120-foot width derived from Winchester
Bouelvard Master Plan (Sub Area 2); length
of module nor the number of differentiated
elements recommended to be changed,
which contribute to positive design
outcomes.
130
Limiting stucco to 50% of a public ROW facing façade shall be stucco (excluding windows) precludes cost effective
projects as well as mediterranean styles.
Suggest removing this limitation. Page 137
Consider allowing for increases in the
amount of stucco when certain additional
design requirements are satisfied.
131
Requiring a base/middle/top approach, which is more
typically used for high rise buildings is cost/resource inefficient and could easily lead to overly distracting facades and lack of architectural variety.
Suggest elimination the base/middle/top concept, as
variation will natrually occur (i.e. base generally has larger glazing percentages due to ground floor uses, middle
generally has balconies or other features, and top has a roof line.) Page 123 - 134
This standard serves to require additional
articulation. Standards allow for building
treatments described.
1.f
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Response to Public Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Chapter 7: Architectural Standards
132
Requiring 2 significant changes for a corner site is
cost/resource inefficient and could place the emphasis of the site layout in a location that is not well suited to the site.
Suggest eliminating this requirement. Page 131 - 132
No changes recommended in response.
Standard serves to result in improved
aesthetic outcomes.
133
Section 7.040 Façade Composition Standards
o Section does not include T5N or T5MS, however general comment as it applies to other zone is that 7.040.3
“Base, Middle, and Top” requirement will hinder
architecture design creativity. Example shown also looks like it
applies to larger building that may be proposed in a T5N or T5MS zone.
o Need clarification. Not enough to determine design
potential
No changes recommended in response.
Standard serves to result in improved
aesthetic outcomes.
134
Section 7.040 Façade Composition Standards
o 5. windows (pg. 129)-all windows are required to have sills. o Too restrictive
No changes recommended in response.
Standards allow for groups of windows to
provide a single sill for the window group,
as opposed to every window requiring its
own sill. Sills serve for drainage when
recessed as required.
135
Section 7.040 Façade Composition Standards
6.B. Occupiable balconies (pg. 131)-max recess into building is 54 inches (4.5 feet). T
o Too restrictive and does not allow for fully recessed balconies.
(Repeat Comment)Allowances for recessed
balconies to be added to the MFDDS when
certain design requirements are satisfied.
136
Section 7.040 Façade Composition Standards
• Section 7.040.3 “Base, Middle, and Top” requirement will hinder architecture design creativity.
o Need clarification. Not enough to determine design
potential
(Repeat Comment) No changes
recommended in response. Standard serves
to result in improved aesthetic outcomes.
1.f
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Response to Public Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Chapter 7: Architectural Standards
137
Section 7.040 Façade Composition Standards
5. windows (pg. 129)-all windows are required to have sills. o Too restrictive
(Repeat Comment) No changes
recommended in response. Standards allow
for groups of windows to provide a single
sill for the window group, as opposed to
every window requiring its own sill. Sills
serve for drainage when recessed as
required.
138
Section 7.040 Façade Composition Standards
6.B. Occupiable balconies (pg. 131)-max recess into building is 54 inches (4.5 feet).
o Too restrictive and does not allow for fully recessed balconies
(Repeat Comment) Allowances for recessed
balconies to be added to the MFDDS when
certain design requirements are satisfied.
Chapter 8: Specific to Large Sites
139
Civic and Open Space. Can you please clarify if the
requirement for civic space can count as open space and vice versa?
Civic space is intended as publicly accessible
space and is not allowed to count as
required open space (private to each unit or
shared among units).
140
Thoroughfare Dimensions. Please confirm that Fire and
Engineering have determined the travel widths of the
proposed thoroughfares in Section 8.050 are acceptable, since we are only seeing 22’ travel widths on all of the street thoroughfares.
No changes recommended in response.
Standards allow for 26-foot wide street
section, with 4-foot wide striped median
that is flush with grade.
141
8.020.1.A: Walkable Neighborhood Plan (Further elaboration of requirements in 8.030); No, too restrictive
Noted.
142
8.020.2 Thoroughfares (Further elaboration of requirements in section 8.050); No, too restrictive
Noted.
