Agenda — Campbell City Council, January 25, 2022

City Council Agenda
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public 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 City Council Special meeting will be conducted in person as well as telecommunication and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act.

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Channel 26, the City's website and on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting.

Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at: https://www.campbellca.gov/signup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. 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 will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber - 70 N. First Street

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Selection (PLN - 2021-12)
Recommended Actio n: That the City Council review the Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites and provide direction to staff on which sites should be included in Campbell’s Plan for Housing and the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and provide feedback on key principals to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development.

ADJOURN
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packe t are available for public inspection with the agenda packet

in the lobby of City Clerk’s Office, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008, during normal business hours. These materials will also be available on the City website at https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/agendacenter with the agenda packet following the last item of the agenda, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. All documents not posted prior to the meeting will be posted the next business day.

In compliance with th e Americans with Disabili ties Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the City Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (408) 866-2117, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

City
Council
Report
TITLE: Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Selection (PLN-2021-12)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council review the Tier 1 Housing Op portunity Sites and provide direction to staff on which sites should be included in Campbell’s Plan for Housing and the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and provide feedback on key principals to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be d esignated for mixed -use development.

BACKGROUND
Based on direction from the City Council meeting of June 15, 2021, City Council meeting, the City of Campbell is completing its Envision Campbell General Plan Update in combination with preparation of the Ho using Element Update (“Campbell’s Plan for Housing”).

Over the last few months, the City has been reviewing and prioritizing possible housing opportunity sites. In December 2021, staff presented a draft list of housing opportunity sites, selected based o n State criteria, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, earlier Commission and Council feedback, and overarching community development themes associated with the development of the housing opportunity sites.

The Planning Co mmission and City Council reviewed the draft list of Housing Opportunity sites and provided detailed direction regarding sites to be considered and removed. As part of this feedback, the Council expressed support for distributing new housing citywide and expressed interest in exploring the use of school and church sites as part of the inventory and establishing densities that are compatible with the surrounding area (reference Attachment H – December 16, 2021, City Council Minutes).

Following the meeting, staff contacted all property owners of potential Housing Opportunity sites to solicit their interest in developing housing in the next eight years and held an informational meeting on January 5, 2022 (reference Attachment I – January 5, 2022 – Property Own er Meeting Notes). Using an online survey, staff Item:

Category:

Meeting Date:

1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
January 25, 2022

1. Packet Pg. 3
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 2 of 11 received responses from 31 property owners1 representing 39 properties regarding their interest in the use of their property for housing.

On January 20, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the “Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites” and provided feedback on the key principl es to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed -use development. Due to the short turnaround time between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings recommendations from the Planning Commission will be provided as a desk item in advance of the January 25, 2022, City Council meeting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this meeting is to provide direction to staff on the Housing Opportunity Sites that should be included in Campbell’s Plan for Housing and provide feedback on key princip les to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. Housing Opportunity Sites identified by the City Council at its meeting of January 25 , 2022, will undergo environmental review through preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, starting in late January 2022.

Final Site Ranking Criteria
Based on Council direction, staff added and removed sites from the Draft Housing Inventory resulting in a refined list of 169 potential housing sites. From this list, staff has created final site ranking criteria based on feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council comments to date, property owner interest, and applicable State criteria , in order to identify the “best” sites for inclusion as follows:

1. Site Size: If the site is at least half an acre in size or the site includes abutting properties with common ownership that could combine to add up to half an acre in size then 1 point was awarded. About half of the sites are at least a half-acre in size.

2. Housing Unit Production Potential: If the site can provide at least 50 new housing units then 1 point was awarded. About one quarter of the sites could result in the construction of at least 50 units.

3. Good Location: If the site is within a ten -minute walking distance to public transit, outside of racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, or located in areas with higher amenities and resources, then 1 point was awarded. Most sites are in good locations for future housing.

4. Property Owner Interest : If the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping their property for housing, then 1 point was awarded. Property owner responses indicating support or opposition to inclusion as a h ousing opportunity site is provided in Attachment F and notes from the January 5, 2022, property owner meeting have been included as Attachment I. 1 Staff received 32 responses, but one property owner/representative did not identify their property.

1.1 Packet Pg. 4
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 3 of 11

5. Protect Sales Tax Revenues : Based on Council feedback concerning potential displacement of Campbell business es and resulting fiscal impacts, staff has identified sites that contain the top 100 sales tax generating businesses in Campbell. If the site does not contain one of the top sales tax generators in the City, then 1 point was awarded. If housing developmen t would remove or replace the sales tax generating business, then 0 points were awarded. Only 8 of the 169 sites contain one of the top 100 sales tax generating businesses.

Based on the number of points awarded from the criterion, the 169 potential housi ng inventory sites received scores ranging from 0 to 5. Staff is recommending that all sites with a point score of three, or higher, continue to be considered as Housing Opportunity Sites, demarcated as “Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites” (reference Attachm ent “A”).

Potential sites that have a score of less than 3 have been put into a Tier 2 category and are not being recommended to be included as a Housing Opportunity Site. The higher scoring sites identified as “Tier 1” represent 96 of the 169 final Housin g Opportunity Sites and would provide for 5,610 housing units.

As further discussed below, Staff is recommending that two City -owned sites (i.e., First Street Parking Garage and City Corporation Yard) and the four sites at the Campbell Technology Park be considered separately from the other Tier 1 sites as they have unique constraints that warrant additional discussion. Table 1 provides a summary of the Tier 1 housing opportunity sites, including the 829 units from the City -owned sites and Campbell Technology Park and the 4,781 units from all other Tier 1 sites.

Table 1 – Housing Opportunity Site Summary
Tier 1 Sites Sites Units
Campbell Technology Park 4 522
City-owned Sites 2 307
All Other Tier 1 Sites 90 4,781
Grand Total 96 5,610
As discussed in the November and December Planning Commission and City Council meetings, staff is recommending that the Housing Opportunity Sites provide a minimum of 3,300 units, which includes a 30% buffer above Campbell’s RHNA requirements as recommended by HCD. Staff also recommends the City aim for a higher housing target of up to 5,000 housing units, that will provide more flexibility and options in ensuring housing production over the next eight years to meet RHNA requirements.

The locations of the higher priority, Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Sites, and lower priority, Tier 2 Housing Opportunity Sites are contained in Attachment A. The assigned densities for these sites are contained in Attachment B. A spreadsheet summarizing the location, criteria ranking, and unit production calculations are included in Attachment C.

1. Packet Pg. 5
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 4 of 11 Further consideration of the additional 829 units that would be provided through inclusion of the two City owned sites and the Campbell Technology Park is listed below.

Campbell Technology Park – Sites 214.1, 214.2, 214.3, and 214.4 Campbell Technology Park is a 17 -acre site that consists of four properties and is located on Campbell Technology Parkway. The site contains four office buildings intended for research & developm ent uses within a campus setting. The Technology Park has a current General Plan Designation of Research and Development and a zoning designation of Planned Development Zoning.

The owner of the Campbell Technology Park, has cited difficulties in obtaini ng tenants for the current buildings onsite due to the geographic isolation of the property. He has submitted a letter of interest requesting that the Campbell Technology Park be designated as a Housing Opportunity Site. Staff has calculated that construc tion of residential development at the Campbell Technology Park at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre could yield approximately 522 new housing units . The identification of Campbell Technology Park (“Technology Park”) as a potential Housing Opportunit y Site was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in December 2021. Both the Commission and Council in general provided favorable feedback on the concept of housing at this site.

The Technology Park was developed pursuant to an agreement with the Campbell Redevelopment Agency and is currently governed by City agreements that require the property be maintained as a Technology Park through 2030. The development of the site for housing would require modification of this agreement.

Separately, based on staff recommendation and initial feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council, the City -owned Corporation Yard (Site 132), located at 290 Dillon Avenue, has also been identified as a potential Housing Opportunity Site.

The site is geographically favorable for housing since it is surrounded by higher density housing and is close to both Campbell’s Downtown and the Downtown Campbell light rail station. The use of a City-owned site such as the Corporation Yard for housing presents an oppo rtunity for the City to develop a higher percentage of affordable units than otherwise would not be produced on privately owned housing sites.

The development of the Corporation Yard site for housing would first require the relocation of the Corporation Yard use to another feasible location. The Campbell Technology Park has been identified as a potential location for the relocated Corporation Yard due to its central location and adjacent light industrial uses. As access to the Campbell Technology is curr ently limited to McGlincy Lane, a second access through Cristich Lane, currently a private street, would provide better ingress and egress for City vehicles and employees.

The modification of the Technology Park’s Redevelopment Agreement to allow the Campbell Technology Park to develop for housing could be done concurrently with the relocation of the Corporation Yard to the Technology Park. Staff recommends that the

1. Packet Pg. 6
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 5 of 11 City continue discussions with the Technology Park owner regarding the feasibility of relocating the Corporation Yard to the Technology Park in tandem with the use of both sites for housing. An agreement could include a “land swap” and a discussion of the City’s objectives regarding affordable housing at the Corporation Yard and the onsite and access improvements needed at the Technology Park for relocation of the Corporation Yard.

First Street Parking Garage – Site 3
Staff had earlier recommended the Commission and Council consider the use of the First Street Garage, owned by the City, as a potential Housing Opportunity site. Due to current agreements requiring that parking be maintained at the Garage, a housing project would need to retain the existing parking or the City would need to evaluate other replacement options such as providing r eplacement parking in another location Downtown.

To assess the feasibility of an affordable housing project on the site of the First Street Garage, staff has started high -level/concept discussions with affordable housing developers on feedback on the feasibility of adding affordable housing to the site.

Based on this feedback, this site may or may not continue to be considered as a feasible Housing Opportunity Site.
➢ In Summary, staff is recommending that the City move forward with all Tier 1 Sites as they represent the “best” sites for housing production based on the criteria listed above and Commission and Council direction, and will result in a housing production of approximately 5,600 housing units, which is substantially above the 30% buffer of 3, 300 units. This includes the City owned sites and the Campbell Technology Park , and all of these housing opportunity sites will be studied within the Environmental Impact Report. Based on further feasibility studies and negotiations with the Campbell Tech nology Park property owner, the City Council can later decide if these sites should be included in the final adopted Plan for Housing.

Additional Housing Opportunity Site Issues
At the November and December Council meetings, Councilmembers asked questio ns regarding how Housing Opportunity sites would either allow or be required to have mixed use development and if the designation of higher residential densities may result in housing projects that use density bonus provisions to exceed Campbell’s height limits. These issues are discussed further below.

Mixed-Use
In addition to finalizing the list of Housing Opportunity Sites, staff is requesting the City Council provide feedback on key principles to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development. In considering a mixed -use land use designation, the City Council should consider whether it is appropriate to apply such a

1. Packet Pg. 7
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 6 of 11 requirement as a mandate or as an option for a developer to consider. In practice, imposing a requ irement to redevelop as a mixed -use project may make it more challenging for a site to redevelop for housing or lead to the creation of underutilized/vacant tenant spaces. While the City may explore ways to alleviate such impacts (i.e., limiting the amount , or depth, of commercial area, allowing vertical or horizontal mixed-use development) it is important to first identify sites where such use may be viable.

To facilitate a review of the Housing Opportunity Sites, staff has identified several key principles to help guide locations in the city where mixed -use development may be required:

1. Density: Generally, sites with higher densities [between 45 and 75 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)].

2. Larger Sites: Sites that total over half-an-acre in size.

3. Pedestrian-Oriented: Sites that are within a 10 -minute walking distance to light - rail or located between the Downtown and the Pruneyard.

4. Loss of Service: Sites with commercial services that should be maintained (if existing) or added (in areas where these services are lacking).

Based on the direction provided by the City Council on these principles, staff will return with a list of Housing Opportunity Sites that should be designated for mixed -use development.

Building Height
The City Council has expressed a con cern that higher residential densities could result in new housing projects utilizing state density bonus provisions to exceed the City’s 75 - foot building height limit. To assess the relationship between building height and density, staff evaluated afforda ble housing projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties that developed at the higher densities (See Attachment G – 100% Affordable Housing Projects) which showed average unit sizes in the 400 to 800 square feet range, and developed a simple calculator b ased on that research as illustrated in Table 2. The calculator assumes a lot coverage of 40% and an average unit size of 1,000 square feet for projects with a base density of 30 to 40 du/ac and a lot coverage of 50% and average unit size of 800 square feet for projects with a density of 60 to 75 dwelling units an acre. With these assumptions in place, the model predicts that even projects with a base density of 75 du/ac utilizing a state density bonus of 80% will have a low likelihood of exceeding the City’s 75-foot height limit.

1. Packet Pg. 8
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 7 of 11 Table 2 – Building Heights in Relation to Lot Coverage & Average Unit Size
In addition, there are a variety of tools that can be developed to encourage projects to remain under the 75 -foot height limit such as creating affordab le housing overlays, restrictions on average unit sizes, requiring greater lot coverages, and establishing objective standards.

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH
Property Owner Outreach : As requested by the City Council, staff has reached out to potential oppo rtunity site property owners to gauge their interest in redeveloping in two ways. The first was a virtual outreach meeting for opportunity site property owners that was held on January 5, 2022. The second was an online interest survey. During the Property Owner outreach meeting, staff met with 25 property owners or their representatives to discuss how being a housing opportunity site could affect the use of their property and the activities of their current tenants. Most of the property owners/representatives were interested in redeveloping their properties for housing. In addition, as of January 7 , 2022 , the City has received 31 responses representing 39 properties. Property owner interest is captured in Attachment C – Housing Opportunity Site Data.

Faith-Based Organization Outreach : On January 11, 2022, Councilmember Gibbons and staff held an informational meeting with faith -based organizations at City Hall. Staff provided an overview of Campbell’s Plan for Housing process, Assembly Bill 1851 which may permit housing development projects on religious sites, and an overview of the Below-Market Rate Housing Program. Staff sent a follow -up email requesting faith - based organizations to complete the property -owner survey to indicate their interest in housing redevelopment and provide helpful resources and links to materials. At this time, no additional responses to the survey expressing interest as a housing opportunity site have been received.

School District Outreach : On January 10, 2022, Councilmember G ibbons and the Community Development Director met with the Superintendent of the Moreland School district to discuss the Plan for Housing and potential opportunities for district -owned property to be used as housing opportunity sites. The school district h as indicated that they are not ready to move forward with redevelopment of one of their sites in the next

1. Packet Pg. 9
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 8 of 11 eight years and as such, no school properties have been included as a Housing Opportunity Site.

VTA Outreach & Coordination : Valley Transit Agency ( VTA) has expressed written interest in developing housing at property it owns adjacent to the Winchester light rail station. The station site is identified as Site 168. Site 168 is a Tier 1 site on the recommended Housing Opportunity Site inventory and ha s a recommended density of 75 du/acre. VTA has initiated a public outreach process and created a webpage (https://www.vta.org/winchesterdevelopment) to begin its public outreach process.

There was a virtual community outreach meeting held on January 19, 2022.

Additional Sites Considered
Based on direction from the Planning Commission and City Council, staff considered several sites that were not included in the final inventory (e.g., smaller commerc ial properties fronting on Union/Bascom, properties along Dillon, Gilman, and Railway Avenue). Generally, these sites were screened out due to their small lot size (less than ½ acre), presence of a higher tax -generating use, standing lease agreements, or fragmented ownership interest that would have proven challenging to redevelop.

Despite these sites not making the list, the feedback provided by the Planning Commission and Council on these sites helped staff make refinements to the Housing Opportunity List and include properties where a common owner held multiple adjacent properties.

NEXT STEPS
Changes to Administrative Draft Envision General Plan
When adopted, Campbell’s Plan for Housing will become part of the new General Plan.

To ensure that the new G eneral Plan is internally consistent, the Land Use and Community Design Elements will need to be adjusted to ensure that residential uses are allowed on all of the final Housing Opportunity Sites.

This will be accomplished by either modifying the land use designation on the map or by modifying the written description of the land use categories. Changes to descriptions of the land use categories could include but are not limited to, the allowable uses, residential densities, floor area ratios, and when mix ed use development (residential with ground floor retail and services) will be required.

These changes will be incorporated prior to the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the Updated General Plan. The GPAC’s recommended General Plan Lan d Use Map is include Attachment D.

Affordable Housing Program / Affordable Housing Overlay Zone One of the options being considered by staff to address implementation of the housing plan is the use of an Overlay Zone for affordable housing development. T his would provide an opportunity to proactively incorporate and address provisions of the State’s density bonus provisions into a City program, providing specific direction to housing

1. Packet Pg. 10
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 9 of 11 developers on Campbell’s preference for where and how a density bonus ho using project is developed.

