certified EIR, and follow through with zoning or appropriate zoning overlay—Said  differently, the City must set the table for development to occur and avoid/repel the notion/need for  “specific plans” requiring additional studies/details/environmental review at a later time complicating  delivery of housing objectives.  To leave entitlement risk on the table does not smartly or timely  facilitate delivery of housing units, rather injects real and unnecessary challenges.  Let’s do—not  dream.    3. The City should consider, in specifically identified areas where change or intensification of land use is  appropriate, “up to” densities as identified below in lieu of more paltry densification ranges.  The City  of Campbell will never meet the state mandate at 20, 40 or 60 du/ac.  See below for further thoughts:     2 Four or Five Story Over Podium Garage  This four or five story building places residences on top of a garage podium. It efficiently uses the site up to  the maximum height for “wood” construction. In most cases, it fits between 90 and 115 units per acre.   4 stories (Type VA) or 5 stories (Type IIIA) wood construction over garage podium and/or below grade  garage   Podium is directly beneath housing   Allows for maximum density while still in wood construction  Mid‐Rise Housing  Mid‐Rise housing is a great option for very urban or transit sites and features seven to eight stories above a  parking podium and/or below grade parking. In most cases this scenario achieves around 116 to 150 units per  acre.   Typically limited to 7 or 8 stories (Type I or III) metal or concrete construction below the High‐Rise code  of 75ft (maximum floor level)   Multilevel podium parking structure is directly beneath housing   Allows for very efficient utilization of smaller sites    The approach above, likely, include the primary criteria such that the City of Campbell can/will reach its state  housing mandate objective between 2023‐2031.  City leaders know well how they have fared in delivery of  RHNA numbers through 2021—and the prospects for finalizing through 2023.  Delivery of units remains well  below the 933 units called for in the current RHNA.  Times have changed.  Indeed changed.  The “housing  crisis” must be met head on with truth, transparency joined with a will and determination to succeed.  The  alternative provided by state law is not a welcomed alternative.      Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the process.    Regards,  Bill Baron  _____________________________________________ William B. Baron  MANAGING PARTNER  Brandenburg Properties  1122 Willow Street, Suite 200  San Jose, CA  95125  408‐282‐4101 Direct  408‐279‐3678 Fax  408‐921‐2995 Cell  bill@bsm‐group.com  www.brandenburg‐properties.com  CA Dept of Real Estate Broker Lic 01885632    Brandenburg Properties encourages water conservation.  To learn more, visit:  https://www.valleywater.org/saving‐water/resources‐gear        1 Stephen Rose From:Dean J. Rubinson <Dean@EllisPartners.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:41 AM To:Rob Eastwood; Tara Woodend; Stephen Rose Subject:Pruneyard Residential Rob,  Per our chat during the meeting last night, we would like to add the new 4th parcel of the Pruneyard (currently entitled  for office) to the list of potential residential development sites as part of the Housing Element process. What specific  information do you need from us at this time? I’d love to have a brief call w you and/or Stephen to discuss the process in  more detail.   Thanks  Dean  1 Stephen Rose From:Joe Burman <joe@burmancabinets.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:30 PM To:Planning Division Subject:RE: Campbell's Plan for Housing Hi Stephen:        I appreciate you letting me know about the ZOOM meeting that I watched on Monday 10/25.   I am a ZOOM  beginner, so I did not participate.  But, this format reminds me of the meeting the City of Campbell held at the  Community Center in 2018??  Being a Campbell Homeowner and Business property owner on South McGlincy Lane, I am  very interested in the General Plan and as to how this will affect my properties.    Campbell plans to build about 3,000  housing units in the next 9 years, as mandated by the State of California for all cities.  One of the participants (Jada)  brought up the question as to how do all these Cities and the State of California propose to meet the water and power  needs of these thousands of new homes?  As you know, these resources are already strained  to the point of restriction  and possible allocation, along with bad roads, congestion and failing infrastructure.  I would think that these questions  need to be answered before any large scale housing development can begin.    Thank You, Joe Burman      From: Stephen [mailto:planning@campbellca.gov] Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:54 PM To: joe@burmancabinets.com Subject: Campbell's Plan for Housing   View this email in your browser          Campbell's Plan for Housing   From:Carolyn Field To:Planning Division Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: PLN-2021–12 Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:52:22 AM Commissioners, For decades, my husband’s grandparents lived on Second and Grant, and Grandpa Field owned and operated thegeneral store in downtown, on Campbell Ave. My father-in-law grew up in Campbell, graduated Campbell HighSchool and eventually started his own family in Campbell as well. My husband’s first home, straight from thehospital, was at Grant and First, in the house where the chiropractor currently resides. I understand the Governor has recently passed 31 housing laws, and the state attorney general has created a strikeforce to enforce these laws. And Campbell has been given a highly ambitious, state-mandated allocation of 3,000housing units for 2023-2031, not including the buffer. Higher density housing must be planned for, and I am insupport of this. But I am writing to respectfully ask that you preserve Campbell’s charm, particularly in the lower densityneighborhoods and embrace a transit-oriented development approach as you make your final decisions on densityand location for the 3,000 housing units. Most cities on the Peninsula, the East Bay and even the 680 corridor in Dublin and Contra Costa County havealready made big strides in high density housing mixed with retail, office space, and public uses centered around ornear Cal Train and/or Bart. Now, some South Bay cities also have a number of transit-oriented projects in the works. A few examples include: 1. Milpitas’ Metro Specific Plan of 437 mostly industrial acres which calls for the development of 7,100 dwellingunits, office space, retail, and hotel rooms within walking distance to VTA and Bart, and the Great Mall. 2. Sunnyvale’s Lawrence Station Plan, which is moving closer to allowing 3,600 additional homes around CalTrain. Another 2,323 units were previously approved for this project. 