143
8.020.3 Alleys; Yes, can comply Noted.
144
8.020.4 Civic Space Required (B. min. 10% after subtracting street and alley right-of-way, is required) (further
elaboration in section 8.040); No, too restrictive
If 10% is too much, what amount is
proposed?
145
8.020.5 External Connectivity; N/A If the project is subject to Chapter 8 Specific to Large Sites, the external connectivity
standards apply.
1.f
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Response to Public Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Chapter 8: Specific to Large Sites
146
8.020.6 Block Size; No, too restrictive Noted.
147
8.020.8 Applying Zones; No, too restrictive These standards are in response to community concern and are necessary to
provide an effective physical transition from
more intense development (e.g., T5N) to
adjacent low-intensity neighborhoods.
148
8.050 Thoroughfares (pg. 153)
o Proposed ROW and sections have 11’ travel lanes for 22’ total.
o Too restrictive, does not comply with Fire Aerial Apparatus dimensions.
(Repeat) No changes recommended in
response. Standards allow for 26-foot wide
street section, with 4-foot wide striped
median that is flush with grade.
149
8.050 Thoroughfares (pg. 153)
• Proposed ROW and sections have 11’ travel lanes for 22’ total.
o Too restrictive, does not comply with Fire Aerial Apparatus dimensions.
(Repeat) No changes recommended in
response. Standards allow for 26-foot wide
street section, with 4-foot wide striped
median that is flush with grade.
Chapter 9: Adjustments 150No comments.
Chapter 10: Definitions 151No comments.
Chapter 11: Measurement Methods152No comments.
Form-Based Zone Map
153
Requiring non-resi while including an increased ground floor height limit for commercial effectively reduces the number of floors of units within a given volume.
Suggest 12' ground floor height (resi or non-resi) for T4MS and T5 or no height limit (similar to San Mateo and Palo Alto).
12' works well for ground floor residential
but is not tall enough for most retail,
restaurant uses which is why the standard is
15' floor-to-floor.
1.f
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Response to Public Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Form-Based Zone Map
154
Is either retail or non-resi required or simply encouraged in the T5MS zone? Page 43
Ground floor non-residential is required
where yellow line depicted on form-based
map. The standard will be updated to be
clear about the linear feet required. This
will be coordinated with the minimum
amount of building required in the Facade
Zone (subsection 5 of the zone). Ground
floor units are allowed everywhere except
along the front of the building. Ground
floor leasing office and amenities that are
available to the public are allowed in the
required non-residential space.
155
Requiring commercial use in residential buildings frequently results in vacant spaces or poorly performing retail,
especially given the current state of retail industry.
Suggest requirement be updated to allow residential
common areas, residential units with stoops or dooryards or live/work, retail, or similar active uses along these corridors and in applicable zones that state "non-resi ground floor uses".
Comment noted. Location of where yellow
line to be applied, what qualifies as
acceptable uses to satisfy standard, to be
discussed.
1.f
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Response to Public Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Form-Based Zone Map
156
San Tomas Aquino Shopping Center: Test Fit for potential project uses T5MS standards, which zoning does not
currently allow.
Clarification needed for test fit: Used T5MS and T4N.M, despite T5MS not being an option based on the General Use Plan designation of this site as NC. Because if the site can be T5MS + T4N.M, could work with needed density, though
adjustment with zones would still
be necessary:
T5MS (pg. 43-46)
“A walkable district of large footprint, high-intensity mixed-use buildings and housing choices supporting ground floor
retail, food and services. See Section 21.11 (Mixed-Use Districts) for allowed uses.”
The site will be subject to the Large Site
Standards and therefore, the site would
need to go through that process first to
determine the form-based zones. The color
on the Form-Based Zone Map is applied in
the event the property is developed
involving less than five acres.
1.f
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Response to Public Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and
1.g
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Revised Draft Form-Based Zone Map (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development Summary of Municipal Code Changes
General Corrections
In addition to the Title and Chapter specific changes as noted below, typographical, and grammatical improvements have been made throughout the affected sections. Further, changes have been made throughout the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new land uses and density ranges contemplated by the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element updates.
Title 6: Health and Sanitation
Chapter 6.40 Camping and Storage
1. Updated the location allowed for Camping to include all sites with a legally established public assembly use onsite, striking previous language limiting such activity to the P-F (Public Facilities) zoning district.