As part of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element update process, the City is considering its current affordable housing programs and how they interface with recent changes to the State’s Density Bonus Program ( Government Code Section 65915 ). The State’s program provides a framework for housing developments to seek a density bonus if a project inc ludes certain baseline affordability requirements. To enable the density bonus, the program also includes the ability for an applicant to seek modifications to certain local development standards through concessions, incentives, or waivers.

Local jurisdictions may adopt an ordinance clarifying local controls that may relate to the state’s process, or they may defer to Gov’t. Code Section 65915. The City of Campbell has established application procedures and parameters for waivers and additional concessions as noted in Zoning Code Chapter 21.20.

The state density bonus program is voluntary for property owners and developers and is not mandated by either the state or the City of Campbell. If a local jurisdiction chooses to supplement the state’s program wi th added incentives or programs, state law does not prohibit this so long as the state law program is still an option to applicants.

Furthermore, the state does not prohibit local jurisdictions from crafting separate competing density bonus programs that may be more appealing to developers.

Current state law allows for up to a 50% density bonus for most projects depending on the level of affordability and up to an 80% density bonus city wide for projects that are completely affordable. For properties with in a half mile of major transit stations, the density bonus increases to “unlimited density” and height increases of three stories or 33 feet over what the City allows as the maximum.

A key component of achieving compatibility between new density bonus pr ojects and adjacent neighborhoods is to have clearly articulated objective standards that direct how new buildings can be designed. This can include both ground level setbacks as well as upper story setbacks from neighboring properties, both of which serve to facilitate transitions between building types. These standards can allow for compatible development between properties by addressing massing and privacy concerns. While density bonus projects can request a number of concessions and waivers of development regulations, they still must comply with most of the City’s development standards. Projects that seek density bonuses under the state’s program are also limited in the number of concessions they may request.

Some cities have also established affordabl e housing overlay zones that prioritize local height limits in exchange for increased density and incentives. Additional incentives could include fee waivers, expedited processing, and infrastructure assistance.

The Overlay Zone could apply to parcels inc luded on the final adopted Housing Opportunity Sites List and Map. The Overlay Zone could also include density and

1. Packet Pg. 11
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 10 of 11 objective design parameters from the approved Housing Element. Staff will be presenting options for potential adoption of an Affordable Housi ng Overlay Zone to the Commission and Council in Spring 2022.

By-Right Housing
The Tier 1 Housing Opportunity Site inventory includes 26 sites that were included in the previous Housing Element (5th -Cycle sites). The location of these 5 th Cycle sites is shown in Attachment E.

State law places several requirements on the re -use of Housing Opportunity sites from a prior Housing Element. To re-use a Housing Opportunity Site from a previous housing element, State law requires the City designate those sites for a minimum density of ‘30 units per acre’ 2 and allow housing to be ‘by -right’ development if at least 20% of the housing units are for lower income households. The City must adopt a program to allow the ‘by-right’ development through a rezoning action (either by amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance and/or amending the City’s Official Zoning Map) within three years of the approval of the Plan for Housing by HCD.

As part of Campbell’s Plan for Housing, staff will explore establishing a housing over lay zone to accomplish “by -right” housing development. This would enable the City to set site-specific development goals/standards for new residential development on those sites.

Options for Rezoning Housing Opportunity Sites
Following the adoption of t he new General Plan and Plan for Housing, zoning amendments to the list of permitted uses and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance will be required to implement the new General Plan. The development and consideration of these amendments are targe ted to begin during 2022 and be completed in 2023. These amendments may include:
• Protections for Existing Uses : Provide criteria to allow existing non -residential land uses to continue to operate as a permitted use that could be modified and expanded until the site redevelops with residential uses. As opposed to the non - residential use becoming a legal non -conforming use. Generally, a legal non - conforming use cannot be modified or expanded. This approach could allow existing non -residential uses to contin ue until the property owner was ready to redevelop with housing.
• Mixed-Use Development: Require mixed-use (residential over retail and services and/or horizontal mixed -use development) in specified areas consistent with the goals, etc. in the updated Gen eral Plan. While this would prevent residential -only projects in an area where the City has determined that mixed use project s are needed, it could also create potential conflicts if at some point in the future, outside factors change and a mixed use development is no longer feasible. 2 Pending confirmation from HCD.

1. Packet Pg. 12
Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles Page 11 of 11 The Plan for Housing Policies and Programs
Following the identification of the preferred Housing Opportunity Sites, the identification of Plan for Housing policy options will become the main focus of this process. These will be presented to the Commission and Council at future meetings. Separately, staff intends to return in February or March to address several outstanding technical items and discuss a list of sites that are identified for mixed-use development.

Prepared by:

Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:

Rob Eastwood, Community
Development Director
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Housing Opportunity Sites
b. Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities
c. Housing Opportunity Site Data
d. Preferred Land Use Map
e. 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites
f. Public Comments
g. Sample 100% Affordable Projects
h. December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes
i. January 5, 2022 - Property Owner Meeting Notes

1. Packet Pg. 13

32 214.2
188
132
49 94.2
119
3 39
31 214.3
214.1
190.2
282
121
191
190.1
22139
36 30
214.4
5 168
179
28 94.193.2
97 192
190.3

93.1 95
244
186
247176
240 248241
174
40 242
180
249
175
20 42
91 89
250
239
34 251243

92.2 48
254
255
45 90
44 92.1
256
246
47 245
41 184
62 257
258 259
50 260
43 261
63 262
182
238
130
185
263
183
37 266
187
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile
Sheet 1 of 6
Central Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
Campbell Tech Park
& City-Owned Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail Stations

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.2 4.2
17 1.1

12.2 94.2
202.1
19 202.2
212.1
136
279
3 219
220
135
21 146
35 276
221
100.3
159
152
212.2
145
278
155
181
56 116
22 25
100.2

4.1 277
170
28 94.193.2
97 93.1
33 95
143.2141
100.1
244
247
142
240 248241
242 249
13 20
154.2
91 89
250
239
251
87 243

92.2 254
255
90 92.1
256
246
154.1
144
245
62 257 258
259
260
261
63 262
238
263
153
266
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile
Sheet 2 of 6
East Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
Campbell Tech Park
& City-Owned Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail Stations

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.2 1.1

12.2 202.1
165
19 202.2
212.1
136
135
21 35
274
159
212.2 181
56 275
116
22 164
139 25
167
170
273
28 33
244 247176
174
249
13 20
91 89
281
251
87 243
255
90 246245
130
37 266
280
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile
Sheet 3 of 6
North Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
Campbell Tech Park
& City-Owned Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail Stations

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 51 204
162
205
197
200
201
203
196
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile
Sheet 4 of 6
Northwest Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
Campbell Tech Park
& City-Owned Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail Stations

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 207
270
269

12.1 268271
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile
Sheet 5 of 6
West Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
Campbell Tech Park
& City-Owned Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail Stations

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 18 209
10 11
723
272218.1
27 218.2
29 218.3

14.2 15

14.116
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile
Sheet 6 of 6
South Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
Campbell Tech Park
& City-Owned Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail Stations

1.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 186
247176
240 241
174
40 242
180
249
175
20 42
89 250
239
34 251
243

92.2 48
254
255
45 90
44 92.1
256
246
47 245
41 184
62 257
258
259
50 260
43 261
63 182
238
130
185
97 183
37 266
187
32 214.2
188
132
49 94.2
119
3 39
31 214.3
214.1
190.2
282
121
191
190.1
22139
36 30
214.4
5 168
179
28 94.1

93.2 97
192
190.3

93.1 95
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile
Sheet 1 of 6
Central Campbell
Density (du/ac)
20 30
45 60
75 Tier II Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail
Stations

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 244

94.2 247
142
248241
242
249
20 154.2
89 250
239
87 243 90

92.1 256
246
154.1
144
245
62 257 258
259
260
261
63 238
153
97 266
143.2
17 1.1

12.2 94.2
202.1
19 202.2
212.1
136
279
3 219
220
135
21 146
35 276
221
100.3
159
152
212.2
145
278
155
181
56 116
22 25
100.2

4.1 277
170
28 94.1

93.297 93.1
33 95
143.2141
100.1

1.2 4.2
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile
Sheet 2 of 6
East Campbell
Density (du/ac)
20 30
45 60
75 Tier II Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail
Stations

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 247176
174 249
20 91
89 281
87 243 90
246245
130
37 266
280

1.1 12.2
202.1
165
19 202.2
212.1
136
135
21 35
274
159
212.2 181
56 275
116
22 164
139 25
167
170
273
28 33

1.2 City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile
Sheet 3 of 6
North Campbell
Density (du/ac)
20 30
45 60
75 Tier II Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail
Stations

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 200
201
203
196
51 204
162
205
197
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile
Sheet 4 of 6
Northwest Campbell
Density (du/ac)
20 30
45 60
75 Tier II Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail
Stations

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 268271
207
270
269

12.1 City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile
Sheet 5 of 6
West Campbell
Density (du/ac)
20 30
45 60
75 Tier II Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail
Stations

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

14.2 15

14.116
18 209
10 11
723
272218.1
27 218.2
29 218.3
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommended Housing Opportunity Sites
0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile
Sheet 6 of 6
South Campbell
Density (du/ac)
20 30
45 60
75 Tier II Sites
City Boundary
Light Rail
Stations

1.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Sites - Target Densities (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Site No
APN
Address
Max.

8.61 PruneYard Center Offices
6 Yes
Yes
6 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
4 28824059
1980 HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
30 1.00
30 6.14
First Congregational Church of San Jose
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 0
1 1
1 4
5 30536012
2365 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 1.00
75 3.80
Safeway
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
7 40619036
700 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6814
20 0.51
10 Y
Vacant Lot
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
10 40622007
3303 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6813
30 0.92
28 Y
car repair center (4 shops)
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 1
1 4
11 40622053
3375 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845
30 0.57
17 Y
car repair center (2 shops)
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 0
1 3

12.1 40401031
60 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2515
45 0.82
37 Y
Goodwill store
2 No
Yes
5 No
1 0
1 0
1 3

12.2 27933009
210 HARRISON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1410
45 0.66
30 Y
Bill Hamilton Roofing
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
17 28804028
1875 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2310
60 1.00
60 15.85
Bank of America (SE corner of PruneYard property)
6 Yes
Yes
2 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
18 40616041
1226 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
20 0.20
4 Y
Single-family residence near Burrows and Hacienda
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
19 27946011
621 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2126
45 0.64
29 Y
Harmony Birth Resources
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
21 27946012
621 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2126
45 0.95
43 Y
Personal Service Commercial at Campbell and Poplar
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
22 27943055
471 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2128
45 0.67
30 Y
Strip Commercial (Campbell Liquors & Deli)
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
23 40616042
1216 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6322
20 0.51
10 Y
Single-family residence near Burrows and Hacienda
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 1
1 4
25 27946049
573 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2103
45 0.12
5 Y
Paul Arnold Construction, Inc.
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
0 0
1 1
1 3
27 40316096
1265 BURROWS RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6301
20 0.59
12 Y
Single-family residence at SW Hacienda and Burrows
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 1
1 4
28 27943020
56 FOOTE ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2115
45 1.41
64 Y
Strip commercial at Campbell between Foote and Page
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
29 40616083
1236 HACIENDA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6322
20 0.31
6 Y
Single-family residence at SE Hacienda and Burrows
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
30 41202001
2470 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4807
75 0.61
46 Y
Two story retail (insurance , enterprise rent-a-car)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 0
1 1
0 3
31 41202006
2290 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3429
45 0.62
28 Y
Valley TMJ Center Single storey corner retail
6 Yes
No
1 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
32 41202032
2460 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 2.39
179
Y
Retail (summerwinds Nursery)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
0 3
33 27946048
579 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2103
45 0.12
6 Y
GKI Construction & Development
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
0 0
1 1
1 3
35 27933052
500 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0210
75 1.87
140
Y
Staples
6 Yes
No
1 No
1 1
1 1
0 4
36 41204016
2240 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424
45 0.15
7 Y
Coach's restaurant corner lot
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
39 41205047
2120 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.33
15 Y
Firestone Complete Auto Care Tire Shop corner lot
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
49 40407033
320 VIRGINIA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3910
20 2.17
43 Y
San Jose Water Company Parcel
2 No
Yes
1 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
51 30739037
700 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403
60 3.90
234
Y
Three story retail/office building (American Barbell Club) 2 No
No
4 No
1 1
0 0
1 3
56 27935002
262 - 282 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0238
60 3.58
215
Y
Single story commercial center
4 No
No
1 No
1 1
0 0
1 3

93.1 41209040
136 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.28
21 Y
Vacant lot
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 1
1 0
1 3

93.2 41209041
130 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.29
21 Y
K.C Customs, Inc. construction company and others
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4

94.1 41209042
100 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.28
21 Y
Single story residentail? commetcial at the back
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4

94.2 41209043
90 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.21
16 Y
Single Family home or office
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
95 41209044
80 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3013
75 0.36
27 Y
1-Story Light Industrial (Pacific systems)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 1
1 3
97 41209058
140 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.21
16 Y
Commercial use
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
100.1
41210042
2029 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203
60 0.73
44 Y
Shell Gas Station
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 1
1 1
0 4
100.2
41210062
980 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2303
60 0.91
55 Y
The Original Hick'ry pit
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
100.3
41210063
2045 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203
60 0.76
45 Y
Montebello Road Vintage Oddities retail store.
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
116
28224011
1475 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0624
60 3.54
213
Y
Creekside Business Center
6 Yes
No
2 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
119
41204014
2260 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424
45 0.51
23 Y
Car wash, corner of Winchester and Kennedy
6 Yes
No
1 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
121
30536013
2375 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 0.50
38 1.57
Retail Stripmall (Goodwill, Bank of the West)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
135
28225001
971 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614
75 1.14
86 Y
Confidance Landscaping
6 Yes
No
3 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
136
28225002
877 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614
75 1.20
90 Y
Advanced Home improvements
6 Yes
No
3 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
139
27938087
45 3RD ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
45 0.20
9 0.64
Stacks Campbell corner lot
6 Yes
No
3 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
141
28802011
1661 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605
60 0.56
33 y
BTM motors and pet care
6 Yes
Yes
2 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
143.2
28802018
1657 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605
60 0.35
21 Y
Reed Animal Hospital
6 Yes
Yes
2 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
145
28802030
1777 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0635
60 1.34
80 Y
Retail strip mall, Metro PCS, Erik's Deli café, the Garrett 6 Yes
Yes
2 No
1 1
1 0
0 3
146
28803015
1825 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2309
60 0.64
38 Y
Sherwin-William Paints
6 Yes
Yes
2 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
152
28808073
2060 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3207
45 1.11
50 Y
Denny's Corner lot
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
155
28809096
1970 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2307
45 0.50
23 Y
Philz Coffee
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
159
27930051
499 E HAMILTON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0208
75 1.23
92 Y
Vacant site (Elephant Bar site)
6 Yes
No
3 No
1 1
1 1
1 5
162
30517017
251 LLEWELLYN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1940
20 5.54
111
Y
Uplift Family Services (non-profit)
2 No
No
4 No
1 1
0 1
1 4
164
30521003
60 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505
60 1.21
73 Y
Wells Fargo Bank
2 No
No
3 No
1 1
0 0
1 3
165
30521012
1769 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107
60 1.50
90 2.76
The Home Church / Strip mall w. large parking lot
2 No
No
3 No
1 1
0 1
1 4
167
30521022
1763 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1107
60 1.50
90 3.49
The Home Church / Strip mall w. large parking lot
2 No
No
3 No
1 1
0 1
1 4
168
41202003
2400 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 1.50
113

1.60 Winchester Light Rail Station
6 Yes
No
1 No
1 1
1 1
1 5
170
27931006
525 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0211
45 1.49
67 5.59
Kohls (rear parking lot)
6 Yes
No
3 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
179
30533017
54 W RINCON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2808
20 0.18
4 y
"54 Rincon" site
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
181
27932006
535 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1400
45 0.79
36 Y
Single story retail (Contract flooring)
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
188
30534006
2325 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4058
45 0.54
24 Y
strip mall, corner lot (El Greco Grill restaurant, retail, 7-11) 6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
190.1
30536004
2507 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-5311
75 1.56
117

1.56 Single story retail (small theatre, salon, laundromat) 6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
190.2
30536005
2523 S WINCHESTER BL, #A-#G CAMPBELL, CA 95008-5337
75 0.70
52 Y
Single story retail (salon, ATM, beauty supplies)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
190.3
30539050
2565 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 1.73
129
Y
Single story retail (Campbell motors, auto shops)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
191
30536008
2415 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4801
75 1.00
75 3.27
Retail Stripmall (Dollar Tree, Luigi's Pizza and Pasta) 6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 1
1 0
1 4
192
30536011
2345 WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 0.31
23 Y
Corner single storey retail (liquor store, smoke shop)
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
197
30739030
750 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403
60 0.70
42 Y
US Bank
2 No
No
4 No
1 0
0 1
1 3
202.1
27932010
600 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0233
75 3.87
290
Y
Former Fry's site
6 Yes
No
4 No
1 1
1 1
0 4
202.2
27932012
600 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0233
75 3.41
256
Y
Former Fry's site
6 Yes
No
5 No
1 1
1 1
0 4
204
30740040
816 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404
60 1.04
62 Y
Single story retail (Oakmont Produce)
2 No
No
4 No
1 1
0 0
1 3
205
30740041
780 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404
60 0.91
55 Y
Single story retail (Oakmont Produce)
2 No
No
4 No
1 1
0 0
1 3
207
30750083
100 N SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1620
60 1.60
96 9.22
Dollar Tree Shopping Center
2 No
No
5 No
1 1
0 0
1 3
209
40310070
1440 ELAM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
20 2.15
43 Y
Vacant Lot on Elam west of Smith Creek
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
Att C - Housing Opportunity Site Data
Tier 1 Sites

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Site Data (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Site No
APN
Address
Max.