3. San Jose’s 80 acre Google transit oriented development next to the Diridon Station called Downtown West,which is looking to build 4,000 homes with a mix of retail, public parks, and enough office space for 20,000 people. All are within walking distance to Cal Train, VTA, or future Bart. Campbell’s three VTA stations and nearby areas would provide much opportunity for transit oriented development. Again, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to preserve the character of Campbell, and plan for transitoriented developments just as other Bay Area cities have done - with higher density housing near the rail stations. Thank you, Carolyn Field Campbell Technology Park LLC 1960 The Alameda #150 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 260-1520 November 16, 2021 City of Campbell - City Council 70 N 1st Street Campbell CA 95008 Dear Mayor Gibbons and Honorary Members of the City Council, On behalf of CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PK LLC, we request that the Campbell Technology Park (635, 655, 675 and 695 Campbell Technology Parkway) be considered for a Housing Opportunity Site as part of the Housing Element update. During our ownership the park has only been fully occupied once and that was only for a few months. Historically we have operated somewhere between 70-75% occupancy and are currently at 67%. We have been notified by a tenant that they do not intend to renew their lease which will take us down to 64% early next year. Additionally, we have leases expiring in 2022 that if not renewed will take us to 30% occupancy. Compared to other office parks in Silicon Valley the property does not have a competitive/compelling offering. We have believed for some time that a higher and better use would be on the horizon for the property and now is the perfect time to re-envision the site for residential uses. We feel the scale of our site (17 acres) could offer the potential for multiple product types and densities, proximity to an existing park and a willingness to participate now in proceeding with an application. We look forward to submitting a formal application for housing upon being listed on the City’s Housing Opportunity Site Inventory Map and General Plan Land Use Plan. Sincerely, Tim Pasquinelli F&F CAMPBELL, LLC 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard San Diego, California 92126 (858) 271-4682 FAX (858) 271-4682 November 17, 2021 City of Campbell City Council 70 N 1st Street Campbell CA 95008 Dear Mayor Gibbons and City Councilmembers: On behalf of F&F Campbell LLC, I appreciate Staff’s consideration of 600 E. Hamilton Ave. (formerly Fry’s Electronics) as a potential Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element update. We strongly support guidance of Transit-Oriented Development density at 85 du/ac or higher. The scale of our subject site, and proximity to transit, offer a unique opportunity to provide a substantial amount of much needed housing at an underutilized property – while helping the City meet RHNA goals. Since the vacation of Fry’s Electronics, we have evaluated numerous iterations of schematic housing plans as well as plans for other uses. We look forward to working with the City to further develop our design documents at the conclusion of the Housing Element update if appropriate uses and densities are adopted. Lastly, I am encouraged to see that the Commission recommended that additional meetings with housing developers be conducted to test assumptions about development feasibility. We are happy to participate in this dialogue going forward. Sincerely, Brett Feuerstein Brett Feuerstein Managing Member F&F Campbell, LLC sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 3 SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES November 20, 2021 City of Campbell 70 North First St. Campbell, CA 95008 Mayor and City Council of Campbell Via: lizg@campbellca.gov; paulr@campbellca.gov; anneb@campbellca.gov; susanl@campbellca.gov; sergiol@campbellca.gov Planning Commission Via: Planning@campbellca.gov Economic Development Specialist, Michael Thomas Via: michaelt@campbellca.gov Cc: cityclerk@cityofcampbell.com (Please forward the attached Sierra Club letter to the Housing Element Project Manager) Subject: General Plan Revisions - Housing Element The Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Currently, all cities in California are required to update their current Housing Element to meet the new 2023 - 2031 RHNA requirements. This is an impactful process, and we offer the following comments and observations for your consideration. 1. Cities are contributing to an imbalance between jobs and housing that is unsustainable. We recognize the new RHNA goals are much higher than the previous RHNA goals and most cities are struggling to see how to meet these higher goals; however, as this process is unfolding, many cities are also simultaneously approving large office and R&D developments within their jurisdiction which will bring thousands of new jobs into the community without considering the impact of those jobs on the new RHNA goals and the city's existing jobs/housing balance. 2. Jobs/Housing Fit: Cities are not providing for a sustainable "jobs/housing fit" within their city. An unsustainable jobs/housing fit means that the majority of homes within the city are not affordable to the majority of employees who work in the city, and conversely, the jobs in the city do not pay enough to cover the cost of housing in the city. This causes difficulty in hiring and retaining employees, higher worker costs, more traffic congestion, more air pollution, less time with family, and less time participating in community recreational activities and events. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 3 3. Many cities are not coordinating plans for new commercial development with their Housing Element. Cities are not coordinating the expected number of new jobs with the expected number of new housing units that will be needed to house those new employees and the impact those new jobs will have on city-wide housing prices, housing availability, and income inequality. 4. RHNA numbers are not reflecting the anticipated housing need in relation to the real numbers of jobs that each city is approving. Despite large increases in the RHNA goals, the disconnect is so vast that, even if the city were to fully meet it's 2023-31 RHNA goals, it could still be far short of a sustainable jobs/housing balance. 5. Probability of development: “p(dev)" While “Probability of Development” for each lot is a required part of a Housing Element, many cities are not considering and documenting the probability [ "p(dev)”] that those lots can in-fact be developed. 6. Commercial development proposals should be required to specify anticipated number of jobs created. If commercial developers do not include an estimate of number of jobs expected in their proposed development, the city staff should a) Use a rule of thumb1 to estimate the number of jobs and the potential impact on the city's overall jobs / housing ratio. b) Add this to a running total of the cumulative number of jobs and housing in the city, using a consistently updated excel sheet or equivalent data record in order to track the balance. c) Evaluate what impact those jobs will have on the projections in the Housing Element. 