Title 7: Animals
Chapter 7.04 General Provisions
1. Updated the definition of “Animals” as to not prohibit the sale of live shellfish, crabs, lobsters, or fish from grocery stores.
Title 20: Subdivision and Land Development
Chapter 20.16 Parcel Map Procedures
1. Added an exception to access requirements for projects subject to the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards; with a requirement for shared improvements to be provided on a common lot maintained by a homeowner’s association.
2. Aligned the decision-making body for the parcel map with the decision-making body established for the associated Housing Development Permit.
Title 21: Zoning
Chapter 21.01: General Provisions
Chapter 21.02: Interpretation of Provisions
Chapter 21.03: Land Use Permit Requirements
1. Updated references to Chapter 21.10 (Commercial, Office and Research and Development, and Industrial Districts) where renamed.
2. Added a reference to Chapter 21.11 (Mixed-Use Districts).
3. Removed an antiquated reference to the redevelopment agency.
4. Added a provision to allow land use permits submitted on or before the effective date of the zoning code update to be carried out in accordance with the development standards and permitting procedures in effect at the time of project submittal.
5. Added an exclusion from permitting procedures for Mobile Home Parks.
6. Added a section exempting certain projects from public hearings.
1.h
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) Chapter 21.04: Establishment of Zoning Districts
1. Updated to reflect new land use designations and zoning districts.
2. Established P-D as a legacy zoning district.
Chapter 21.07: Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
1. Newly created chapter to establish objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use.
2. Includes permitting applicability and permitting procedures.
Chapter 21.08: Residential Districts
1. Consolidated purpose and symbol assigned to individual zoning districts in a single section and established land uses allowed for newly established zoning districts as well as for mobile home parks.
2. Expanded those uses allowed and prohibited by the MDR zoning district (formerly R-3) to the newly established HDR zoning district.
3. Removed mobile home parks as an allowable use in the MHDR zoning district (formerly R-3) and removed the reference to the maximum number of stories from the land use description and added to the development standards table.
4. Consolidated allowable uses in the RD and RM uses, allowing the more permissive of the two to prevail.
5. Consolidated permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses of individual zoning districts in a zoning table.
6. SB 234: Revised the land use table to establish “family child day care homes, large” as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts as required by state legislature.
7. Added short-term rentals to the list of expressly prohibited uses.
Chapter 21.10: Commercial, Office, Research and Development, and Industrial Districts
1. Renamed Chapter to capture the same land use groupings/distinctions made in the General Plan and Chapter 21.04 (Zoning Districts Established) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
2. Consolidated purpose and symbol assigned to individual zoning districts in a single section and established land uses allowed for newly established zoning districts as well as for mobile home parks.
3. Increased allowed FAR (Floor Area Ratio) up to 1.0.
4. Removed 21.10.060 – CB-MUC-3 (Central Business Mixed-Use District) zoning district from this chapter (added to Chapter 21.11 - Mixed-use districts).
5. Added a provision to ensure that a maximum FAR of 1.0 for projects between 3 to 7 units, and
1.25 for projects between 8 to 10 units consistent with SB 478 (2021) .
6. Consolidated permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses of individual zoning districts in a zoning table.
7. Added a reference to the Figure II-64 (Parcels Allowing Emergency Shelters) within the Housing Element and removed language describing the boundaries of the area.
8. Removed distinctions between the RD and LI zoning districts which added specificity on the square footage and bedroom count of caretaker/employee housing as is separately regulated by CMC 21.36.040 (Caretaker or employee housing).
1.h
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards)
9. SB 234: Revised the land use table to establish “family child day care homes, large” as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts as required by state legislature.
Chapter 21.11: Mixed-U se Districts
1. Newly created chapter to establish new mixed-use zoning districts.
2. Added a provision to ensure that a maximum FAR of 1.0 for projects between 3 to 7 units, and
1.25 for projects between 8 to 10 units consistent with SB 478 (2021).
3. Added an allowance for live-work units for all mixed-use zoning districts excepting the Commercial/Light Industrial and the CB-MU (Central Business Mixed-Use) zoning district.