Density
Acres
Units
Use All of
Site?
(total site
ac)
Common name
AFFH
Score
1/2 mi.
from LR
Highest
Opportu
nity Area
(TCAC)
Map
sheet
number
Reuse
>0.5 ac
Yield
50+
Units
Good
Location
Property
Owner
Interest
Not
Displacing
Sales Tax
Top 100
Total
Number
212.1
27933007
479 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1413
45 0.94
42 Y
Light industrial/Retail (Quality First Home improvement) 6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
212.2
27933008
423 SALMAR AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1413
45 0.77
35 Y
Screen Solutions + Fastenal store
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
218.1
40606009
1200 SMITH AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4558
20 0.12
2 Y
Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
218.2
40606093
900 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422
20 0.12
2 Y
Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
218.3
40606007
920 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422
20 0.25
5 Y
Part of Milk Farm assemblage of parcels
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
219
28802007
1627 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605
60 0.23
14 Y
Sherry Hand Yoga
6 Yes
Yes
2 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
220
28802009
1645 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0630
60 0.35
21 Y
Retail strip (Ethnic foods and personal service)
6 Yes
Yes
2 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
221
28802008
1639 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605
60 0.32
19 Y
Retail strip (Ethnic foods and personal service)
6 Yes
Yes
1 Yes
1 0
1 0
1 3
269
40401004
1380 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1615
45 0.46
21 Y
Round Table Pizza
2 No
Yes
5 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
270
40401036
1400 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2652
45 0.59
27 Y
L&L Hawaiian BBQ
2 No
Yes
5 No
1 0
1 0
1 3
272
40606006
930 S SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4422
20 0.26
5 Y
SFR south of Milk Farm Dairy
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
273
27937007
1750 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1108
60 0.27
16 Y
Orale Baja Mex
2 No
No
3 No
1 0
0 1
1 3
274
27937008
1740 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1108
60 0.21
13 Y
BackAYard Caribbean Grill
2 No
No
3 No
1 0
0 1
1 3
275
27937009
1708 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1108
60 0.14
8 Y
Russian Café & Deli
2 No
No
3 No
1 0
0 1
1 3
276
28808053
2050 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3270
45 0.34
15 Y
1-story service (cleaners - Haze)
2 No
Yes
2 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
277
28808079
2020 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3269
45 0.33
15 Y
1-Story health office
2 No
Yes
2 No
0 0
1 1
1 3
278
41210044
2075 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203
60 0.21
13 Y
Brady's Drum Studio
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 0
1 1
1 4
279
41210045
2089 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3203
60 0.72
43 Y
1 story commercial center
2 No
Yes
2 No
1 0
1 1
1 4
282
41204017
32 SUNNYSIDE AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4117
45 0.10
5 Y
Parking Lot for Coach's (Site 36)
6 Yes
No
No
0 0
0 0
1 3
4,781

1 3
41207019
S 1ST ST, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0029
75 1.34
100
Y
First Street Garage
6 Yes
No
1 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
132
41208072
290 DILLON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 2.76
207
y
Corp Yard
6 Yes
No
1 No
1 1
1 0
1 4
214.1
41229011
675 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008
30 4.98
150
Y
Campbell Technology Park (Dasher)
4 Yes
Yes
1 No
1 1
1 1
0 4
214.2
41229010
695 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008
30 3.74
112
Y
Campbell Technology Park
4 Yes
Yes
1 No
1 1
1 1
1 5
214.3
41229015
635 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008
30 3.75
113
Y
Campbell Technology Park
4 Yes
Yes
1 No
1 1
1 1
1 5
214.4
41229012
655 CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK PY, CAMPBELL, CA, 95008
30 4.90
147
Y
Campbell Technology Park
4 Yes
Yes
1 No
1 1
1 1
1 5
829
1 Att C - Housing Opportunity Site Data
Tier 1 Sites

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Site Data (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Site No
APN
Address
Max.

14.2 40622063
3245 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845
30 0.23
7 Y
Unoccuppied building)
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
15 40622057
3275 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845
30 0.60
18 Y
Automobile repair and Used car sales
2 No
Yes
6 No
1 0
1 0
0 2
16 40622062
3265 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6845
30 0.22
7 Y
Veterinary hospital
2 No
Yes
6 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
50 40407032
No Address Number VIRGINIA AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2702 20 0.30
6 Y
Vacant parcel south of San Jose Water Company parcel
2 No
Yes
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
87 28225003
871 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0614
75 0.24
18 Y
Classic Car Wash Corporate office
6 Yes
No
3 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
153
28809017
1980 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2307
45 0.47
21 Y
US Bank corner lot
2 No
Yes
2 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
20 27946050
565 E CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2103
45 0.13
6 Y
Rage Salon
6 Yes
No
3 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
34 41204015
2250 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3424
45 0.26
12 Y
California Wheels autostore, retail
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
37 41205033
2006 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3400
45 0.36
16 Y
dry cleaners, subway, psycho donuts corner retail
6 Yes
No
3 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
40 41205048
2110 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.19
9 0.34
VCA Winchester Animal Hospital
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
41 41205049
2100 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.16
7 Y
Slabsides (Motorcycle retail store)
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
42 41205050
2096 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.09
4 Y
Crossfit Standard Strength Gym.
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
43 41205051
2092 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.05
2 Y
vacant lot used as parking
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
44 41205052
2082 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.06
3 Y
Copy Co. Retail
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
45 41205053
2066 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3427
45 0.20
9 Y
Euro Garage (Automobile services) corner lot
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
47 41205070
38 E RINCON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2917
45 0.27
12 Y
single story retail (Rincon automative)
6 Yes
No
4 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
48 41205071
2140 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3422
45 0.28
13 Y
Rotton Robbie gas station retail
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
62 41208047
176 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.40
30 Y
Pacific Helix Distributing concrete Contractor
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
63 41208048
150 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3006
75 0.48
36 Y
Strong Bodies fitness, gymnasium
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
89 41209032
57 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005
75 0.10
7 Y
Single family home
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
90 41209033
63 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005
75 0.19
14 Y
Single family home
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
91 41209034
71 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005
75 0.29
22 Y
1-story light industrial
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2

92.1 41209035
85 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005
75 0.18
14 Y
Two story warehouse
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2

92.2 41209036
101 GILMAN AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3005
75 0.19
14 Y
Single story warehouse Commercial
6 Yes
No
1 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
130
41205032
2026 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3420
45 0.37
17 Y
Blue Sky restaurant
6 Yes
No
3 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
142
28802012
1667 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0605
60 0.33
20 Y
Pacific Hand car wash
6 Yes
Yes
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
154.1
28809056
1960 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2306
45 0.28
13 Y
Taco Bravo restaurant
4 No
Yes
2 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
154.2
28809057
1940 S BASCOM AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2306
45 0.36
16 Y
Weinerschnitzel restaurant
6 Yes
Yes
2 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
174
30531051
2053 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419
45 0.17
8 Y
strip center (hair salon, printing)
6 Yes
No
3 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
175
30531053
2065 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419
45 0.19
8 Y
Salon (Retail)
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
176
30531069
2015 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3419
45 0.53
24 Y
ARCO gas station + Campbell Corner Store
6 Yes
No
3 No
1 0
1 0
0 2
180
30533024
20 MISSION WY, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-2817
45 0.34
15 y
SFH residence
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
182
30533025
2175 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3425
45 0.47
21 Y
Corner retail (CZ Glass / restaurant / barber/salon)
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
183
30533061
2195 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3428
45 0.22
10 Y
Camelot / Viking Appliance Repair service (corner lot ) 6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
184
30533081
2235 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3436
45 0.40
18 Y
Retail strip mall (barber, cobbler, drapery, cleaners)
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
185
30533098
2205 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3428
45 0.23
10 Y
Rxclusive high road to health (temporarily closed)
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
186
30534001
2245 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3436
45 0.37
17 Y
Dairy Queen restaurant, corner lot
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
187
30534002
2265 S WINCHESTER BL, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3426
45 0.27
12 Y
Haley Pastry, retail shop
6 Yes
No
1 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
196
30739028
770 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0403
60 0.69
42 Y
Social Security Administration
2 No
No
4 No
1 0
0 0
1 2
200
30740037
450 MARATHON DR, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0918
60 0.77
46 Y
single story medical offices (chiropractor, Sarah's care) 2 No
No
4 No
1 0
0 0
1 2
201
30740038
890 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0457
60 0.53
32 Y
City Pizza, Subway Sandwiches, Smoke Shope, etc
2 No
No
4 No
1 0
0 0
1 2
203
30740039
850 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0404
60 1.92
115
Y
Petsmart
2 No
No
5 No
1 1
0 0
0 2
238
41209001
116 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.19
14 Y
Roadsport (Car Dealer)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
239
41209002
90 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.19
14 Y
1 Story light industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
240
41209003
86 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.21
16 Y
Academy of Fencing Masters
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
241
41209004
70 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.09
7 Y
1-story residence with parking in rear
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
242
41209005
64 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.18
14 Y
Auto repair and single family
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
243
41209006
48 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.09
7 Y
Vacant site
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
244
41209007
40 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.10
8 Y
Parking for Float Station (?)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
245
41209008
36 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.10
8 Y
Float Station (Health Spa)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
246
41209009
20 RAILWAY AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3007
75 0.19
14 Y
Roadsport (Car Dealer)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
247
41209028
24 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.30
23 Y
Vacant lot
6 Yes
No
2 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
248
41209025
74 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.20
15 Y
1-story light industrial (Auto shop/parking?)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
249
41209013
35 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.10
8 Y
1-story professional service
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
250
41209020
139 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.25
19 Y
Collection of retail and office
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
251
41209027
34 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.22
17 Y
Single family residence
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
254
41209016
89 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.22
17 Y
Digistor (1-story light industrial)
6 Yes
No
2?
Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
255
41209014
61 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.31
23 Y
Kirk's Mini Storage
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
256
41209019
131 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.15
11 Y
1-story light industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
257
41209057
457 SAM CAVA LN, CAMPBELL, CA 95008
75 0.14
11 Y
Plants by POST
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
258
41209023
126 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.39
29 Y
1-storyLight Industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
259
41209024
88 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.21
16 Y
Bay Mountain Air (1-story light industrial)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
260
41209022
132 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.14
11 Y
1-story light industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
261
41209017
103 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.10
8 Y
1-story light industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
262
41209026
60 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3002
75 0.20
15 Y
1-story light industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
263
41209018
111 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.21
16 Y
Performance Technologies (1-story light industrial)
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
266
41209015
75 DILLON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-3001
75 0.19
14 Y
1-Story Light Industrial
6 Yes
No
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
1 2
271
40401035
1470 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1615
45 0.49
22 Y
Unoccuppied building (1-story Bank - for sale)
2 No
Yes
5 No
0 0
1 0
1 2
280
30521001
100 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505
60 0.65
39 Y
California Food Mart
2 No
No
3 No
1 0
0 0
1 2
281
30521002
70 W HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0505
60 0.61
37 Y
PNC Bank
2 No
No
3 No
1 0
0 0
1 2
144
28802029
980 E HAMILTON AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-0615
60 0.41
25 Y
America's Tire
6 Yes
Yes
2 Yes
0 0
1 0
0 1
268
40401002
1450 W CAMPBELL AV, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1615
45 0.32
14 Y
Jack in the Box
2 No
Yes
5 No
0 0
1 0
0 1
Attachment C
Tier 2 Sites

1.1.c
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Housing Opportunity Site Data (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) UV85
UV 17
UV17
UV85
Doyle Rd
Foxworthy Ave
Bascom
Ave
Eden Ave
Westmont Ave
Stokes St
Latimer Ave
Knowles Dr Camden Ave
Hacienda Ave
DryCre ek Rd
Darryl Dr
Budd Ave
Central Ave
Ross Ave
Potrero Dr
Woodard Rd
SaratogaAve
3Rd St
Vallejo Dr
Bucknall Rd
Mc Glincey Ln
Rincon Ave
Hurst Ave
Grimsby Dr
Harris Ave
Dell Ave
Curtner Ave
Capri Dr
Alm
arida Dr
Central ParkDr
White OaksAve
Phelps Ave
M
idwaySt
Union Ave
Virginia Ave
DelM
arAve
New
JerseyAve
Boynton Ave
W
eston Dr
1St St
RobinLn
Vanderbilt Dr
W
hite O
aks Rd
SanTom
asAquino
Rd
Sobrato
Dr
Theresa Ave
Harrison
Ave
North lawnDr
Elwood Dr
EnsenadaDr
Topaz Ave
Linda Dr
LantzAve
Erin
W
ay
Dallas Dr
Sal m
arAve
Paz
Em
ory Ave
Sunnyoaks Ave
Southwest Expy
Quito Rd

S A R A T O G AS A R A T O G A

L O S G A T O SL O S G A T O S

S A N J O S ES A N J O S E

CITY OF CAMPBELL

GENERAL 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
LosGatosCreek
SanTomas Aquinas C reek
LosGatos Creek
LosGatosCreek
Hamilton Avenue Corridor
These two areas changed from General
Commercial to Residential/Commercial/
Professional Office.

Camden and Winchester Blvd. Corridors
These areas changed from General
Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial.

South of Campbell Avenue
This area changed from Commercial/High-Medium
Density Residential to Residential/ Commercial/
Professional Office (RCPO). The Commercial/
High-Medium Density Residential designation has
been eliminated due to its similarity and redundancy
with the RCPO designation.

Bascom Avenue Corridor - West
This area changed from General Commercial
to Residential/Commercial/Professional Office.

Bascom Avenue Corridor - East
This area changed from
General Commercial to
Neighborhood Commercial.
³
0 1,000500
Feet
1:24,000
Sources: City of Campbell; Santa Clara
County. Map date: January 14, 2020.

Hamilton Avenue Specific Plan Overlay
This area has been identified for a future specific
plan to allow for mixed-use, high density residential
development. The specific plan would address
connectivity and access to the VTA station east of
SR 17, address infrastructure financing strategies
and requirements, design and land use, etc.