7. Sea level rise and wildfires should be a consideration in the Housing Element. Sea Level Rise and wildfires have increasingly serious financial consequences for taxpayers. The new Housing Element should either not allow or discourage permanent housing in areas highly vulnerable to flooding, potential inundation from ground water rise, and wildfires. Below we note some ways to maintain a jobs / housing balance. a) Require developers of large commercial projects to actually provide the number of housing units needed either on-site or off-site to balance the jobs generated by their development. b) This can be in partnership with a for-profit or non-profit housing developer or be built by the commercial developer itself. c) Increase current commercial impact fees as they are not sufficient to meet this need. d) Require the needed housing to be built simultaneous with building the commercial development. e) Change some commercial zoning to residential zoning or mixed-use/housing. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 3 of 3 Summary • The 2023-31 RHNA goals do not reflect the real anticipated housing needs in many cities based on the real numbers of commercial development and jobs that each city has in its pipeline and is expected to approve during the new RHNA time frame. • The goal of the Housing Element needs to be aligned with the actual number of jobs in the development pipeline, not just the RHNA numbers. • The Housing Element should, in addition, include a “jobs/housing fit” goal, not just numerical jobs:housing balance. • If cities approve zoning changes that are not likely to produce any real new development, those revisions should not count toward the new RHNA goals. We recognize that this Housing Element is particularly challenging and are very appreciative of the effort that the city is putting into it. Therefore, we offer this only in the hope that this information may serve to be useful in your process. Respectfully Yours, Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Cc: Chair and Members of the Campbell Planning Commission Mayor and Members of the Campbell City Council James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 1 Rule of Thumb: Per our research, a good rule of thumb is a new office building will generate about one job per every 150 square feet of floor space and a new R&D or Biotech campus will generate about one job per 300 to 400 square feet of floor space. These jobs will in turn require a jobs/housing ratio of 1.5 jobs per housing unit or less to maintain a sustainable jobs / housing balance. Note: Calculating the jobs/housing ratio based only on office and R&D square footage covers the housing needed for those new jobs, but does not factor in the multiplier effect where each new office and R&D worker, creates more jobs for the lower income service workers who support that new employee (e.g., grocery clerk, Amazon driver, restaurant worker, etc.). A method of calculating this multiplier effect should also be built into the Housing Element as each office project approved simultaneously creates demand for additional low income and affordable level housing. 1 Stephen Rose From:Mark Dunkle <dunklem@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:38 PM To:Planning Division Subject:Re: Community Meeting Tomorrow! I attended the Workshop tonight. I would like to suggest that the various densities that are proposed in the density models) be translated into the average unit size, # of bedrooms & bath, and cost to rent. I would to see more evidence that the proposed densities are in fact affordable for the demographic that these plans propose to support. I think that a new model of 200 units per acre for singles and couples ought to be incorporated in the discussion for transit-oriented areas. Regards, Mark V Dunkle Campbell Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), President mdunkle@CampbellCERT.org Cell 408-832-2954 Website: campbellcert.org 1385 Mcbain Ave, Campbell, CA. 95008 Call sign: KJ6ZWL On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:59 AM Campbell Planning <planning@campbellca.gov> wrote: 2 View this email in your browser To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Campbell's Plan for Housing (Community Meeting Reminder - Wednesday, December 1, 2021) To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Please join us for a Community Meeting on Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Site Selection. This meeting will be held virtually on zoom by clicking the 'Attend Here' link below. This is a once-in-a-decade chance to shape the future of our community and help plan for how roughly 3,000 new required housing units will be built in Campbell. Community Meeting Wednesday, December 1st, 6:30 PM Attend Here Nuestra encuesta ahora ha sido traducida al español. Responda la encuesta haciendo clic en el siguiente enlace: Toma el cuestionario To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Take a Survey 3 Learn More View this email in your browser Copyright © 2021 City of Campbell, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: City of Campbell 70 N 1st St Campbell, CA 95008-1458 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 1 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:16 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". zachay@gmail.com wrote: Would like more information View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 2 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:03 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". bradjennings@sbcglobal.net wrote: Thank you for providing the postcards and engaging the community as you have. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 3 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 12:18 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". damjobry@aol.com wrote: Yes! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 4 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 8:49 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". lchoi735@gmail.com wrote: Interested in learning more View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 5 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:58 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". charlene.ye23@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for the mailer, it was helpful to be in the know and provide feedback via survey. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 6 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:21 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". wayneok@sprintmail.com wrote: Would be great if your meetings were on zoom View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 7 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:12 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". grammystacia@sbcglobal.net wrote: One of Campbell's charm is her vistas. I would ask you to refrain from turning our town into concrete canyons with huge monolithic modular building obstructing views and blocking sunshine. Thank you. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 8 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:47 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". bruceg1939@sbcglobal.net wrote: Does the Planning Commission have an email address? I ask because I have a question. It is this: I would like a written statement regarding the size of my property at 1263 Walnut Dr. Campbell, 95008. I understand that it is sub- dividable, but in the past I have been only given estimates. To discuss proposals from developers I really need an accurate measure with the signature of a planning department person. A map showing the dimensions would be also be useful. … View Message 9 © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 10 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:26 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". spacerockets@gmail.com wrote: I’m very interested to hear about transportation improvements to support the larger population. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 11 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:51 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". sallyannehaydon@aol.com wrote: I WANT TO BE INVOLVED View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 12 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 15, 2021 3:51 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". faithbking@sbcglobal.net wrote: I don’t actually live or own property in Campbell, but I have ties to the city and would like the updates. Faith King View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 13 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:35 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". rhondawegner@sbcglobal.net wrote: As a Campbell resident and M-Group employee (non-planner) I am looking forward to following Campbell Housing Element process. Thank you for all your work in making our community a great place to live. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 14 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:07 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". sdiazluna@cuhsd.org wrote: Affordable housing options for all would be great! Include Section 8 and low- income housing. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 15 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:18 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Jin Pak wrote: Hello! I believed that I am enrolled with Program. This is Mr. Jin S. Pak and There will be Lottery Drawing for Campbell Housing On Oct 15th 2021. I would like to know what is Results. If all Possible! Please! Call me at 408- 701-7000. Sincerely, Mr. Pak View Message 16 © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 17 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:39 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Michiru Michelle Lovatt wrote: Great news! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 18 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:02 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". dw.witte@gmail.com wrote: I support adding more housing to Campbell, especially at the two lowest segments of the income spectrum. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 19 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:49 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". robertalexlopez@gmail.com wrote: Thank you! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 20 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:15 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Patricia Van Etta wrote: I’m in need of a home for myself and my two disabled children I myself am disabled we have been homeless since august 2018 View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 21 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Monday, October 11, 2021 10:44 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". jsullivansld@yahoo.com wrote: I would like to be informed of all meetings associated with the Update to the Housing Element 2023-2031 View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 22 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Monday, October 11, 2021 9:50 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". mstevens@ymail.com wrote: My wife and I are long-time residents of Campbell on Queens Ct. We strongly support initiatives that provide affordable housing for our teachers, nurses, police, firefighters, and all front-line workers, as long as those developments are located in neighborhoods which have the infrastructure to support them (close to mass transit, sufficient parking, adequate common spaces such as parks, throughput for increased traffic, etc.). For those reasons (and those reasons alone) we are opposed to the… View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA 23 Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 24 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Sunday, October 10, 2021 4:56 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". bjr908@gmail.com wrote: Wondering if things like utilities/water supplies etc will also be discussed? Thanx. Barb Robinson View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 25 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Sunday, October 10, 2021 7:12 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". danjobry@aol.com wrote: Thanks! View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 26 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 9:40 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Malissa Wilson wrote: I am excited about the housing projects and hope to be placed on any available low income housing waiting lists. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 27 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 6:02 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". obriensusan9@comcast.net wrote: Looking forward to participating in the process View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 28 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 5:48 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Kate Garrison wrote: How do I get on the list for low income housing? View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 29 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 11:29 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". leepenning@yahoo.com wrote: Just want to hear what you have to say. Thanks -- Lee Penning View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 30 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 8:28 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Debbie Walker wrote: Housing that accepts sec 8. Low income senior housing. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 31 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 7:16 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Jin Pak wrote: Please! I nned yr support. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 32 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 4:55 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". josephtheweatherman@gmail.com wrote: I would like developments that have character and not too urban looking. Those belong in San Jose and San Francisco. The area between Poplar and Payne should be mixed use 3-5 stories. Mediterranean style View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 33 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 3:22 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". fardiny@hotmail.com wrote: Hi I would like learn more about the housing plan in Campbell. Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 34 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Saturday, October 9, 2021 2:57 AM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". danjobry@aol.com wrote: Thank you for this invite! ͣͤͥ͢ ͣͤͥ͢ View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 35 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 11:42 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Mohammad Issa Ibrahimi wrote: I would like to be notified of the opportunities in this regard. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 36 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 8:13 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Rachel Leota wrote: Updates please View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 37 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 7:40 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". pangasinan@aol.com wrote: Thank you for reaching out. Is there still a City newsletter published periodically for residents? When was the last time the City completed a statistically valid resident satisfaction survey of services and priorities? View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 38 39 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:41 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". joe@burmancabinets.com wrote: Please notify me of upcoming meetings for the Campbell General Plan. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 40 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:38 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Trysta Obee wrote: Please send me updates View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 41 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:33 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Joan Paz wrote: Hello, Please keep me posted on availability of housing at Campbell. Thanks, Joan Paz View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 42 43 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:23 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Katherine Lanning wrote: I would love to be part of this program View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 44 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:19 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Ka Siu Wong wrote: would like to know how Campbell going to develop its land View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 45 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:13 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Decheng Wu wrote: Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 46 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:10 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Nora Rivas wrote: Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 47 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:07 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Phillip Vo wrote: Thank you View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 48 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:04 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Sally Banh wrote: I’m interested to know the updates View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 49 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 5:00 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". Bethelhem Woldie wrote: I am looking for affordable housing ownership. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 50 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 4:58 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". realtorandreamiles@gmail.com wrote: I am excited to learn more about Campbell's plan for hosting. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 51 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 4:57 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". jan@housingchoices.org wrote: It would be great if you could send email reminders before each of the planned meetings. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy 52 Stephen Rose From:Mailchimp Account Services <accountservices@mailchimp.com> Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 4:38 PM To:Planning Division Subject:There's a new message in your inbox To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mailchimp You have a new message from a contact in your audience, "City of Campbell". danastevens225@gmail.com wrote: Please be considerate of the neighborhood when approving high density housing. View Message © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved. 675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy m-group a new design on urban planning policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 MEETING NOTES Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 Subject: Campbell Housing Element Meeting Host: Rob Eastwood, City of Campbell Focus Group: Affordable Housing Developers Th ese are the Meeting Notes from the Affordable Housing Developers Focus Group that took place Monday, November 22, 2021, at 3:00PM regarding the Campbell Housing Element. Project Team: Rob Eastwood |Community Development Director, City of Campbell Stephen Rose | Senior Planner, City of Campbell Christabel Soria Mendoza | Assistant Planner, M-Group Participants: Priscilla Haynes | Affordable Senior Housing at Santa Clara Methodist Retirement Foundation, Inc Dereck Hicks | Development Project Specialist Alex Shoor | Executive Director at Catalyze SV Jenifer Wong | Project Manager at Alta Housing Josselyn Hazen | Transit-Oriented Development Project Manager at VTA Jocelyn Cardona | Housing Management Analyst at Sacred Heart Community Service Bianca Neumann | Director of Development at EAH housing Karl Lauff | Development Manager at SCCHA Flaherty Ward | Assistant Director SCCHA John Lo | Senior Housing Policy Analyst at SCCHA Liezl Cruz-Hou | Policy Analyst at SCCHA Hanh Le | Housing Policy Analyst SCCHA Alison Cingolani | Policy & Research Associate at SV@HOME Elizabeth Selby | VP Forward Planning Community Housing works John Bigley | Chief Operating Officer at Urban Housing Authority Lauren | Urban Housing Communities Mathew Reed | Director of Policy at SV@Home Chris | Questions 1. Most effective tools a city can adopt to facilitate affordable housing. • Providing funds o If not the City, look at fee waivers for affordable housing projects • Have housing sites pre-entitled • Providing certainty in the process o Ministerial permit process vs. discretionary (greater certainty/predictability) m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 • Providing staff resources to process permits o Streamline permitting processes; San Jose has dedicated staff specifically focused on affordable housing • Aligning programs with bonds and tax financing • Matching affordable housing sites with financing scoring criteria is important o Look at TCAC, HCD and MHP programs and scoring • Ensure the community is emotionally & psychologically ready for affordable housing o Education and engagement 1. General understanding on how affordability works; base density – the more units built helps support financing, services, how competitive process works for o Showcase the benefits of affordable housing o Partner with the community to select location of housing 2. Base Density to support affordable housing (ranges)? • 50-units in a project roughly the range in Santa Clara County • SCCHA recommends min. density be 60 du/acre • VTA advocates 75 du/acre • Mixed-use can support some affordability • Look closely at parking criteria o Make requirements more flexible o Make closer to transit 3. What are optimal location criteria? • Consider TCAC criteria, quality of transit and be aware of the poverty rate • 9% tax program has a site score: 100% of points to be competitive • 4% high opportunity areas • Sites that can leverage all the available tax credits • There is a geographic map/tool that shows • Now in highest and high resource zones, rules changed by HUD, communities where land is expensive, moved them outside the transportation section – no longer in moderate or low 4. What are barriers to affordable housing development Campbell can address? • Timely response on funding o local funding must be approved by City & County (how long it takes to submit a NOFA; reviewed and award) o County to secure gap funding for Measure A; select within 60-days. • City’s not adopting priority zones separate from HUD priorities (San Jose) • Pre-mapping areas eligible for: AB 1763; 3 additional stories; outlining concessions, for private open space, setbacks, etc. – not holding up funding for any criteria granted by state law. • Waive Park fees, etc. (affordable housing serves as credit) • Density bonus for affordable housing • Community education process (not the projects) o serves ‘teacher, first-responder, medical-workers housing’, people who live/work in your community. m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Not scary; already exists in our community and you probably are not aware. • LA – Community education example • Recognized need for education 101 (could be tailored to needs)/ (201 education already offered) 5. What percentage of their acquisition cost are land – how important is the use of public land in development projects? • Anticipated hard and soft costs? 6. What is the typical distribution of a 100% affordable housing project (low, very low, moderate)? • Consider housing for civic leaders • Hard to do extremely low-income housing 7. What are exemplary case studies Campbell should look at? • Partnership with the City of Santa Clara – surplus public lands but the development fees were too high. • Lot 12 in Mountain View o Open lot that will become family housing o Parking lot will be replaced • Consider looking at a community benefits policy and a public arts policy 8. Financial sources of your projects? • City offer landlords other form of subsidies • Program to specify housing for civic leaders 9. Anticipated hard and soft costs? • Land alone doesn’t solve the issue o some hard/soft costs are fixed (labor, attorney fees, lumber) • Buying property and not having a takeout for land costs; for 100% affordable housing product mix. • Land starts off a project; provides site control, providing the source – decreases risk, great public policy. • Financial commitment from one entity; gives competitive advantage. • Great tool for cities without other money available. • $1 a year for 99 years - o What percentage of their acquisition cost are land – how important is the use of public land in development projects? END: 4:08 PM m-group a new design on urban planning policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 MEETING NOTES Date: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 Subject: Campbell Housing Element Meeting Host: Rob Eastwood, City of Campbell Focus Group: Businesses Th ese are the Meeting Notes from the Businesses Focus Group that took place Tuesday, November 23, 2021, at 2:00PM regarding the Campbell Housing Element. Project Team: Rob Eastwood |Community Development Director, City of Campbell Stephen Rose | Senior Planner, City of Campbell Christabel Soria Mendoza | Assistant Planner, M-Group Michael Thomas |Economic Development Specialist, City of Campbell Participants: Ken Johnson | Executive Director at Campbell Chamber Questions: 1. What challenges have you seen regarding housing in Campbell? • Affordability 2. Are there housing challenges that affect recruitment / labor hiring? • 90% of members are mom and pop businesses • Franchises have more difficulty • Restaurants and hotels are struggling to find lower wage service workers • It is appealing to not work • 8x8, inc. has over 1,000 employees • St. Anton has transitional housing for apple or google employees 3. What are the hardest positions to recruit for (related to housing)? • 4. What type of housing would help support your staff the most? • Attractions o Condos, townhouses at affordable rates • Help with down payments o NIMBY is very popular in Campbell 5. Observations on demand for office / R&D space – is it coming back – balancing this land with need for housing? • Great opportunity for start ups o Dell avenue  Not a great location for housing m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 6. Does your staff telecommute – the future of this? • Most employees are in person at the Chamber • 8x8, Inc. is more remote • Apple has 3/5 days in office – Hybrid o Good for the economy when people stay in the area • The Pruneyard wants to exchange 5-story office tower for housing o Wants the option to keep the space for office or housing Discussion: • Allen Hicks – Greenland property o Propose mixed use development on land o End game is to sell land for housing END: 3:00 PM m-group a new design on urban planning policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 MEETING NOTES Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 Subject: Campbell Housing Element Meeting Host: Rob Eastwood, City of Campbell Focus Group: Market Rate Housing Developers Th ese are the Meeting Notes from the Market Rate Housing Developers Focus Group that took place Tuesday, November 30, 2021, at 2:00PM regarding the Campbell Housing Element. Project Team: Rob Eastwood |Community Development Director, City of Campbell Stephen Rose | Senior Planner, City of Campbell Christabel Soria Mendoza | Assistant Planner, M-Group Participants: Stephanie Hill | Trammel Crow Residential Jay Luchetti | Development Associate at Trammel Crow Residential Brian Brown | Project Manager at ACP Architecture Deana Ellis| Cresleigh Homes, mixed use project in Campbell Bruce Bowen and Collen | B & C Homes Inc, interested in mixed use projects Chris Reid | Commercial Real Estate Associates Kevin Marr| Project Manager at Cresleigh Homes Scott Connelly | Valley Home Partners Dave Yocke | Acquisitioner at Summer Hill Homes James Sullivan | Residential Real Estate Developer Sachneel Patel | Managing Director at Granite Rich Properties Trevor Zink | Office Building Developer, interested in mixed use Mike Schwager | Civil Constructer, interested in mixed-use residential Pete Beritzhoff| Bay West Development Kurt Anderson | Project Designer Questions: 1. What do you know about Campbell as a housing market to build in? What are the known barriers to building in Campbell? What are the attracting factors? • Downtown has thrived with weekends and restaurants in the past 17 years. o Barrier: Parking standard compared to other cities  regimented • Entitlement approvals are difficult with suburban parking standard. o Campbell needs an urban standard for parking m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Park and parking standards needed for urban locations  Asked city council to consider • Parking and protected zoning of general commercial areas are barriers. o Light rail development is good but looking at other potential sites 2. What can Campbell do create a favorable environment to facilitate housing development? • Conversion of commercial zones • Net density instead of gross density calculation • Processing time can be shortened if there is a contract with City staff o If staff can’t, suggest hiring a consultant to process projects ASAP • PC and CC to present projects is to lengthy and excessive o Suggests a joint hearing to discuss design issues. Also, alleviates staff workload o Increase density and height standards o More flexible with setbacks, open areas, common areas, etc • Certainty on entitlement and process timeline o Staff should be able to approve project milestones (i.e CEQA) o Be contextual and thoughtful of what neighbors want • City should decide (in the general plan) where density should be increased o RHNA won’t be met if City holds onto low density and low heights o Streamline project process for decisions to be made by staff and not council • Staff, Planning commission and council will ask for too much of different things o One decision making body to save time and resources • Create a list of sites that are welcome to development 3. What cities are doing it right in terms of creating a favorable housing development setting? • Use of in lieu fees • BMR requirement of 15% moderate vs market rate is grey area o Contingent on city council approval and not by right should allow more moderate units  Santa Clara allows in lieu fees at discretion of City Council • San Diego o Micro units, 100% density bonus 4. Where do you see the future market and demand for your housing products – housing type / amenities. • 5. What density do you need to achieve podium type development? • 7 Stories of 100 units/acre m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 • Podiums can get up to 110 units/acre depending on the unit mix (studious, one bedroom, etc) • Wraps can be 70-80 unit/acre o Knows a group that did not do well at 90+ units/acre  Very expensive 6. What density do you need to achieve underground parking? • Try to avoid o San Francisco can do it and it will be financially feasible • Not feasible because of high waters, soils, etc in Campbell o City needs to become comfortable with heigh because underground parking is unfeasible • 250 units can be built with Subterranean 7. In what instance do you partner with affordable housing developers? • Some sites are being blended into affordable housing with AHD o Allows an increase in density • Affordable developer site that can be dense o Look at Bascom/Hamilton corridor for about 1.25 acres • State and County funds can out pay market rate developers o Partner with them for local grants 8. City is considering adopting average unit sizes – your feedback on feasibility and size? • Case study? 9. What is the ideal site and regulatory conditions that you look for in development? • Development by right makes it easier o San Jose is paving the way by increasing density, regardless of neighborhoods wishes because of the need for housing • The process drives people away with. It needs to be streamlined to increase development at faster rates • TOD, high density, walkable to retail/restaurants o Can’t control NIMBY, but the City holds the power to decide where and what is needed for housing development 10. Feedback on areas where the City mandates mixed use • The state allows 50% credit for density and housing o Density ranges apply to all parts of the mixed-use projects o Fresno and Sacramento have policies that can apply to Campbell because they’re all low-rise cities • Activate the spaces with pedestrian realm uses even when retail leases aren’t guaranteed o Include amenities for residents m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 • Retail requirements on parking standards o Bay west project on Bascom has good tenants for the community o Its hard to give a broad area o Blending density is a helpful option that can allow 4 acres of townhomes with 75 acres of other uses END: 3:09 PM m-group a new design on urban planning policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 MEETING NOTES Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 Subject: Campbell’s P la n fo r Housing Meeting Host: Christabel Soria Mendoza Meeting: Community Meeting #4 Th ese are the notes from Community Meeting #4 that took place Wednesday, December 1, 2021, at 6:30PM regarding Campbell’s P la n fo r Housing. Project Team: Geoff Bradley | President and Principal Planner, M-group Radha Hayagreev | Senior Planner, M-group Asher Kohn | Associate Planner, M-group Mary-Ann Matheou | Associate Planner, M-group Christabel Soria Mendoza | Assistant Planner, M-Group Rob Eastwood |Community Development Director, City of Campbell Stephen Rose | Senior Planner, City of Campbell Participants: At peak attendance, about 34 community members attended Community Meeting #4. Main Room: o Concerns about traffic considerations in the San Thomas neighborhood o Staff respond that a focus is placed on transit stations with additional traffic analysis. Lack of physical properties that meet the criteria that we are guided by in the San Tomas neighborhood. o Questions about Upzoning and building heights arose o Staff clarified that building heights are cognizant of voter approved height of 75 ft. Breakout Room 1: 8 participants Project Team: Rob E., David H., Asher K. General Comments: o Concerned about how SB-9 and SB-10 will affect the community o City should increase development impact fees o Concerns that more intense development will make Campbell seem more like Cupertino o Concerned that the State may change (repeal) many of the requirements for Housing Elements o Concerned about how putting residential on commercial sites will affect small businesses Winchester Ave: m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Community members do not want units on the Community Center o Winchester as good corridor for housing o Could go higher and denser.  