4. Added the CB-MU (Central Business Mixed-Use) zoning district to this chapter and incorporated the following changes:
a. Updated the purpose statement of the zoning district to remove ambiguity as to where residential uses shall be allowed and references to parking standards which have been removed.
b. Removed parking standards and procedures and references to parking standards, defaulting to those found within Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading). c. Removed reference to the allowable density range to avoid future conflicts with land use designation.
d. Clarified that the increase in FAR up to 1.5 only applies to projects without a residential component.
e. Updated the land use table referencing the standards contained within C-3 for Area/Master Plan areas to establish uses as Conditional where previously provided for through an Administrative Planned Development Permit (a legacy permit type).
Chapter 21.12: Special Purpose Districts
1. Removed references to the management of how an overlay is shown on the map which are addressed separately under Chapter 21.04 (Establishment of zoning districts).
Chapter 21.14: Overlay Combining Districts
1. Removed language directing how an overlay district symbol should be applied when shown on the zoning map, which is separately addressed by Chapter 21.04 (Establishment of zoning districts).
2. Removed limitations on where an overlay district may be applied in the city to address newly created zoning districts, be more consistent with where overlays are already applied, and provide greater flexibility for where overlays can be proposed in the future – such as the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) called for by Program H-1c (Affordable Housing Overlay Zone) included in the Housing Element.
3. Established an ‘opt-out’ process for housing projects through the establishment of an overlay for projects that may result in a community benefit or improved design.
Chapter 21.16: General Performance Standards
1. Added Section 21.16.120 (Transportation demand management) and Section 21.16.130 (Transportation analysis and improvements) to implement actions T-4.j. and T-4.l. of the Draft General Plan (Envision Campbell 2040).
1.h
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) Chapter 21.18: Site Development Standards
Chapter 21.20: Density Bonus and Other Incentives
1. Added clarity on how a density bonus is calculated.
2. Added clarity on how concessions and waivers are applied.
3. Added a definition to clarify that Accessory Dwelling Units, and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units shall not count as a living unit for purposes of the Chapter.
4. Added a new density bonus income category for acutely low- and extremely low-income units, which are provided an additional density bonus over that provided for very low-income units in furtherance of Program H-5s (Density Bonus Incentives for ELI Units) from the Housing Element.
Chapter 21.21: Streamlined Approval Process
1. Established new permitting procedures and processing timelines consistent with recent bills (e.g., SB 35, AB 2162, and AB 101) which require cities to evaluate certain projects through a streamlined ministerial review process.
Chapter 21.22: Flood Damage Prevention
Chapter 21.23: Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Incorporates amendments in response to SB-897 and AB-2221 as follows:
a. Recognize concept of “Statewide Exemption ADU” (≤ 800 SF, with 4-ft side/rear setbacks, and not taller than 18-ft) that are permitted exceptions to FAR, Lot Coverage, building separations, open space, and front setback requirements. b. Allow for a minimum allowable ADU height of 18-ft, with an additional 2-ft allowed to match the roof pitch of the primary home.
c. Eliminate the parking requirement for ADUs, recognizing that the multitude of exceptions has essentially annulled any parking standard. d. Establish an amnesty section to legalize unpermitted ADUs constructed prior to January 1, 2018 that otherwise do not comply with local or State development standards, subject to general provisions and restrictions.
Chapter 21.24: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
1. Updated the definition of living unit to clarify that Accessory Dwelling Units, and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units shall not count as a living unit for purposes of the Chapter.
2. Updated to require for-sale projects to provide the same allocation of units available to lower- income and very low-income units that is required for rental projects (partially implementing Program H-1a – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Implementation from the Housing Element).
Chapter 21.25: Two-Unit Housing Developments
Chapter 21.26: Landscaping Requirements
1. Added landscape standards for mixed-use districts.
2. Multi-family zoning abbreviations updated.
Chapter 21.28: Parking and Loading
1.h
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards)
1. Removed a cross reference to parking standards contained in the C-3 zoning ordinance.
2. Clarified that parking requirements are totaled for all uses prior to rounding.
3. Established a uniform parking space size of 8.5 feet wide x 18-feet deep.
4. AB 970 – Updated the code to reduce the number of parking spaces by the amount necessary to accommodate the electrical vehicle charging station if the electrical vehicle charging station and associated equipment interferes with, reduces, eliminates, or any way impacts the required parking spaces for existing uses.
5. AB 1100 – Updated the code to clarify that charging spaces count as at least one standard vehicle space for complying with minimum parking space requirements and that accessible charging spaces with an access aisle count as at least two standard parking spaces.