1.1.d
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Preferred Land Use Map (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 32 188

94.2 190.2
121
191
190.1
22 30
5 28

94.193.2
97 192
190.3

93.1 95
244
240 248241
242
249
20 91 89
250
239
251243

92.2 254
255 90

92.1 256
246
245
62 257
258
259
260
261
63 262
238 263
266
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse
0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile
Sheet 1 of 6
Central Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
City Boundary Light Rail Stations

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

12.2 94.2
19 212.1
219
220
21 221
212.2 181
22 25
28 94.1

93.297 93.1
33 95
143.2141
244
142
240 248241
242 249
20 91
89 250
239
251243

92.2 254
255
90 92.1
256
246
144
245
62 257
258
259
260
261
63 262
238263
266
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse
0 0.13 0.260.07 Mile
Sheet 2 of 6
East Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
City Boundary Light Rail Stations

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

12.2 19
212.1
21 212.2 181
22 25
28 33
244
249
20 91
89 251243 255 90
246245
266
City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse
0 0.11 0.220.06 Mile
Sheet 3 of 6
North Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
City Boundary Light Rail Stations

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse
0 0.07 0.140.03 Mile
Sheet 4 of 6
Northwest Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
City Boundary Light Rail Stations

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse
0 0.09 0.180.04 Mile
Sheet 5 of 6
West Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
City Boundary Light Rail Stations

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) City of Campbell
6th Cycle Housing Element
5th Cycle Sites Recommended for Reuse
0 0.2 0.40.1 Mile
Sheet 6 of 6
South Campbell
Tier 1 Sites
Tier 2 Sites
City Boundary Light Rail Stations

1.1.e
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: 5th Cycle Housing Element Re-use Sites (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
From: C2
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:07 PM
To: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

My name is Carin Powell, and I'm a homeowner in the Union neighborhood in Campbell. Re: agenda item number one, I want to voice my strong support in favor of high density affordable housing at every possible opportunity for Campbell.

Shutting our doors by keeping prices high and making development and construction so difficult doesn't maintain our neighborhood character, because a central part of Campbell's character for most of its history was that orchard workers could afford to live here. They can't anymore because we stopped developing and raised rents, and it's crucial that we move forward with high density affordable housing so that workers of all incomes can live here again. Thank you for your time.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

From: Wes Moots
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:38 PM
To: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

Good evening,

My spouse and I started our marriage with our first apartment in Campbell. We loved the community and all it had to offer.

However, as the cost of living continued to rise we were forced to leave. We often discuss how much we wish we could have stayed.

Warmest regards,
Wes Moots

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Christy Basile
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:50 PM
To: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

To whom it may concern:

My name is Christine Moots. I am a former Campbell resident. Sadly due to the continuous rise in rent in Campbell, my spouse and I had to move out of Campbell. While I would like to one day move back to Campbell, until there is more affordable housing options that will not be possible.

I hope that the Planning Commission really takes into consideration some affordable housing options in the near future.

Campbell holds a special place in my heart and I would like to share that with others in our community. With more affordable housing
comes more opportunities for people to create more memories and strengthen the community.

Warmest regards,
Christine Moots

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: allen ishibashi
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:15 AM
To: Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose
Subject: 11/9/21 Housing Study Session
Rob and Stephen,
It took a while, but I got through all the material for tonight's study session and I wanted to let you both know that I think you did an excellent job on the staff report, and associated materials. I really like Option #3 and I think it makes the most econo
mic 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 In
ventory 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 par k 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 willi ng 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From:

To: Liz Gibbons; Paul Resnikoff; Anne Bybee; Susan M. Landry; Sergio Lopez Cc: Campbell City Managers Office; Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose Subject: 100% Affordable Housing Site in Campbell
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:40:25 AM
Attachments: Site Map.pdf
Mayor and Council Members,

My name is Allen Ishibashi, I live in Campbell, and I attended the Study Session last night.

Based on the study session, I understand that a 100% affordable housing development would be very helpful in meeting our next RHNA allocation and there appears to be strong Council support 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 well grounded. 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 have worked 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 (masters project 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). A map 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 be structurally 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 creative as 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 the parking garage (Redevelopment did a deal like this in San Jose).

2. County has $800 million for the development of 100% affordable rental properties under 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 the major issues with 100% affordable developments (under-parked).

4. Depending on the structure of the deal, the City could make $6-$10 million on the sale.

5. The location could not be better, as it is adjacent to the light rail station and in a very walkable area.

6. The location would allow a very dense development and it would shadow to the north 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 did this on the Los Altos deal I am doing with the County).

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

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
[email protected]

If interested, I am willing to volunteer any time required to discuss this proposal and to help in any way that I can.

Thank you
Allen Ishibashi

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

Mark Loper
[email protected]

January 5, 2022

Delivered Via Email ([email protected])

City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA
Attn: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner

Re: Administrative Draft Envision Campbell General Plan Update and Housing Opportunity Sites Selection
Our File No.: 12178.01

Dear Mr. Rose,

Our office represents the owner of the property at 2060 South Bascom Avenue in Campbell (the “Property”). We are aware that the City of Campbell (“City”) is undergoing a periodic update to its General Plan, including its Housing Element , and will be proposing a significant rezoning effort to implement the General Plan and Housing Element update. We write to request that the Property be removed from the list of Housing Opportunity Sites, and not be studied in the upcoming Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Element update.

According to the staff report from the December 16, 2021 City Council hearing, among the criteria used to remove certain properties from the preliminary list of Housing Opportunity Sites is that the site is unlikely to be redeveloped during the next eight-year Housing Element cycle. The owner of the Property is a national commercial landowner and not a residential developer, and it has no intention over the next eight years to redevelop the Property as a residential or mixed-use building with upper story residential, or to sell it.

Also, when compared to other properties on the “Refined” Housing Opportunity Sites list included in the December 16 City Council hearing packet , it is also a less desirable location for multifamily housing. It backs up to a single-family neighborhood along Arroyo Seco Drive and El Soloyo Avenue , which can lead to project opposition, CEQA challenges, and potentially reductions in height and massing (and unit count) to address neighborhood opposition and/or Commission or City Council feedback.
i It appears to be more distant than any other site in the Bascom Avenue region from the two closest Light Rail stations, except for two parking lots on East Hamilton . According to the City’s “fair housing criteria” for Opportunity S ites, t ransit accessibility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and single -person vehicle trips is a key consideration for the location of multifamily housing.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
City of Campbell
January 5, 2022

Page 2 ends

Z:\Shared\R&A\1217801\Correspondence\Ltr. - Campbell - 2060 S. Bascom and Housing Opportunity Inventory (1-5-2022).docx Additionally, among the factors that were used to reduce the preliminary list of Housing Opportunity Sites is whether a site includes an existing development proposal not involving residential uses. As staff may be aware, the Property was the subject of a Conditional Use Permit request to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new fast-food restaurant. That project was approved by the Planning Commission but denied on appeal at the City Council. The Property owner has been actively marketing the Property to prospective retail tenants since then, including identifying one potential tenant who was informed by City staff that its retail food sale business would not be permitted under the current zoning. Due to the pandemic, commercial leasing activity has slowed down significantly. The Property owner remains committed to a viable commercial redevelopment of the Property.

Finally, to the extent the site is included in the final Housing Opportunity Site inventory that is studied in the Housing Element EIR, we request that subsequent zoning provide commercial property owners with the flexibility to maintain commercial-only developments in the future and not require a mixed-use development with residential use.

Thank you for your attention, and I’m happy to discuss our request further.

Sincerely,

REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP

Mark Loper

cc:

Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director ([email protected])

i Although the Housing Accountability Act and SB 330 generally prohibit jurisdictions from denying or reducing the number of units of a code-compliant project absent narrow grounds, CEQA challenges still provide an effective tool to reduce the size of, delay, or effectively deny housing projects by requiring environmental review to be redone.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
To: Rob Eastwood
Cc: Andrea Sanders
Subject: RE: City of Campbell Owner's Survey Response // E. Barbano Enterprises LLC // Cannery Place Proposal
From: Dennis Randall <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 5:44 PM
To: Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>; Brian Loventhal <[email protected]> Cc: John Pringle <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City of Campbell Owner's Survey Response // E. Barbano Enterprises LLC // Cannery Place Proposal

WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

To follow up, can you please forward our development proposal to the planning commission?

Best,

Dennis

Dennis Randall
C 650.245.1422
O 408.359.4452

Sent via mobile device.

From: Dennis Randall
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:10:34 PM
To: Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>; Brian Loventhal <[email protected]> Cc: John Pringle <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Campbell Owner's Survey Response // E. Barbano Enterprises LLC // Cannery Place Proposal

Dear Rob and Brian;

Our Client, Mr. Steve Sordello, the owner’s representative for E. Barbano Enterprises LLC, just informed us of a request by the City to him via email “a few weeks ago.”

Today, at his request, we have made the appropriate response for the site known as “The Hick’ry Pit” which also includes the Shell station and Montebello on the City’s website.

In future. please add myself and John Pringle as the Authorized Representatives for this site until you receive written notice from Mr. Sordello cancelling such representation.

If you require a specific form for this determination please forward so that we can have the executed by Mr.

Sordello in the proper form and manner.

He is an executive at a large technology firm and is therefore very busy and he can miss such notices.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 2 Thank you very much for your attention and congratulations on running such an effective effort to address the housing needs of the City of Campbell.

Kindest regards,

Dennis

PS. I have again attached our Cannery Place development proposal for your reference.

Dennis Randall
President | Acquity Realty, Inc.
333 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 810 | San Jose, CA 95113
+1 650 245 1422 (m)
[email protected]

Attention: This e-mail transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential; and if you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure or use of any of the information contained herein, or attached hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender and delete the message and its attachments. Thank you.

From: Sergio Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:15 PM
To: Dennis Randall <[email protected]>; Rob Eastwood <[email protected]> Cc: Brian Loventhal <[email protected]>
Subject: Dennis (Acquity Realty) <> Rob Eastwood (Campbell Community Development Director)

Hello — I am writing to connect Dennis Randall of Acquity Realty with Rob Eastwood, Campbell's new Community Development Director. Dennis and his company previously brought forth a project and it sounds like connecting may be appropriate given changes in leadership with City staff. Let me know if there is anything else you need from me — thank you!

Sergio Lopez
Councilmember
City of Campbell
(408) 660-0547

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Christine Andris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose
Cc: Francis Jeff
Subject: RE: Housing Element - Campbell
Hello Rob and Stephen,

We have a commercial property at Leigh and Hamilton in Campbell (1500 E Hamilton Avenue) that we’d like to have added to the “Housing” list.

Please let me know the process and the deadlines to get on the list.

Thank you,

Christine Andris
Senior Portfolio Manager

MCM Diversified, Inc.
777 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95112
Direct 408.288.3414 Main 408.288.2400
[email protected]

From: Christine Andris <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:01 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element ‐ Campbell

Hi Rob,

We’re interested in getting more information about the “Housing Update” for commercial properties, in Campbell.

We have two properties that we may like to have added to the list.

Would you please let me know what the process is.

Thank you,

Christine Andris
Senior
Portfolio Manager

MCM Diversified, Inc.
777 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95112
Direct 408.288.3414 Main 408.288.2400
[email protected]

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From: C2
To: Planning Division
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:06:56 PM
My name is Carin Powell, and I'm a homeowner in the Union neighborhood in Campbell. Re:
agenda item number one, I want to voice my strong support in favor of high density affordable housing at every possible opportunity for Campbell. Shutting our doors by keeping prices high and making development and construction so difficult doesn't maintain our neighborhood character, because a central part of Campbell's character for most of its history was that orchard workers could afford to live here. They can't anymore because we stopped developing and raised rents, and it's crucial that we move forward with high density affordable housing so that workers of all incomes can live here again. Thank you for your time.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From: Wes Moots
To: Planning Division
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:38:08 PM
Good evening,
My spouse and I started our marriage with our first apartment in Campbell. We loved the community and all it had to offer.

However, as the cost of living continued to rise we were forced to leave. We often discuss how much we wish we could have stayed.

Warmest regards,
Wes Moots

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Bill Baron <[email protected]>
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:

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Dean J. Rubinson <[email protected]>
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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Joe Burman <[email protected]>
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:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Campbell's Plan for Housing

View this email in your browser

Campbell's Plan for Housing

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Hotel Parcel
Retail Parcel
Office Parcel
Housing
Opportunity
Site 1
Housing
Opportunity
Site 2

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From:

To: Planning Division
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: PLN-2021–12
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:52:22 AM
Commissioners,
For decades, my husband’s grandparents lived on Second and Grant, and Grandpa Field owned and operated the general store in downtown, on Campbell Ave.

My father-in-law grew up in Campbell, graduated Campbell High School and eventually started his own family in Campbell as well.

My husband’s first home, straight from the
hospital, 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 strike force to enforce these laws.

And Campbell has been given a highly ambitious, state-mandated allocation of 3,000 housing units for 2023-2031, not including the buffer.

Higher density housing must be planned for, and I am in support of this.

But I am writing to respectfully ask that you preserve Campbell’s charm, particularly in the lower density neighborhoods and embrace a transit-oriented development approach as you make your final decisions on density and 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 have already made big strides in high density housing mixed with retail, office space, and public uses centered around or near 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 dwelling units, 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 Cal Train.

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 transit oriented developments just as other Bay Area cities have done - with higher density housing near the rail stations.

Thank you,
Carolyn Field

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Susan OBrien
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:31 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - STUDY SESSION 2 (PLN-2021-12) 11-09-2021 Hello Chair Ostrowski, Vice Chair Ching, and Planning Commissioners,

My name is Susan O’Brien and I am a contract worker for the city, but I am writing these comments as a proud 26-year Campbell resident.

City Planning Division staff should be commended for the excellent Staff Report explaining the various requirements and methodologies to achieve compliance with the State mandated housing allocation. The detailed report clearly identifies the various housing opportunity sites within our beautiful City and offers various options for compliance. As Planning Commissioners, determining where and at what intensity housing should be developed within our City may be one of the most important decisions of your tenure as Planning Commissioners.

I recommend the Planning Commission support a combination of the following mapping strategies to be used as the preferred methodology for determining the housing opportunity sites most suitable to achieve compliance:
 Option #3 – Density Near Transit – I support this option because higher density housing options located near the existing Light Rail stations should reduce vehicular traffic within the City. With the development of the Google Village in San Jose over the next several years, location of high density development near our existing Light Rail stations will provide additional convenient and desirable housing options for the employees of the Google Village and other downtown businesses.
 Option #4 – Revitalize Shopping Centers – I support this option because this seems like a logical placement for mixed-use development. Providing housing over restaurants and retail shops at locations which have existing shopping centers will retain the retail tax base as well as provide the required housing and the convenience of shopping and dining on-site for the residents. It will also encourage redevelopment of older shopping centers to provide more current architecture trends and Building Code updates that will result in safer, more accessible buildings. Shared parking agreements between non-concurrent uses may also be an option to reduce required parking for such developments in order to maximize the floor areas of the retail, dining, and number of dwelling units available within the residential portions of the buildings.
 Option #5 – Housing Along Commercial Corridors – I support this option because of the convenience to amenities such as shopping and existing public transit. Increased densities for housing along commercial corridors could provide for mixed-use development opportunities as well as stand-alone multi-story residential structures.  Potential Adjustment Factor: Medium-High Density – I support this adjustment factor to be considered in tandem with the Options #3, #4, # 5 that would allow for certain sites within the City to be developed at lower residential intensity. This would achieve the required housing allocation numbers yet still maintain the diverse housing options in areas that do not fit the criteria of Options #3, #4, and #5.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 2 As the Planning Commission, the recommendations you will make to the City Council tonight will help set the tone for future development trends of our City. Let’s grow our city in a responsible way and maintain the charm and character that makes us unique.

Thank you for your service.

Susan & Mike O’Brien

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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 1
st 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Planning Commission
Via: [email protected]
Economic Development Specialist, Michael Thomas
Via: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
(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.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

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.

Sincerely,
Brett Feuerstein
Brett Feuerstein
Managing Member
F&F Campbell, LLC

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Mark Dunkle
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:38 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: Re: Community Meeting Tomorrow!
I attended the Workshop tonight. I would like to suggest that the various densities that are proposed in the density models) be translated into the average unit size, # of bedrooms & bath, and cost to rent.

I would to see more evidence that the proposed densities are in fact affordable for the demographic that these plans propose to support. I think that a new model of 200 units per acre for singles and couples ought to be incorporated in the discussion for transit-oriented areas.

Regards,

Mark V Dunkle
Campbell Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), President

[email protected]

Website: campbellcert.org

Call sign: KJ6ZWL

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:59 AM Campbell Planning <[email protected]> wrote:

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 3 Learn More

View this email in your browser

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.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) %atteoni
(§OH'Leacuhgt'm'an

IAWYERS
December 2, 2021
Nt'irman E. Matteoni
Peggya M. 0"Laugbli+i
Bradley M. fIatteimi
Barton G. Heclitma+i
Hon. Mayor Liz Gibbons and Members of Campbell City Council Hon. Chair and Members of the Campbell Planning Commission Campbell City Hall
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Gerrv Houlilian
Re: Draft Housing Opportunity Site Maps
Dear Ms. Mayor, Chair and Members of the City Council & Planning Commission:

Our office represents Lack Properties, a California general partnership. Lack Properties is the owner of 730- 750 Camden Avenue, Campbell (APN 412-01-020). The property is 65,340 square feet in size and is improved with two commercial/light industrial buildings of 25,572 square feet. The property is surrounded on its northern, eastern, and southern boundaries by a lumber yard operated by Economy Lumber Company.