EM Park (Technology Park) is difficult to get in and out of. • Some like development in that area  Corp Yard has good potential o Higher density around the light rail stations o Concerned that Campbell Technology Center is too remote/access is limited and Union Avenue is already impacted o Site #56 doesn’t make sense o Concerned about site #132 and having to relocate the Corp Yard o Tech Park is landlocked – wary of housing in that area o Doesn't like that "56" error. Bascom Ave: o Some love this area for housing o Want to see a major high-density project on Site #202 (Fry’s) o Support for high-rises near Pruneyard o Mention of revisions to ballot initiative on 75 du/ac o Folks love quaint feel. "don't turn it into Cupertino" Central Campbell: o Don’t put housing on the Community Center o Open space is such a challenge Hamilton Ave: o Concern over uplift family services site. o don't like the new Llewellyn site (Site #162). o Support for townhomes – 2/3 stories. o Concerns for preserving commercial (all or mixed use) o Concerned that housing on site #162 (Llewelyn) will result in additional traffic in the neighborhood o Area is already impacted by people trying to avoid traffic congestions in other areas San Tomas Aquino Road - Campbell Avenue: o Support for mixed use in this area o Concerns that the area is too remote o limited transit access Breakout Room 2: 8 participants Project Team: Geoff B. and Radha H. General Comments: o Long term residents love their cozy neighborhoods and would like to retain that charm. o Campbell needs more housing and should add it in wherever possible. m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Developer brought in practical comments on development feasibility vs. Policy implications on density. o Density policy vs. Development feasibility must be considered. o City implored to take a long-range view as the plans and intentions of current property owners can change over time. o The sites near the VTA can be higher density to maximize transit proximity. o There should be another density bracket which splits 20-45 du/acre into two sub-categories. o Perhaps 20-30 du/acre and 30-45 du/acre? Winchester Ave: o Rather than making densities around downtown to be 50 du/acre, take advantage of VTA line to go higher. o Sites near the station like #6, #32, #122 can be higher. o Sites #132 (City Corp Yard), site #8 (First Street Parking Garage), and along Orchard City Drive (city-owned parking lots) can be made purple (60 du/acre) o Along Winchester, try to go lower. o Higher density near Safeway on Winchester is okay Bascom Ave: o Site #137 (85 E. Hamilton Ave.) should be retained as is. o Two story office building with major tenants and recently sold to a new owner. o Preserve existing big business who may/may not want to put housing and/or be in a situation where this becomes a loss for sales tax and loss of revenue for the city by way of this housing overlay. o City to consider current revenue generators before rezoning to housing or Mixed-use. o Replace Fry's or Safeway center to renew but not mid-size commercial that bring revenue. Central Campbell: o City should not add housing within the Community Center area. o It is a very good asset to the community and the city. Hamilton Ave: o Site #162 on Llewellyn: The 20-45 du/acre can be broken down to something new o Could be 20-30 du/acre and 30-45du/acre  The current 20-45 du/acre is very broad. o Site #162 has a current development underway o If the City densifies, make sure project is not stalled. o Uplift site is better at 20 du/acre o This housing exercise must make economic sense and policy must tie into the development feasibility. San Tomas Aquino Road - Campbell Avenue: o All sites listed are prime subjects and right candidates for redevelopment. o Since there is an 8-year window, chances are that the owners may change their minds about including housing in their properties. m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Churches can rethink their land to provide Below Market Rate Housing. South Campbell Area: o Sites #9, #10, #11, 14, #15, #16– Significant constraints may occur when design or development is proposed in these parcels. o While the proposal is projected to be 60 du/acre, practically not possible. o City to re-consider practical implications for the proposed densities and cite proximities. Breakout Room 3: 7 participants Project Team: Stephen R. and Mary-Ann M. Winchester Ave: o Concerns about Safeway being 65 du/ac and not 75 du/ac o Change sites #5, #31, #119, #121, #168 and #188 to 75 du/ac o Edith Morley Park area (site #214)– could be bumped up to 75 du/ac o At least towards the tracks and then feathering it out to less towards the edges. o Northwest of Winchester station is a parish - parking lot should be considered for housing considering how close it is to transit station. Bascom Ave: o Identify more sites on Orchard City Drive o Site #33 are already multi-family units. They should be moved up in du/ac. o Both sides of union should be tagged. o Should be more around the downtown Campbell station in yellow. o Across from Campbell Park – higher density use and pedestrian corridor o Site #224 (for example) should taper having less du/ac towards existing single family, and then higher density away from the lower density building Central Campbell: o Support for no housing on Campbell community center o Make density of Wesley Manor more like what it contains (southwest corner of Hamilton) o Site #159 – has the city talked to the property owner? o Staff explained that between Dec and Jan, we will reach out to site owners Hamilton Ave: o All good sites San Tomas Aquino Road - Campbell Avenue: o Two sites north of site #12 should be designated the same density o West of San Tomas and north of Campbell Ave. would be a nice mixed-use area o Upzone along major corridor of west Campbell Ave. o Possibly townhomes: 20-45 du/ac on the north and south parts of Campbell Ave. South Campbell: o Identified 10 sites in this area o Townhomes in community members neighborhood  Staff recommended to submit a letter of interest o 2 bus stops on other side of Hacienda and Burrows m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Community member sent more sites to staff. They are shown below: o 1216-W-Hacienda- o 1215-Steinway-Ave-95008 o 1265-Burrows-Rd-95008 o 1190-Steinway-Ave-95008 o 1235-Audrey-Ave-95008 o 1236-W-Hacienda-Ave-95008 + 1226-W-Hacienda-Ave-95008 o 1394-Munro-Ave-95008 o 1395-Munro-Ave-95008 o 700-W-Hacienda-Ave-951 o Concerns about City addressing job to job replacement to the areas that have commercial corridors o Staff explained that there is no requirement to replace commercial. o Support for townhomes on both sides on Hacienda Ave. END: 8:05 PM