6. AB 2097 – Updated the code to remove minimum parking requirements for residential, commercial, and/or other development projects that is located within ½ mile of public transit.
Clarified the meaning of bus routes, consistent with the definition provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), because a specific definition of intersection is not provided by the statue.
7. Updated parking standards for emergency shelters consistent with Housing Element Program H- 3g.
8. Consolidated situations (i.e., proximity to public transit pursuant to AB 2097) and parking reduction strategies which may be used reduce the number of required parking spaces under a single section. Established new shared parking and rideshare parking reduction strategies for mixed-use projects.
9. Removed the option to apply for a parking modification permit to reduce the parking obligation of residential uses.
10. Clarified that the minimum length for a driveway serving single-family and two-family uses is exclusive of any public right-of-way.
11. Established a minimum guest parking ratio for residential projects where no other standard is provided.
12. Established prioritization for assignment of parking spaces.
13. Established a minimum bicycle parking requirement for residential (one space per unit) and non- residential (one space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area) uses.
14. Added a requirement for at least one loading parking space for apartment buildings and mixed- use developments with 16 or more units and direction for when to stripe a loading space white or yellow.
Note: The updates made to these sections do not address the streamlining/timeline or checklist requirements of AB 970 or AB 1236, which are to be addressed in a future update to the Campbell Municipal Code addressing permit processing times and shot clocks related to other recently passed state legislation (e.g., ADUs, photovoltaic, wireless facilities).
Chapter 21.30: Signs
Chapter 21.32: Tree Protection Standards
1. Added Findings for removal of trees that prevent development of a housing development project (includes SB 9 properties)
Chapter 21.33: Historic Preservation
1.h
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) Chapter 21.34: Wireless Communications Facilities
Chapter 21.36: Provisions Applying to Special Uses
1. Updated 21.36.070 (Large family child care homes) to remove reference to specific zoning districts. As these facilities are permitted by right pursuant to SB 234, removed reference to a specified permit type and appeals process.
2. Updated 21.36.085 (Emergency shelters) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type and location, which is established separately under Article 2 (Zoning Districts).
3. Changed permitting requirements for large family day care homes, removed appeal procedures
4. Updated 21.36.095 (Health and fitness centers/studios) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type.
5. Established Section 21.36.115 (Liquor establishments. as a special use and relocated findings previously specified found under Section 21.46.070 (Special findings for liquor establishments) to this newly created section.
6. Removed Section 21.36.130 (Mixed-use development) which standards have been superseded by Chapter 21.07 (Multi-Family Development and Design Standards).
7. Updated 21.36.150 (Outdoor seating) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type, removed reference to specific application submittal requirements which are provided for by the city’s established application forms.
8. Updated 21.36.170 (Public assembly uses) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type.
9. Updated 21.36.270 (Massage establishments) to add date of adopting Ordinance and remove reference to a specific land use permit.
Chapter 21.38: Application Filing, Processing, and Fees
1. Updated to include Admin CUPs
2. Added a requirement for concurrent review
3. Added courtesy notice section to memorialize current practice.
Chapter 21.40: Zoning Clearances
1. Added eligible facilities requests (wireless) to be eligible for zoning clearances to memorialize current practice.
Chapter 21.41: Pre-Applications
1. Revised the mandatory pre-application process to reflect permitting requirements in Chapter
21.07. 2. Added a voluntary pre-application application for specified development activity in the Downtown Development Plan area.
Chapter 21.42: Site and Architectural Review
1. Added language to clarify permitting procedures for reconfiguration of existing square footage for residential to comply with AB 916
2. Added language to clarify permits filed under 21.07 (Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) are not subject to this section
1.h
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) Chapter 21.44: Home Occupation Permits
1. Updated to allow cottage food operations to comply with state law (AB 1616 and AB 1144) Chapter 21.45: (Temporary Uses)
1. Updated to correct formatting error in the title of the Chapter.
Chapter 21.46: Conditional Use Permits
1. Established Admin Conditional Use Permit process.
2. Relocated Special Findings for Liquor Establishments to Chapter 21.36.
Chapter 21.48: Variances
Chapter 21.50: Reasonable Accommodations
1. Updated to account for amendments in the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Chapter 21.52: Development Agreements
Chapter 21.54: Administrative Responsibility
Chapter 21.56: Permit Implementation Timeline
Chapter 21.58: Nonconforming Uses and Structures
1. Clarified the definition of nonconforming use to clarify that residential density does not constitute a nonconformity.