The buildings are well-maintained and almost fully occupied. The current tenants are Slaughterbeck Floors, Inc.; J.T. Masters, Inc.; Brett Hassett; Los Gatos Alarm; The Argonaut US, Inc.; Professional Cleaning Systems, Inc.; Cal's Garage Doors; C2 Earth Inc.; and Fish Builders. All of the tenants are small businesses, many of whom have operated in Campbell for decades. Cal Garage Doors has been at this location since 1994 and Slaughterbeck Floors since 2000.

Recently it has come to my client's attention that the City of Campbell has identified its property as a potential opportunity site for housing in the 6'h Cycle Housing Element. It is our understanding that the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Map now being finalized will include the property at 730-750 Camden Avenue and that this map will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at the City Council meeting of December 16, 2021.

I am writing to request that 730-750 Camden Avenue be removed as a potential housing site from the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Map and that the City undertake no further actions to convert this property to a housing site. While my client and I certainly understand the City's need to [848 The Alameda
I San Jose, CA 95126
t ph. 408.293.4300
7, [ 2 fax. 408.293.4004
ffl A www.matteoru.com

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Hon. Mayor Liz Gibbons and Members of Campbell City Council Hon. Chair & Members of the Campbell Planning Commission December 2, 2021

Page 2 ends

identify additional housing sites, this property is not suitable for such designation; nor will its inclusion help the City to satisfy its housing allocation target for the 2023-2031 planning period as required by state law.

First, the property is already fully developed and rented out to multiple commercial/light industrial tenants, whose leases have years to run and which in some cases include options to extend the lease terms beyond 2031. Therefore, the property would not be in a position to be redeveloped into housing until well after 2031. State law requires that the City's housing element include an inventory of land that has a realistic and demonstrated potential for development into housing during the eight-year planning period. See Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(3). Clearly this property does not satisfy that requirement.

In addition, one of the City's acknowledged priorities in housing site selection is that the property be near services and amenities. According to the City of Campbell's screening methodology, this property does not have access to schools, meaning it is not within walking distance of a public school. Nor are there any accessible parks within walking distance. The closest park is on the other side of San Thomas Expressway, an impossible walk. And the next closest park, John D. Morgan, is more than a half mile from the property, which would be more than a ten-minute walk for parents and young children.

As the City Council Report of November 17, 2021 acknowledged, "Lower income households offen lack access to personal vehicles or can only afford one that is most often used by the primary wage earner. This means that other household members would need to walk (or take transit)... to access parks and other recreational facilities." To build multi-unit low-income housing on this property would be to place low-income families in a neighborhood surrounded by concrete and without ready access to schools and parks.

Moreover, because of the size of the property and its location, the property is limited in the number of housing units that can be built thereon. The lot is only 1.5 acres and is surrounded on three sides by a lumber yard, which is to remain an industrial use under the current proposed plan (except potentially for a small section along the south).

Any residential project developed on my client's property would have to incorporate significant setbacks and screening along its shared boundaries with the lumber yard, especially along the northern boundary where the lumber yard has a building that sits just yards from the shared property line. This limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on this property. Thus, designating this property as residential will not help the City to achieve its housing goals or satisfy its State mandated obligations.

Rather, the City should focus on larger sites which can more easily be redeveloped into housing. For example, the 1 7-acre Campbell Technology Parkway

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Hon. Mayor Liz Gibbons and Members of Campbell City Council Hon. Chair & Members of the Campbell Planning Commission December 2, 2021

Page 3 ends

property which the owner is interested in redeveloping into a residential project. The owner of that property has advised the City that its current commercial use is underutilized and in danger of dipping to a 30% occupancy rate. The property is immediately adjacent to a park and could easily support a mixture of residential units.

Also, the owner of the Pruneyard office parcel has requested that the City consider its multi-acre parcel as a potential housing opportunity site. The City is already including the Pruneyard retail property as a potential housing opportunity site; thus, it makes sense to also include the office parcel. The Campbell Technology Parkway property and the Pruneyard office parcel have a realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment into housing units in the next eight years. Thus, the City should include them as potential housing sites, not 730-750 Camden Ave which has no realistic chance of being redeveloped into housing before 2031.

Finally, it is critical to the City's economic vitality that it maintain land use policies that allow the continued existence of commercial and light industrial uses such as those of the existing tenants of this property. The City should not take any steps to terminate the existing uses at this property. Slaughterbeck Floors, the tenant at 730 Camden Ave, was originally located elsewhere in Campbell but was forced to relocate to this site in 2000 due to the taking of its prior leasehold for the light rail project. It was extremely difficult for Slaughterbeck to find a suitable replacement property and it can only be assumed that a further relocation of this business as well as the relocation of the other existing tenants' businesses within the City of Campbell would be near impossible.

In sum, 730-750 Camden Ave is not appropriate for a residential development and the City of Campbell should not designate this property as a potential opportunity site for housing, rezone the property to residential, or adopt any other land use policies that interfere with its current commercial/light industrial uses.

Bradley Matteoni
BMM: jlc
Cc: Lack Properties
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Carolyn Field
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT / PLN-2021-12

Dear Planning Commissioners,

After reviewing the agenda for the December 9, 2021 meeting, I have the following comments:

1. Community Center. Please protect the Community Center. 1.5 acres with a max of 90 housing units this cycle then becomes five+ acres in the next housing cycle. With all the added housing units planned for in Campbell, a community center is going to become especially vital. Additionally, housing on even 1.5 acres, would look odd and out of place on the site. The Community Center is the heart of the City and should be protected.

2. Campbell Technology Park. This site can be made less remote by adding both a pedestrian walkway over Highway 17, connecting to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, and a pedestrian walkway to Union Avenue adjacent to the mobile home park, providing easy access to the Pruneyard.

Density should be increased beyond 30 units/acre and a variety of housing units planned: townhomes, and mixed use with multi-story housing over retail.

3. Gravel Lot next to Ainsley House. Please do not plan for housing here. This lot will be in hot demand for all the extra cars at the library, from all the extra planned housing units. Further, Ainsley house is a treasure that must be protected - not diminished by housing directly next door.

4. Adjust the Density Categories.

Pink: 20-45 units/acre. No change.

Purple (housing along commercial corridors): change from 60 to 45-60 units/acre. I am concerned about the purple sites identified on the map along Winchester, particularly directly next to side streets Sunnyside, Catalpa, and Cherry. Housing units built directly next to a residential neighborhood should be townhomes of no more than 45 units/acre, not 60 units. Residential neighborhoods should not have structures towering over them, eliminating privacy in backyards, etc.

Blue (revitalize shopping centers): same as above, change from 60 to 45-60 units/acre. If directly next to a residential neighborhood, should be no more than 45 units/acre fir same reasons stated above.

Gold (density near transit): 75 units/acre. No change.

5. Apply Potential Adjustment Factor.

An adjustment factor that may be considered in tandem with Options 3, 4, or 5 would be designating any identified housing opportunity sites not located in areas considered in Options 3, 4 or 5 for medium density residential development (20-units per acre). This would allow for the identification of more housing opportunity sites spread throughout the city but allow certain sites to be developed at lower residential intensity, if they are not located in the TOD areas, shopping centers, and commercial corridors as described under Options 3, 4, and 5.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 2 Please apply the Potential Adjustment Factor of 20 units/acre to all opportunity sites that fall into this category, where they are not located in the TOD areas, shopping centers, and commercial corridors. There is one site on the maps that did not receive this designation:

#162 on Llewellyn (planned for max 30 units/acre)

There are other housing sites in southwest Campbell that fall in to this category, and have been appropriately planned for at 20 units/acre. These sites are #7, #209, and #218. All sites in Campbell that fall into the Potential Adjustment factor category should be treated the same. Please adjust to 20 units/acre for #162, as was done for southwest Campbell.

6. Community Development Themes. Excellent ideas….I particularly like Theme #1 - one mile long promenade from Pruneyard to Community Center, with ground floor retail/commercial and residential above. I also like Theme #3 - TOD urban village around Winchester VTA. And I appreciate Theme #6, where opportunity sites are designed to fit into the context of the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you for taking the time to review my comments.

Respectfully,

Carolyn Field

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From:

To: Planning Division
Subject: For Public Comment PLN-2021-12
Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:47:10 AM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support all identified housing sites (the more the better), and as the sites can generate about 4,000 units over our State mandated allocation we can be more flexible by allowing a density range that includes a lower density level too.

Allowing
developers greater flexibility to determine what density level is appropriate for a specific site, is a powerful tool so they can develop what the market supports, and it assures that development applications will actually occur (as the Bay Area is planning for over 440,000 units, developers will pick the most profitable sites).

Sites in existing
low density residential neighborhoods that are served exclusively by narrow residential streets should not have a density over 20 units an acre, as townhomes should be developed at these sites (as per council direction on the “missing middle” called out in the staff report).

Campbell and the Bay Area are losing families with kids at alarming rates (elementary schools are closing) and if given the choice, families with kids will prefer single family and townhome type developments and they are clearly willing to move out of the area to find these (my wife and I know over 15 families that moved out of the area for single family homes out of the Bay Area); therefore, we need the balance of both high density near light rail/walkable neighborhoods and low density development in existing car served neighborhoods.

High density housing has a synergistic effect on
walkable, light rail served areas and the opposite effect on existing car served low density neighborhoods.

The City controls 50% of the
pie when it comes to the
development of housing, the other 50% is a willing seller and willing developer and if we don’t allow flexibility on the density levels, developers will seek more profitable sites in other cities.

Almost all public comments at past Planning Commission, City Council, Community Meetings and the survey support higher density developments near light rail and near downtown and lower density development in the existing car served residential neighborhoods. This makes sense from a basic urban planning perspective and it also supports lower greenhouse

gas emissions.

The Uplift Family Services Site at 251 Llywellen Avenue (site #162) is a good example
of this, as it is located in a car served low density residential neighborhood and served exclusively by narrow residential streets.

This site currently has a willing seller, a
willing developer (Pulte Homes), a reasonable density proposed (around 20 units an acre) that matches the neighborhood character (still 4-6 times more dense than the surrounding neighborhood), and strong neighborhood support, so the Planning Commission and City should support this townhome development as we need this type of housing now.

Finally, as a member of the City's Park and Recreation Commission, I strongly oppose any housing on the Community Center property. The Community Center is an incredible

asset and it will be in even higher demand once these new housing units are constructed. The City's downtown properties are much more appropriate for redevelopment.

Thank you for your consideration
Allen Ishibashi (3rd generation Campbell resident)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) For Public Comment – Item #1 – December 9, 2021 Planning Commission

Hello Chair Ostrowski, Vice Chair Ching, and Planning Commissioners,

My name is Susan O’Brien and I am a contract worker for the city, but I am writing these comments as a proud 26-year Campbell resident.

I want to thank you for your service and the time and effort you have taken to analyze the staff recommendations for the General Plan and Housing Element Update.

I want to thank City staff and the consultants for their thorough analysis of housing opportunity sites and their careful consideration of the various housing densities identified for each site throughout the City.

I generally agree with the staff analysis and assigned densities of the identified opportunity sites, but offer the following recommendations:

• Please remove the Community Center (Site 150) from the list of opportunity sites. The Community Center is such a great resource to our residents and non-residents. As the housing mandate will increase the population of our City with densified housing and reduced open space, our Community Center and its open space will become an even more valuable asset to our residents.
• Please consider housing opportunity sites at the Greylands office center (directly across the street from Campbell Park on Campbell Avenue). The portals under Highway 17 were constructed to facilitate pedestrian access from the Downtown to the Pruneyard. The Cresleigh development currently underway is the beginning of the revitalization of this stretch of Campbell Avenue. When I envision Campbell, I see Campbell Avenue between the downtown and the Pruneyard as the ideal location for mixed-use development and an extension of the historic downtown to the more contemporary Pruneyard. The light rail station and Campbell Park are conveniently located to serve the transportation and recreation needs of housing along this corridor.
• Please consider the higher density limit (45 du/acre rather than the 30 du/acre currently assigned) as the minimum density for Site 214 (Campbell Technology Park).

Although the development of this large site will require access and traffic mitigation measures, it is an ideal location for the “missing middle” housing types at a higher density than currently assigned. The Edith Morley City Park located directly across from this site will provide a convenient open space for residents of that site.

Please accept the staff recommendations with consideration of the above requests. The City staff has managed to take the State housing mandates and allocate the various housing sites and densities throughout the City in a fair and equitable manner. With a small, but mighty staff, and a compressed timeframe – I express my gratitude to the City staff for doing their best to “Keep Campbell – Campbell”.

Thank you for your time.

Happy Holidays!
Susan & Mike O’Brien

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From: Scott Connelly
To: Rob Eastwood
Cc: Stephen Rose
Subject: Site 49 & 50 on Inventory List
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:19:25 PM
Hi Rob & Stephen,

We own the old SJ Water site (site #49) on Virginia Ave. it is our intent to expeditiously work to develop this site.

I think it’s really important for any density range that you end up with for “any site” in Campbell where attached townhomes are appropriate (we think our site is appropriate for attached townhomes), that the density range be realistic. There was a Commissioner tonight that stated “townhomes can be built between 20-30 du/ac”.

It's our belief (and that of many other developers) that a standard range for attached townhomes is between 18-22 du/ac. One a site that is perfectly square and with some design help, a developer might be able to get to 24 du/ac. Otherwise, if you get higher than that density, you end up with extremely skinny, tandem parked-garage product and b/c of the skinniness of the unit, developers will often need a 4
th story flat to make it pencil.

We would respectfully ask that Staff consider the low end of the density range at 18 du/ac (we could make 20 du/ac work as well).

Thank you kindly.

Have a nice evening.

Scott Connelly
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
734 The Alameda | San Jose, CA 95126
T 408.640.0383 | F 408.282.9797
[email protected] | http://www.valleyoakpartners.com This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From: Scott Connelly
To: Stephen Rose
Subject: Site Inventory List
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:11:12 PM
Hi Stephen…I wanted to point out to you that sites 200, 201, 203, 204 & 205 on the Inventory list from tonight’s meeting…that is the PetSmart shopping Center at Daryl & Hamilton.

That is a GREAT site and it’s blighted, but there are 5 separate owners in the center and the only way it could ever be developed is that if they all sold or came together with one vision. Because it’s a single retail center, it is likely there are CCR’s with reciprocal easements, etc…that would prevent only a portion of the site from being developed. If one buyer could buy the entire site, then that buyer could terminate the CCR’s, but that is unlikely unless all owners decided to sell.

You guys refined your Inventory list like CHAMPS
! Such a great job, taking out sites that won’t be
accepted by the State.

Great work…keep it up.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From: Bill Baron
To: Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose
Cc: Bill Baron
Subject: 500 E. Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, CA
Date: Friday, December 10, 2021 7:43:04 AM
Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Rose:

Good Morning. I was travelling last night and unfortunately was unable to connect to the continuing community conversation about Campbell’s GP Update and in specific, its envisioned updated Housing Element. I have participated in the recent past, however. That said, I was connected via text chain with a good friend, Scott Connolly, who I asked to share information with the city on our behalf. Below codifies what Scott shared, in part, with you last night.

Brandenburg Hamilton LP is the owner of the above described property—perhaps better known as the “Staples” property. Staples’ lease expires no later than mid-June 2026 and there are no further options for Staples to extend the Lease. We’re prepared to have this site considered for high density residential—and designated as such in your RHNA 6 Cycle that runs from 2023 to 2031.

We share this in hopes that the following is further considered:

High Density Residential (up to 75 d/u/gross ac) designation. This largely follows strong community input of placing density along established commercial/traffic corridors and in proximity to light rail/transportation services. Whether or not such high density occurs at this location—time will tell—it is clear to us that this location is not suitable for a lower density designation accommodative to townhouses, for example; and Do not require, rather encourage, commercial uses on ground floor. The notion of “mixed use” is novel but also equally challenging. Moreover, “100% replacement” of existing commercial square footage should be avoided at all costs. To the extent that commercial square footage is visioned, it should be commercial square footage that works in the market place—that produces viable, leasable space. We understand the temptation of sales tax receipts for the city, however, mandating something that doesn’t get built and/or mandating something that sits vacant is not the goal here. We encourage the city to allow the market to
dictate what, if any, commercial is integrated into a future visioned project. Again, encourage. Don’t mandate; and
Height to be up to the voter mandated 75’ height limit, subject to state law override (just a matter of law); and
A commensurate FAR identification that provides flexibility to achieve housing objectives, not limiting them; and
Remove roadblocks for activation of the city’s housing needs. This includes elimination of a “specific plan” concept for the area of Hamilton/17

Should you need any further information, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,
Bill Baron

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) _____________________________________________
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
[email protected]
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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Taj Trust,
Sanjay Jasuja, trustee
7960B Soquel Drive Suite # 110, Aptos, CA 95003
[email protected]
650-533-7579
12/13/2021
City Clerk
C/o Rob Eastwood
Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 First St.

Campbell, Ca 95008
Re. Property Address: 1282 - 1300 White Oaks Road, Campbell, Ca 95008 for RHNA Dear Mr. Eastwood,
Firstly, I want to welcome you as the new Community Development Director, for the City of Campbell.

I write to you as a trustee of Taj Trust, the current property owner of 1.87 acres at the above property I would like this property to be considered as a potential site for housing in this round of the housing element update. Myself and my neighbors at 1320 White Oaks Rd & 1340 White Oaks Rd are seeking the same rezone to allow for a residential builder to provide the city with new housing opportunities. If our properties are appropriately rezoned there is an interested party ready to start the process of bringing additional new housing to the city.

Thank you for your time and consideration, we appreciate your cooperation and look forward to helping the City reach its RHNA allocation goal.

Sincerely,

Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
C. C. Senior Planner, Stephen Rose
at [email protected].
demonstrate

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) From: Adam Buchbinder
To: Planning Division
Subject: Site inventory ideas.

Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 7:07:35 PM
Hi! I realize that it's a tad late for this, but I wanted to send in a few site inventory ideas for downtown.

Site 139, 43 3rd St, contains housing above Stacks, doesn't it? I have some concerns about listing existing rental housing on our sites list; we should make sure we address displacement concerns in our policies and programs.

Apart from that, I walked downtown and noted the following sites which looked like good candidates for our inventory, especially since they're close to Downtown Campbell station and not adjacent to any R-1 housing, so they could be developed at 75-100 du/ac:
422 E Campbell Ave, which is vacant one-story commercial space very close to the train station.
416 E Campbell Ave, which is adjacent one-story commercial space (though it's occupied by retail at the moment).
412 E Campbell Ave, which also appears to be vacant.
257-259 E Campbell Ave, which is a small one-story building occupied by office space, unlikely to make use of much walk-in traffic.
220 E Campbell Ave, the Rocket Fizz location. (I had vaguely heard that a small grocery would be moving in; failing that, it's a vacant building.) I hope this helps. Thanks!
Adam Buchbinder

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
Subject: RE: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us (Dropdown) From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 6:18 PM
To: Campbell City Managers Office <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us (Dropdown)

WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

First Name Diane
Last Name Loughran
Address1
Address2 Field not completed.

City CAMPBELL
State CA
Zip 95008
Phone Number
Email Address
Whom would you like to
contact?
City Council
Question / Comment Thank you for taking the time to review my feedback regarding the Housing Element proposed for Campbell over the next 8 years. I want everyone to be able to own and home and live where they work. Home ownership is awesome. It took me 25 years to be able to make that happen for myself. I believe that with thoughtful and careful planning we can continue to have the community we all love living in. I live near site 162 that is proposed for 30 units per acre. I would like you to consider 20 units per acre. This area is in a single family neighborhood with the potential for ADUs and multi units built on existing home sites. Also, there is density already with 100 townhome units in Fairmeadow on W Latimer Ave and across the street on W.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 2 Latimer is a 3 story Condo complex and on the other side from that property is rental apartments next to the Expressway. Our neighborhood has small streets where the parking is
completely full overnight. There is no access to public transportation. Density is better placed near light rail and main arteries. Building mixed use on sites with shopping and restaurants near public transportation and walkability makes sense. Our downtown has become such a popular destination.

I'm sure building there would be very successful. I would also like you to remove the Campbell Community Center from any proposed site for housing. We will need that for increased population. It would be a shame to lose our old town charm on that site. Thanks for your time and all the hard work that you have already done and will be doing over the next few years.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Stephen Rose
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 5:41 PM
To: Stephen Rose
Subject: RE: There's a new message in your inbox
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:20 PM
To: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

You have a new me ssage.

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I have a single family home that was zoned by the city as Professional (did not request the professional zoning, was told that the city did it). I do not plan on building professional office space but would like to consider an ADU and junior ADU unit behind the single family home. This way the tenant can remain in the home and my son and or new tenant would be able to move into the back ADU/junior ADU if I am allowed to build both.

Would the city consider a mixed zoning classification instead of the Professional zone it gave it (did not request the professional zoning) and would the mixed zoning allow me to explore building an ADU/junior ADU before the city's deadline, please? Thank you.

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 2 View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 3 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:16 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Would like more information

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 4 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:03 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Thank you for providing the postcards and engaging the community as you have.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 5 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 12:18 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Yes!

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 6 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 8:49 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Interested in learning more

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 7 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:58 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Thank you for the mailer, it was helpful to be in the know and provide feedback via survey.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 8 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:21 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Would be great if your meetings were on zoom

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 9 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

One of Campbell's charm is her vistas. I would ask you to refrain from turning our town into concrete canyons with huge monolithic modular building obstructing views and blocking sunshine. Thank you.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 10 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:47 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Does the Planning Commission have an email address? I ask because I have a question. It is this: I would like a written statement regarding the size of my property at Campbell, 95008. I understand that it is sub- dividable, but in the past I have been only given estimates. To discuss proposals from developers I really need an accurate measure with the signature of a planning department person. A map showing the dimensions would be also be useful.
…

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 11 © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 12 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:26 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I’m very interested to hear about transportation improvements to support the larger population.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 13 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:51 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I WANT TO BE INVOLVED

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 14 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 3:51 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
.net wrote:

I don’t actually live or own property in Campbell, but I have ties to the city and would like the updates.

Faith King

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 15 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:35 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

As a Campbell resident and M-Group employee (non-planner) I am looking forward to following Campbell Housing Element process. Thank you for all your work in making our community a great place to live.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 16 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:07 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Affordable housing options for all would be great! Include Section 8 and low- income housing.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 17 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:18 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".

Jin Pak wrote:

Hello! I believed that I am enrolled with Program. This is Mr. Jin S. Pak and There will be Lottery Drawing for Campbell Housing On Oct 15th 2021.

I would like to know what is Results. If all Possible! Please! Call me at

Sincerely,

Mr. Pak

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 18 © 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 19 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 20 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:02 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I support adding more housing to Campbell, especially at the two lowest segments of the income spectrum.

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 21 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:49 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Thank you!

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 22 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:15 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 23 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I would like to be informed of all meetings associated with the Update to the Housing Element 2023-2031

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 24 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:50 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

My wife and I are long-time residents of Campbell on Queens Ct. We strongly support initiatives that provide affordable housing for our teachers, nurses, police, firefighters, and all front-line workers, as long as those developments are located in neighborhoods which have the infrastructure to support them (close to mass transit, sufficient parking, adequate common spaces such as parks, throughput for increased traffic, etc.). For those reasons (and those reasons alone) we are opposed to the…

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 25 Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 26 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 4:56 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Wondering if things like utilities/water supplies etc will also be discussed? Thanx.

Barb Robinson

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 27 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 7:12 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Thanks!

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 28 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 9:40 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 29 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 6:02 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Looking forward to participating in the process

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 30 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 5:48 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 31 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 11:29 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Just want to hear what you have to say.

Thanks -- Lee Penning

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 32 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 8:28 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 33 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 7:16 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 34 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 4:55 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I would like developments that have character and not too urban looking.

Those belong in San Jose and San Francisco. The area between Poplar and Payne should be mixed use 3-5 stories. Mediterranean style

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 35 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 3:22 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Hi
I would like learn more about the housing plan in Campbell.

Thank you

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 36 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 2:57 AM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Thank you for this invite! ͣͤͥͣͤͥ͢͢

View Message

© 2001-2021 Mailchimp®, All Rights Reserved.
675 Ponce De Leon Ave NE • Suite 5000 • Atlanta, GA 30308 USA Contact Us • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 37 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 11:42 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 38 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 8:13 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 39 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 7:40 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Thank you for reaching out.

Is there still a City newsletter published periodically for residents?

When was the last time the City completed a statistically valid resident satisfaction survey of services and priorities?

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 41 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:41 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Please notify me of upcoming meetings for the Campbell General Plan.

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 42 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:38 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 43 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:33 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 45 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:23 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 46 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:19 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 47 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 48 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:10 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 49 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:07 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 50 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:04 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 51 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:00 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r 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

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 52 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:58 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

I am excited to learn more about Campbell's plan for hosting.

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 53 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:57 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

It would be great if you could send email reminders before each of the planned meetings.

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 54 Stephen Rose
From: Mailchimp Account Services <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Planning Division
Subject: There's a new message in your inbox

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Mailchimp

You have a new message from a contact in your
audience, "City of Campbell".
wrote:

Please be considerate of the neighborhood when approving high density housing.

View Message

1.1.f
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Public Comments (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

SUMMARY TABLE
EXAMPLES OF 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Examples of 100% Affordable Projects
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
City Project Status Type/Average Unit Size Units Acres Density DU/AC FAR Build.

Height
Parking
spaces
per unit
Belmont Firehouse
Square
Under
Construction
Family Housing
Average Unit Size: 735 s.f. 66 .72 92 2.44
4 stories
53 ft.
.71
Burlingame The Village Under
Construction
Workforce & Senior
Average Unit Size: 647 s.f. 132 .84 132 3.75
5 stories
61 ft.

1.1 Foster City Alma Point Complete
2016
Seniors up to 50% AMI
Average Unit size: 588 s.f. 66 .52 127 3.05
4 stories
60 ft.
.59
Mountain
View
1701 W. El
Camino Real
Under
Construction
Up to 60% AMI +
Veterans
Aver. Unit size: 430 s.f.
67 .49 137 2.31
5 stories
55 ft.
.46
Palo Alto Wilton Court Under
Construction
30-60% AMI + adults with
developmental disabilities
Aver. Unit Size: 367 s.f.
59 .46 127 2.0 4
stories .69
Redwood
City
Arroyo
Green
Complete
2021
Seniors up to 50% AMI
Average Unit Size: 559 s.f. 117 1.36 86 2.36
4 stories
81 ft. 6
in.
.50
San Mateo Kiku
Crossing Approved Family up to 80% AMI
Average Unit size: 820 s.f. 225 2.41 93 4.2
7 stories
74 ft.
.73
San Mateo Peninsula
Station
Complete
2010
Individuals & Families: 30
to 50% AMI
Average Unit Size: 996 s.f.
68 1.0 68 1.95
4 stories
62 ft.

1.7 Sunnyvale 1178 Sonora
Court Pending
Family up to 80% AMI
Average Unit Size: not
available
176 1.26 140 3.9
7 stories
75 ft. 5
in.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Sample 100% Affordable Projects (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) EXAMPLES OF 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Examples of 100% Affordable Projects
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
2 City Project Status
Type
Units Acres Density
DU/AC FAR Build.

Height
Parking
Spaces
Per Unit Average Unit Size
Belmont Firehouse
Square Under Construction Family Housing 66 .72 92 2.44 4 stories 53 ft. .71
Avg. Unit Size: 735 s.f.

Burlingame The Village Under Construction Workforce & Senior 132 .84 132 3.75 5 stories 61 ft. 1.1
Avg. Unit Size: 647 s.f.

Conversion of public parking lot into affordable housing.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Sample 100% Affordable Projects (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Examples of 100% Affordable Projects
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
3 City Project Status
Type
Units Acres Density
DU/AC FAR Build.

Height
Parking
Spaces
Per Unit Average Unit Size
Foster City Alma Point Complete
Senior Housing
66 .52 127 3.05 4 stories
60 ft. .59
Avg. Unit Size: 588 s.f.

Mountain
View
1701 W. El
Camino
Real
Under Construction
Up to 60% AMI +
Veterans 67 .49 137 2.31 5 stories
55 ft. .46
Avg. Unit Size: 430 s.f.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Sample 100% Affordable Projects (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Examples of 100% Affordable Projects
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
4 City Project Status
Type
Units Acres Density
DU/AC FAR Build.

Height
Parking
Spaces
Per Unit Average Unit Size
Palo Alto Wilton
Court Under Construction
30-60% AMI + adults with
developmental disabilities 59 .46 127 2.0 4 stories .69 Avg. Unit Size: 367 s.f.

Redwood
City
Arroyo
Green
Complete
2021
Senior Housing
117 1.36 86 2.36 4 stories
81 ft. 6 in. .50 Avg. Unit Size: 559 s.f.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Sample 100% Affordable Projects (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Examples of 100% Affordable Projects
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
5 City Project Status
Type
Units Acres Density
DU/AC FAR Build.

Height
Parking
Spaces
Per Unit Average Unit Size
San Mateo Kiku
Crossing Approved
Family up to 80% AMI
225 2.41 93 4.2 7 stories
74 ft. .73
Avg. Unit Size: 820 s.f.

San Mateo Peninsula
Station
Complete
2010
Family Housing 68 1.0 68 1.95 4 stories
62 ft. 1.7
Avg. Unit Size: 996 s.f.

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Sample 100% Affordable Projects (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) Examples of 100% Affordable Projects
6th Cycle Housing Element
2023-2031
6 City Project Status
Type
Units Acres Density
DU/AC FAR Build.

Height
Parking
Spaces
Per Unit Average Unit Size
Sunnyvale
1178
Sonora
Court
Pending
Family up to 80% AMI
176 1.26 140 3.9 7 stories
75 ft. 5 in. Not available

1.1.g
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Sample 100% Affordable Projects (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, December 16, 2021 – 5:30 p.m.

City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street

NOTE: This Special meeting of the Campbell City Council was conducted pursuant to the Brown Act.

This meeting was recorded and can be viewed in its entirety at:
https://campbellca.gov/agendacenter and https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell.

CALL TO ORDER

The City Council of the City of Campbell convened in session this special day of December 16, 2021.

ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Status
Elizabeth 'Liz' Gibbons Mayor Present
Paul Resnikoff Vice Mayor Present
Anne Bybee Councilmember Present
Susan M. Landry Councilmember Present
Sergio Lopez Councilmember Present

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Review and Provide Feedback on the Administrative Draft Envision Campbell General Plan Update and Campbell's Plan for Housing - Housing Opportunity Sites Selection (PLN-2021-12)
Recommended Action: Review the Planning Commission’s recommendation and provide direction on the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and the Draft Housing Opportunity Site Inventory for the City’s Housing Element Update (“Campbell’s Plan for Housing”).

Community Development Director Rob Eastwood presented the Staff Report dated December 16, 2021 stating the focus for this meeting is on location and density which will drive the E nvironmental Impact Review beginning in January 2022 with the deadline date being December 2022.

Councilmember Bybee stepped out of the room at 5:41 p.m. and returned at 5:44 p.m.

Senior Planner Stephen Rose summarized Counci l’s previous directions on the General Plan and non -residential compo nents noting the exten sion of the Hamilton Avenu e Overlay Area to extend further east a nd south down Salmar Avenue and the potential removal of the North of Campbell Avenue Area (NOCA)

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 2 and South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA) plans allowing for C-2 uses where governed by C -2, remov al of FAR restrictions by lot size, and reducing density/uses along Harrison Ave nue in the N OCA area , and for allowing C -2 uses where gover ned by C -3, removing FAR restr ictions by lot size, addressing height limits, and updating r elated use policies and design standards fo r the SOCA area. Senior Planner Rose reviewed the City ’s building intensities and how they compare to oth er South Bay cit ies, noting Staff’s recommendat ion to increase the City’s building intensities by .6 for most of the cities designations to bring them in line with other neighboring jurisdictions. Senior Planner Rose noted the changes to the residential density calculation method from the centerline of the street to using the four corners of a lot prior to any dedication of right-of-way.

Senior Planner Rose reviewed Council’s consensus on the draft General Plan Policy Sets noting a creation of a mixed-use zoning reducing reliance on the P-D, continue to allow drive-thru’s but to establish standards on whe n and where, do not include a research and development zone and reevaluate it as part of an overarching E conomic Development Plan , defer traffic study threshold s to a consultant, do not directly fund a s huttle system, and retain the existing Community Design Element.

In response to an inquiry, Senior Planner Ro se clari fied that FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is used in Campbell to describe commercial lots and is describin g how much of a building can cover the siz e of a specific lot; for residential properties, this is described in units per acre.

Community Development D irector Eastwood stated that Staff w ill provide additional information what a specific plan is and includes at the January 2022 Council meeting.

Dave H ogan, Consultant, M -Group reviewed the City ’s RHNA allocation and noted that with a n added 30% buffer the total unit s assigned to Campbell is 3,900. Mr. Hogan reviewed Staff’s methodology for identifying potential sites including re using previous ly sel ected sites, vacant sites, underutil ized sites, parking lots, faith based facilities, school sites, city -owned sites, and properties where the owners have expressed an interest. This methodology includes a lot of sites, and will serve as a beginning point to then be paired down as the work on the EIR is completed. State law requires the City to select sites that are better resourced. Mr. Hogan reviewe d the var ious residential densities and presented examples of what those densities look like once built out. In summary, Mr. Hogan noted that both the Planning Commission an d the City Council preferred placing densities near transit, revi talizing shopping centers, and along commercial corridors (which are described a s Options 3, 4, and 5 from the November 17, 2021 City Counc il Special Meeting ). From the November 17, 2 021 City Council meeting Council provided consensus to support a hybrid of Options 3, 4, and 5, and to provide more “missing middle ” units or townho mes in the existing neighborhoods, and to explore housing at the First Street Garage, the Campbell Technology Park. Mr. Hogan reviewed the Cit y’s public outreach to date and the community meeting feedback received.

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 3 In response to an inquiry , Community Develo pment Direc tor Eastwood stated that Staff is re commending the addition of th e 30% site buffer to the RHNA allocation because it is highly unlikely the City will reach a 100% buildout of the selected sites, and this extra site selection provides room for the City to meet i ts required RHNA assignment. Community Development Director Eastwood not ed that Staff has removed from consideration sites which currently support the top sales tax generators for the City.

In response to inquiries, Senior Planner Rose stated that FAR is only related to commercial land uses and the City retain discretionary authority and the General Plan discusses the maximum ranges allowed. B y studying the maximum FAR in the EIR, it would eliminate the need for more study down the line on each project.

In response to inquiries, Community Development Director Eastwood not ed that unit size will be addressed as a tool to assist reaching the affor dable housing benchmarks and only number of units is needed to complete the EIR, but this is an area that will be discussed in greater detail as st rategies to meet the City ’s affordable housing targets.

Mr. Hogan rev iewed the Community Development Them es s taff utilized in selecting proposed sites including a mixed -use promenade on East Campbell Avenue, higher density mixed -use a round the Fry ’s Electronics site, creating a transit oriented area around the Winchester Ligh t Rail Station, revi talizing the San T omas Neighborhood Shopping Center, mixed -used developments a long major arterials and looking for ways to disperse opportunities throughout the City.

Mayor Gibbons opened the floor for public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Eric Dykman, Dan Smith, Elena Baryshnikova, Allen Ishibashi, B. Wulff, Michael Stevens, Cassandra Owen, Jeanette Wulff, Dana Stevens, Thomas Colgrove, and Peter Young, Campbell residents, requested the Llewellyn site to re main at 20 units per acre or with townhomes only.

Tim Pasqaneli, Campbell Techn ology Park Owner, expressed a desire to have his property included in the housing s ites selected and would be o pen to some form of a land swap with the City.

Sarah Chaffin, Owner of property on S . Bascom and S . Winchester, expressed interest in developing her property into workforce housing.

James Sullivan, Campbell resident, stated that typical townhome development that would be worth while for a developer would need to be built at 16 – 24 units per acre.

Mike Krisman, Cam pbell resident, spoke of his concern with inclu ding the 30% buffer and for not charging impact fees to developers to support city services.

Kelly Snider, S an Jose S tate University Professor in Real Estate and Planning spoke of her c oncern r elating to solving the housing crisis and the City not

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 4 meeting its affordability housing targets and encouraging the City to develop at 75 units per acre especially for sites like Hamilton.

Guilian Gao, Campbell resident, expressed support for low d ensity housing and for not including the Community Center in the site selection list.

Joanne Carol, Campbell resident, expressed concern r elating to parking and especially parking needs around the Light Rail station.

Carolyn Field, Campbell resident, asked not to have the Community Center and the Civic Center gravel lot included in the site selection list.

Dennis Randall, Industry Professional representing the Shell Station and Hickory Pit site and would like to be included in the list at 75 units per acre and noted that only higher density projects will be ab le to afford underground parking and open space.

William Barron, Representative Staples site, express his desire to be included in the final site selection for development.

Scott Connelly, 32 0 Virginia Avenue Owner, expressed a desire to have his site included in the final site selection for development.

Mayor Gibbons closed the public comment.

Council recessed at 7:23 p.m. and reconvened at 7:38 p.m. with all members present.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - CONTINUED
In response to inquiries, Geoff Bradley, Consultant, M-Group stated that at this stage in the process, it is too late to change the land use designation in certain spots throughout the City with the purpose of increasing resources to those areas to then quali fy an area as an AFFH preferred site. Senate Bill 10 would be an interesting tool to use to increase ho using stock for the “missing middle” but it would not be recommended to use t hose sites in the RHNA allocation because it is very difficult to predict how many will be developed, the Stat e also won’t allow a City to include density bonus’ in their site selection methodology either.

In response to an inquiry, Community Development Director Eastwood stated that it is staff’s intention to not move forward with the Community Center location on this final site selection list and bring back a broader discussion to Council relating to a Master Plan for the Community Center site.

Mr. Bradley presented the current housing opportunity sites with 6 different maps matching the themes for the housing opportunity sites.

Winchester Boulevard Map
Councilmember Lopez expressed support for the Winchester Boulevard map, noting that this area could supp ort a higher density and expressed an interest in including schools and day care sites.

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 5 Councilmember Bybee expressed support for reviewing schools and day care sites, concerned about overall building height with higher densities , and not supportive of increasing the 30% buffer.

Councilwoman Landry was no t supportive of increasing the 30% buffer and is concerned by utili zing school properties as an increase in residents means an increase in students, supports mandatory mixed -use and higher densities in some areas only, not supportive of changing the industri al uses on Wi nchester Boulevard, and is not supportive of including the First Street Parking Garage.

Vice Mayor Resnikoff support ed increasing the 30% buffer, should not plan for school properties being develo ped, would support higher densities in pla ces like the Hickory Pit site, Fry ’s Electronics site, Culinary Institu te site, revitalizing the PetSmart Shopping Center site, supportive of mix ed-use styles to accommodate needed services and housing, not supportive of displacing current services.

Mayor Gibbons was generally supportive of mixed -use in certain places, expressed concerns relating to high density along Winchester Boulevard as there are single-family neighborhoods that are just behind those high density buildings, could be supportive of higher densit ies on the major corners along Winchester Boulevard, expressed concern that many large parcels held by priva te owners are not included on this map.

City Attorney Bill Seligmann clarified that the First Street Parking Garage is under restrictions th rough a previou s agreement and where parking needs to be available to residents in some fashion, but the how could be discussed.

Bascom Avenue Map
Council confirmed consensus for including the higher densities in the Pruneyard and Bascom areas.

Mayor Gibbons expr essed co ncern relating to the height of bui ldings along Bascom Avenue in relation to the single-family neighborhoods on the east side of Bascom Avenue.

Central Campbell Map
Council confirmed consensus for i ncluding higher densities at the Fry ’s Electronics site, the Staples site and for investigating a pedestrian bridge to the Hamilton Light Rail station.

Hamilton Avenue Map
Council confirmed consensus for keeping the Llewellyn site at 20 u nits per acre and for encouraging a mixed-use for the PetSmart site.

Vice Mayor Resnikoff requested staff reach o ut to the large site leases and property owners and inquire about the future of those properties, l ong term leases, interested in development etc.

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles)

Minutes of December 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Page 6 San Tomas Aquino
Councilmembers expressed concern about the placement of potential housing on the Grocery Outl et site and not ed that this area of th e City could be challenging for higher density options as there are many residential areas near by.

South Campbell
Mr. Br adley noted that this area of the C ity has the most potential for development of A ccessory D welling U nits, and Senate B ill 9 and 10 housing options.

Mayor Gibbons expressed co ncern with this map not including the larger individual parcels that cou ld support townhome development and support below market rate housing.

Camden Avenue
Council confirmed cons ensus for not supporting the Planning Commission recommendations on this map.

In conclusion, Community Development Director Eastwood stated that of the city- owned sites presented, Staff will move forward in analyzing the City Corp Yard site for viability and alternatives. St aff will conduct further property owner outreach and will return to Council with one final hou sing site selection meeting and will then begin the EIR process.

ADJOURN
Mayor Gibbons adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.

APPROVED:

________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________
Dusty Christopherson, City Clerk

1.1.h
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: December 16, 2021 - City Council Minutes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) 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

ME ETING NOTES

Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Subject: Campbell Housing Element

Meeting Host: Rob Eastwood, City of Campbell

Focus Group: Property Owners

These are the Meeting Notes from the Property Owner Focus Group that took place Wednesday, January 5, 2022, at 6:30PM regarding the Campbell Housing Element.

Project Team:

Rob Eastwood |Community Development Director, City of Campbell Stephen Rose | Senior Planner, City of Campbell
David Hogan |Project Manager, M-Group
Radha Hayagreev | Senior Planner, Urban Designer, M-Group Christabel Soria Mendoza | Assistant Planner, M-Group

Participants:
25 property owners

Initial Questions:

1. How interested are you in redeveloping your property for housing in the next eight-years?

2. What do you believe may be barriers to developing your property for housing in the next eight years?

3. Do you have any questions and/or feedback for the City related to the development of your property for housing?
Notes:

• James Sullivan | 320 Virginia/Llewelyn
• Scott Connelly | 320 Virginia
o interested in redevelopment
o interested in understanding density figure and range
• Helen Feber | 1236 Hacienda / Burrows
o interested in redevelopment, but needs to understand process) • Sanjay (Sam K) | 1300 White Oaks Road
o 2-acres (industrial)
o would like to advance faster than 2023

1.1.i
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: January 5, 2022 - Property Owner Meeting Notes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) m-group.us 307 Orchard City Dr, Suite 100, Campbell, CA 95008 408.340.5642 o Highway 17 & Camden adjacent
 nearby property owners may also be interested – potential interest in mixed- use, short-term leases
• Raja | 1216 W. Hacienda Avenue
o ½ acre lot
o mixed-use interest
o affordability interest
• Steve Eggers | 1340 Whiteoaks
o short-term leases
• William Baron | 500 E. Hamilton (Staples)
o HDR interest
o Concern w/ boundary of Hamilton Avenue Area specific plan, and implications in achieving goals of developing housing during 8-year planning period • Nick Whitstone
o In support of the ‘White Oaks’ properties, specifically 1300 representing  3-acres in total
• Pardhiv K | 1226 W. Haciend
• 1300 White Oaks Road
o Requested interim Housing solutions for differently abled housing request • 494 Salmar Ave.
o *Requested to be added back to the Housing Opportunity Site List* • Uplift Site
o Requests for an earlier development timeline
 can reach out in Spring/Summer
• San Tomas shopping Center
o Interested to redevelop and will fill out survey
• VTA site is going to run a community outreach meeting on Jan 19th o Theyhope to bring on an Affordable Housing project

END: 7:50 PM

1.1.i
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: January 5, 2022 - Property Owner Meeting Notes (Housing Opportunity Site Selection & Mixed-Use Principles) To: Mayor Resnikoff and City Council Members Date: Jan. 25, 2022 From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Desk Item 1 – Provide feedback on the Campbell's Plan for Housing – Housing Opportunity Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development. (PLN-2021-12)
The January 25, 2022, City Council staff report indicated that the Planning Commission recommendations for this agenda item would be provided as a desk item due to the short turnaround time between public meetings (January 20, 2022, to January 25, 2022). This memorandum serves to provide a summary of the recommendations and feedback provided by the Planning Commission.

Further, this desk item includes a summary of public feedback and late requests made to have Housing Opportunity sites added and/or removed from the Tier 1 list and provide an overview of adjustments to residential densities required to implement policy direction that will be addressed by staff in the coming months.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS & FEEDBACK
The Planning Commission held a Special Meeting on January 20, 2022, to review and provide recommendations on finalizing the list of Housing Opportunity Sites and proposed densities, whereas the latter half focused on receiving feedback on identifying principles to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed -use development and receipt of a brief presentation on the relationship between building height and density.

Planning Commission discussion and feedback on these topics are summarized below:

I. Housing Opportunity Sites
The Planning Commission was supportive of the ranking criteria outlined in the staff report and recommended that all Tier 1 sites, at the densities indicated, be advanced to the City Council for inclusion in the environmental analysis. Individual feedback from Commissioners focused on properties a long Railway , Dillon and Gilman Avenue that were not ranked Tier 1 due to their fragmented ownership and small lot sizes , the relocation of the City Corporation Yard and planned density of the Campbell Technology Center, and support for higher densities at the former Fry’s Electronics and properties near the Winchester light-rail station. No additional sites were added or removed from the list of Tier 1 properties as a result of Commission feedback).

City of Campbell MEMORANDUM

Desk Item - Item #1 – Planning Commission Feedback Page 2 of 7 Housing Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development (PLN-2021-12)

The following serves as a sheet-by-sheet summary of comments provided:

1. Central Campbell (Sheet 1 of 6)
• Two Commissioners expressed disappointment that the properties along Railway, Dillon, and Gilman were not included as Tier 1 sites and felt they should be reconsidered as Housing Opportunity Sites.
• Multiple Commissioners expressed support for redeveloping the City Corporation Yard for housing and had feedback, questions and concerns regarding relocating to the Campbell Technology Center. • Several Commissioners expressed support of the higher densities identified around the Winchester Light Rail Station.

2. East Campbell (Sheet 2 of 6)
• One Commissioner expressed concerns with traffic impacts around SR-17 and Hamilton Avenue from additional housing.
• One Commissioner questioned the need for three housing opportunity sites at the Pruneyard.
• One Commissioner expressed concern adding new housing at the Pruneyard and appropriateness of adding housing to a regional serving shopping center given potential traffic impacts and new traffic impacts from new housing.

3. North Campbell (Sheet 3 of 6)
• One Commissioner expressed support for inclusion of the Home Church site (above 167) if the ownership has provided interest (no interest has been expressed).

4. Northwest Campbell (Sheet 4 of 6)
• Two Commissioners commented that a higher density may make sense for Site 51 (Golds Gym, 700 W. Hamilton).

5. West Campbell (Sheet 5 of 6)
• One Commissioner commented on if Site 12 (Goodwill) is redeveloped for housing that Goodwill will find a new location.

6. South Campbell (Sheet 6 of 6)
• One Commissioner expressed a desire for more services in the area.

II. Mixed-Use Principles

In addition to providing direction on the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Planning Commission also commented on the principles to be used to identify which of the Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development.

Desk Item - Item #1 – Planning Commission Feedback Page 3 of 7 Housing Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development (PLN-2021-12)

In general, the Commission were supportive of the criteria identified by staff but also suggested that mixed-use land use designations be applied to properties along main corridors (i.e., Hamilton, Bascom, and Winchester).

The Commission also expressed a desire for a mixed-use land use designation to be availed to a property owner as an option (rather than apply as a mandate). One Commissioner commented that the City should develop policies that incentivize quality mixed-use development in areas of the community where it should be encouraged. Another Commissioner recommended that a small amount of on-site mixed use (commercial space) be required with the ability for a developer to provide more commercial space based on market conditions.

III. Building Height

As part of the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed Table 2 from the staff report which serves to summarize the relationship between project density and building height.

The staff presentation focused on the last row of the table , which indicates that projects at the highest end of the density range, 75 du/acre with an 80% density bonus applied, may be expected to fall under the City -wide maximum height limit (62-feet vs. 75 -feet), describing the assumptions underlining that calculation – such as a minimum lot coverage of 40%, an average unit size of 800 square feet, and height of 10 -feet per floor . Staff indicated that if ground-floor commercial/parking area of a building are also included in a development, it would still be unlikely for the height limit to be exceeded – especially if the City were to establish development standards which discourage greater building heights.

In review of the table, one member of the Planning Commission indicated a concern with limiting unit sizes to 800 square feet, as it may deter fa milies. Staff clarified that if the City of Campbell were to impose an average unit size requirement to control maximum building height, that it would still provide for a range of unit types1.

IV. Public Comment Letters / Late Request to Housing Opportunity Sites List

Staff has received several recent letters from property owners expressing interest in being included or removed from consideration as a housing opportunity site that arrived too late to be considered by the Planning Commission . To facilitate the Council’s review of these sites , staff has prepared an analysis of each property based on previous ranking method ology used to identify Tier 1 sites and summarized the impact to unit count if the sites are added to or removed from the inventory.

1 The Residences at Railway (St. Anton) project at 300 Railway Avenue has an average unit size of 786 square feet, with units as small as 441 square feet (studio units) and as large as 1,060 square feet (3-bedroom units).

Desk Item - Item #1 – Planning Commission Feedback Page 4 of 7 Housing Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development (PLN-2021-12)

Requested to be Removed from Housing Opportunity Site List (283 units total)

Property owners of the following sites have provided written feedback that they do not wish to be considered as a Housing Opportunity Site.

1. Harrison & Salmar (#12.2, #181, #212.1, #212.2,) : The subject properties are commercial/industrial sites totaling 3.16 acres with a target density of 45 du/acre.

These sites were ranked Tier 1 due to their favorable location (i.e., access to light rail, meeting AFFH criteria), lot sizes, and lack of a high sales tax generating use.

These sites were also previously identified as Housing Opportunity Sites in the 4th and 5 th RHNA cycles and have a mixed use (Commercial/Professional Office/Residential) land use designation. If removed, a total of 142-units would be lost from the inventory.

➢ Staff Recommendation : Staff would recommend ret aining the subject properties on the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory for study as part of the environmental analysis understanding it may be removed at a later date.

2. 2060 S. Bascom (#152): The Denny’s property is 1.1 acres with a target density of 45 du/acre.

This property was ranked Tier 1 due to its favorable location (i.e., abutting Bascom Avenue across from the Pruneyard ), lot size , density that yields more than 50 - units, and lack of a high sales tax generating use. If removed, a total of 50 units would be lost from the inventory.

Desk Item - Item #1 – Planning Commission Feedback Page 5 of 7 Housing Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development (PLN-2021-12)

3. 877 E. Hamilton (#136) 2: The subject site contains a small commercial center occupied by a combination of commercial and office uses. The site is 1.2 acres with a target density of 75 du/acre.

This property was ranked Tier 1 due to its favorable location (i.e., proximity to transit along a major arterial), and lot size. However, site contains one of the top sales tax generating businesses. If removed, a total of 90 units would be lost from the inventory.

Requested to be Added to Housing Opportunity Site List (112 units total)

Property owners from the following sites have recently submitted letters requesting that their property be included as a Housing Opportunity site.

1. 1500 E. Hamilton (New #283) – Two-Story Office Building / Chicago Title : On January 21, 2022 , the City received a letter from Christine Andris ( Portfolio Manager) of the subject site expressing interest in being considered as a housing opportunity site. The property is 2.79 acres in size. A preliminary assessment was that this property would receive a ranking score of “5” based its location, size, property owner interest, and the lack of top sales tax generating business.

Based upon its location, staff is recommending that, if the site is accepted as a housing opportunity site, a density of 30 dwelling units per acre be considered. The

2 The requested removal is based on a response to the City’s property-owner survey distributed in December 2021.

Desk Item - Item #1 – Planning Commission Feedback Page 6 of 7 Housing Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development (PLN-2021-12)

church site across Leigh Avenue also has a target density of 30 du/ac. With a density of 30 du/ac, the site would add 82 units to the inventory.

➢ Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend adding the subject property on the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory for study as part of the environmental analysis.

2. 400 W. Campbell Avenue (New #284) – Campbell United Church of Christ : On January 24, 2022, the City received a letter from Mark Fannuchi, Moderator of the Campbell United Church of Christ expressing interest i n being considered as a housing opportunity site. The representative for the church indicated that half the site could be used for housing. The site is 3 acres in size. A preliminary assessment was that this property would receive a ranking score of “4” based its location, size, property owner interest, and the lack of top sales tax generating business.

If the site is accepted as a housing opportunity site, a density of 20 dwelling units per acre would probably be appropriate for this location, like the Uplift site. If half the site were to be developed for housing, 30 units could be added to the inventory.

➢ Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend adding the subject property on the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory for study as part of the env ironmental analysis.

V. Residential Density Adjustments

Desk Item - Item #1 – Planning Commission Feedback Page 7 of 7 Housing Sites Selection and Principles for Mixed-Use Development (PLN-2021-12)

The Council had previously provided policy direction on modifications to the method of calculating residential density . Staff has identified th at the following technical modifications will be required to implement this policy direction as follows:

1. Residential Density Adjustments : To account for the change in the method of calculating residential densit ies, based on Council direction, the identified residential densities in Campbell’s General Plan must be modified. As the amount of land used to calculate the residential density is smaller (based on the new definition which excludes the public right of way), the identified residential density in the General Plan will be higher. For example, a site with an existing density of 14-20 du/acre, will need to be increased to approximately 17-25 du/acre as part of the General Plan update to maintain the status quo (same number of housing units produced on the property) . In revising residential densities, staff will intend to “round-up” to the next whole number in a density range and determine the increase in density required based on the average difference in net vs. gr oss lot area City- wide rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

Staff anticipates return to the Commission and Council in March 2022 with the modifications identified.

Attachments:

Exhibit A – Additional Public Feedback

1 Stephen Rose
From: Christine Andris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose
Cc: Francis Jeff
Subject: RE: Housing Element - Campbell
Hello Rob and Stephen,

We have a commercial property at Leigh and Hamilton in Campbell (1500 E Hamilton Avenue) that we’d like to have added to the “Housing” list.

Please let me know the process and the deadlines to get on the list.

Thank you,

Christine Andris
Senior Portfolio Manager

MCM Diversified, In
c.
777 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95112
Direct 408.288.3414 Main 408.288.2400
[email protected]

From: Christine Andris <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:01 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element ‐ Campbell

Hi Rob,

We’re interested in getting more information about the “Housing Update” for commercial properties, in Campbell.

We have two properties that we may like to have added to the list.

Would you please let me know what the process is.

Thank you,

Christine Andris
Senior Portfolio Manager

MCM Diversified, In
c.
777 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95112
Direct 408.288.3414 Main 408.288.2400
[email protected]

1 Stephen Rose
From: Vikki Essert
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 5:29 PM
To: Planning Division; Liz Gibbons; Susan M. Landry; Anne Bybee; Paul Resnikoff; [email protected]
Subject: Housing Opportunity Meetings
Hello Commissioners and Council Members,

I have a few thoughts on the recent Planning Commission and upcoming Council meetings on the possible Housing Opportunity sites for the Housing Element update.

Most importantly, relying on developers for the very low and low income units will not meet the need. In a best case scenario at the Campbell Technology property, 25% below mark et is only 130 units and even “below market” is not low enough to be “very low income”. I strongly encourage you to seek out and incentivize partnerships with nonprofits and private investors to develop many more units in this low range. During the last cycle, Campbell exceeded at the market rate
and luxury levels but created virtually no units at the very low level.

Next, I think everyone agrees that the area along Selmar is great for high density, BUT the current infrastructure does not support the ingress and egress needs of high density from Selm ar onto Hamilton. That is why the GPAC strongly
recommended the Site Area Plan. That may not be the best mechanism, but the purpose was for the City to have a plan to improve the infrastructure to allow good pedestrian access to the Light Rail station as well as an alternate way for auto ingress/egress other than Hamilton Ave.

And, I would lik
e to see the density discussion focus more on project footprint, height and objective standards. These are the things that determine the look and feel of a development. Thinking only in terms of units per acre is obsolete. It is vital to build more smal
ler, less costly units rather than large, luxury units.

Lastly, having some flexibility built into the “mixed use” designation is very important. We need housing more than more commercial space, but as was stated at the PC meeting, we still need space for types of business other than retail. I also think it is wort
h exploring an easement to connect Technology Parkway to Cristich.

I look forward to the discussion on Tues!
Vikki Essert

Table 2 rev - Building Heights adjusted for units per floor plus ground floor retail Adjusted for Corridors, Elevator and Utilities
30 units per acre plus various density bonus
Bonus
Density
du/ac
Bonus
Density
Lot
coverage Lot size Unit size
Corridors
, Elev,
Util
ADDs
Unit size
+
corridors
Unit
Count
Building
foot print =
13 units/fl
SF/Floor Total
stories
Building
Ht @ 10 ft
a story
height for
residential
@ 10 ft no
ground
floor retail
ground
floor
commerci
al @ 15 ft
Staff
Report
Diff in
height
with retail

35.0% 40.5 52,650 3.12 3 30 45 23.24 21.76

50.0% 45 58,500 3.46 4 40 55 25.83 29.17

80.0% 54 70,200 4.15 4 40 55 30.99 24.01
75 units per acre plus various density bonus
Bonus
Density
du/ac
Bonus
Density
Lot
coverage Lot size Unit size
Corridors
, Elev,
Util
ADDs
Unit size
+
corridors
Unit
Count
Building
foot print =
16 units/fl
SF/Floor Total
stories
Building
Ht @ 10 ft
a story
height for
residential
@ 10 ft no
ground
floor retail
ground
floor
commerci
al @ 15 ft
Staff
Report
Diff in
height
with retail

35.0% 101 131,300 6.31 6 60 75 46.49 28.51

50.0% 112 145,600 7.00 7 70 85 51.65 33.35

80.0% 135 175,500 8.44 8 80 95 61.98 33.02
75 units per acre plus various density bonus with smaller average unit size Bonus
Density
du/ac
Bonus
Density
Lot
coverage Lot size Unit size
Corridors
, Elev,
Util
ADDs
Unit size
+
corridors
Unit
Count
Building
foot print =
21 units/fl
SF/Floor Total
stories
Building
Ht @ 10 ft
a story
height for
residential
@ 10 ft no
ground
floor retail
ground
floor
commerci
al @ 15 ft
Staff
Report
Diff in
height
with retail

35.0% 101 105,040 4.81 5 50 65 46.49 18.51

50.0% 112 116,480 5.33 5 50 65 51.65 13.35

80.0% 135 140,400 6.43 7 70 85 61.98 23.02
17,424
21,780
21,780
30% 1,300
30% 1,300
1,040
75 50% 43,560 1,000
30 40% 43,560 1,000
75 50% 43,560 800 30%
From:

To:

David Snyder
Web Distribution City Clerk
Subject: Comments Regarding Campbell"s Plan for Housing Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:52:58 PM
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.

I attended the January 25, 2022 City Council meeting online.

Please accept the following comments regarding Campbell's Plan for Housing.

I am a homeowner residing in Campbell and a California-licensed professional engineer.

The staff and council have done a lot of work to identify acreage that could potentially be used for housing in Campbell.

Please address whether it is feasible and practical to supply sufficient water to each
of the proposed properties to support the proposed
densities during the period of time when homes would expect to be occupied.

Will water be available from the water utilities?
Is it feasible and practical to sufficiently enlarge the existing water supply infrastructure to accommodate the increased demand?
If water cannot be provided initially and for the lifetime of the housing at a cost that can be afforded by the residents, a site does not really qualify as a place for housing.

Although I did not mention it in my comments during the meeting on January 25th, similar concerns exist with respect to sewer connections and sewage and stormwater runoff wastewater management.

If these topics will not be addressed in the selection of sites, then please make sure they are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report process.

Respectfully submitted,
David M. Snyder, P.E.

Darryl Drive
Campbell CA

Campbell’s
Plan for Housing
City Council
January 25, 2022
6:30 PM
https://campbell.generalplan.org/housing-element
2 Presentation Outline
I. Introduction & Background
a.Tonight’s Action – Final Housing Opportunity Sites
b.Property Owner Feedback, Criteria and Ranking
II. Final “Tier I” Housing Opportunity Sites List
III.City owned sites / Campbell Tech Park
IV.Council Questions
V. Other Issues & Factors
a.Mixed Use
b.Building Height
VI.Council Questions / Public Comment
VII.Council Discussion
VIII.Next steps
3 Recommended Action
Review which sites should be included in “Campbell’s
Plan for Housing”
Provide feedback on key principals to identify mixed-
use sites
4 Project Schedule
GPAC
Recommendation
Administrative
Draft General
Plan
Dec. 2021
–
Draft General
Plan Land Use
Plan complete
(inc. Housing
Inventory Sites)
Jan. 2022
-
Preparation of
an
Environmental
Impact Report
(EIR) begins
Late 2022
-
Adoption of EIR,
Housing
Element, and
General Plan
Jan. 2023
-
HCD Approves
Housing
Element
5  Explore the use of school and church sites as part of housing inventory
 Establish housing densities that are compatible with
surrounding area
 Favors the Campbell Technology Park and City-owned Corp Yard as housing opportunity sites
 Consider mixed-use developments for appropriate sites  Concerns with new development exceeding 75-ft building height limit
 Conduct public outreach with Property Owners
PC and Council Feedback
6 Faith-Based Organizations
School Districts
VTA
Property Owners
o 35 responses received
Additional Public Outreach
7 Site Size (larger than ½ acre)
Housing Unit Production Potential (> 50 units)
Good Location (AFFH, near transit, etc.)
Property Owner Interest
Protect local Sales Tax Revenues
Final Site Ranking Criteria
8 Summary of Recommended Sites
Tier 1 Sites Sites Units
Campbell Technology Park 4 522
City-owned sites 2 307
All Other Tier 1 Sites 90 4,781
TOTAL 96 5,610
Site analysis based on ranking criteria
Ranking scores from 0 to 5
• Recommending sites with scores ≥3 “Tier 1”
9 Housing Opportunity Site Map Legend
Tier I Sites
Maximum Density du/ac
10 Central Campbell

11 East Campbell

12 North Campbell

13 Northwest Campbell

14 West Campbell

15 South Campbell

16 Campbell Technology Park
 17-acre site
Four properties
Letter of interest from
Property Owner
30 du/ac  522 new housing
units
Existing Redevelopment
Agreement

17 Corporation Yard
Currently surrounded by
higher density housing
 Close to Downtown
Campbell and Light Rail
Station
Possible relocation of
Corp Yard

18 First Street Parking Garage
Current agreements will
need to be considered
A new housing project
should retain existing
parking, or City should
evaluate replacement
parking options

19 Number of Units
Minimum Number of Housing Opportunity Site Units3,300 units • Includes 30% buffer above Campbell’s RHNA requirement for Housing Opportunity Sites as recommended by State HCD
Higher Housing Unit Target5,000 units
• Staff has recommended that the Council consider a higher target to provide more flexibility and options in ensuring housing production will meet RHNA requirements Staff-Recommended Housing Units5,610 units
• 522 (Campbell Tech Park) + 307 (City-owned sites) + 4,781 (all other Tier 1 sites) • Current number of recommended housing units
• Based on previous Commission and Council feedback
Planning Commission Recommendations
Generally Agreed with Recommended “Tier 1” Housing
Opportunity Sites and Ranking Criteria
Did not add or remove sites
Did not modify densities
Public Comment / Requested Changes
• Arrived too late to be considered by PC
• Removals totaling 283 units
• Additions totaling 112 units
• Staff recommends retaining and adding
• Requested Removals (-283 units):
• Requested Additions (+112 units):
#283
Public Comment / Requested Changes
Council Questions / Public
Comments
https://campbell.generalplan.org/housing-element
24 Consider which properties should be required to
develop as mixed-use, based on four key
principals:
Density
Larger Sites
Pedestrian-Oriented
Offset the Loss (or Lack) of Services
Mixed-Use Development
25 Density
Pruneyard

26 Larger Sites
Fry’s Electronics

27 Pedestrian-Oriented
Between Downtown
Campbell and the
Pruneyard

28 Offset Loss or Lack of Services
Milk Farm Dairy

29 Building Heights
 Concerns about exceeding 75-ft building height limit
 Staff exercise: Building Heights in Relation to Density, Lot Coverage & Average Unit Size

30 Affordable Housing Example

31 Planning Commission Recommendations
Agreed with proposed ‘Mixed Use’ criteria & provided
additional input, including allowing mixed use to be
optional.

City Council Discussion
https://campbell.generalplan.org/housing-element
33 Staff to return in February/March on additional
Plan for Housing/General Plan Update input
Development of Plan for Housing policies and
programs
Affordable Housing Program/Overlay Zone
 Start preparation of the EIR for General Plan
Update
Next Steps
Thank you!
Questions Comments
https://campbell.generalplan.org/housing-element

Requested Removals
Requested Additions

Campbell City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

Campbell City Council
January 25, 2022