2. Updated the non-conforming use restrictions to include reference to specific ordinances where previously adopted.
3. Clarified that Policy “E” of the San Tomas Area neighborhood plan only pertains to projects subject to the plan and not all projects located within its limits.
Chapter 21.60: Amendments (General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map Amendments)
1. Updated findings required to approve a General Plan Amendment.
2. Extended authority to initiate an amendment to the General Plan to include the City Manager.
3. Extended authority to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map to include City Manager and Community Development Director.
4. Added a requirement to update the Form-Based Zone Map with any proposed change to a residential land use or zoning.
Chapter 21.62: Appeals
1. Updated to add Administrative Conditional Use Permit and reordered it to alphabetical order.
Chapter 21.64: Public Hearings
Chapter 21.68: Revocations and Modifications
Chapter 21.70: Administrative Decision Process
1.h
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards)
1. Added Administrative Conditional Use Permit to 21.71.020
2. Reorganized order to 21.71.020 to alphabetical order Chapter 21.72: Definitions
1. Amended and added various definitions related to development and to support newly established sections of code not limited to their respective Chapters.
1.h
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Summary of Municipal Code Changes (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) 1 From: Matthew Jue <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:47 AM
To: Stephen Rose <[email protected]>
Subject: AB 2097 and Bike Parking Requirements
Stephen,
Below is a summary of the 1/19/23 BPAC discussion on AB 2097 and Bike Parking Requirements. There were three BPAC members present: Matt Schroeder, Catherine Brady, and Mark Nakamura.
AB 2097 and Bike Parking Requirements. Staff explained that AB 2097 states, “A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one‐half mile of public transit.” The problem is that many governments base their bicycle parking requirements on automobile parking requirements.
Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) 21.28.070 Bicycle Parking cites the Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). Short‐ and long‐term parking is generally 5% of vehicle parking space requirements. CMC 21.28.070 adds, “The decision‐making body may require additional bicycle parking beyond this requirement in order to further the purpose of this chapter.” Staff explained that the City is preparing objective standards for residential and nonresidential off‐street parking. The public review draft will be released in late‐January or early‐February. Staff is asking the BPAC to discuss and make recommendations on the following draft wording:
Bicycle Parking
Short‐term and long‐term bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in compliance with Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, as required by Chapter 18.26, (Green Building Code) except that in no case shall less than one bicycle parking space per residential dwelling unit and/or 2,500 square feet of non‐residential gross floor area. The decision‐making body may require additional bicycle parking beyond this requirement for non‐residential uses in order to further the purpose of this chapter.
Question 1: Is one bicycle parking space per residential dwelling unit is appropriate? Matt Schroeder responded that the number seems appropriate and logical. Catherine Brady asked what the purpose was for restricting car parking requirements near transit. Staff mentioned greenhouse gas reductions, complete streets goals, and supporting transit.
Matt was interested in the type of racks (e.g., bike lockers for long‐term parking) and type of artistic racks. Mark Nakamura supported two spaces per dwelling unit to provide a bike perimeter. Catherine said that tenants wanting to use transit would find bike facilities to be appealing and that thoughtful planning should be encouraged. Matt believes that providing bicycle parking would not be a huge expense for developers. He encouraged the maximum number of spaces but also doesn’t want to discourage developers.
Question 2: For non‐residential, is one bicycle parking space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area appropriate? The BPAC responded that the figure seems reasonable, but recommended pushing the requirement to the max. To help the BPAC understand the scale of land uses and number of bicycle parking spaces required, staff cited the square footages of Bed Bath & Beyond and the development at 330 East Hamilton Avenue and figured out the number of spaces that would be required of each land use. The BPAC commented that the parking requirement should accommodate both employees and customers. A land use like a coffee shop may require a higher number of spaces.
Question 3: Does the BPAC have any recommendations at this time? Mark asked about single‐family housing where bike parking requirements may not apply (i.e., bikes can be stored in garages), and whether such developers could be required to provide bike storage elsewhere in the City. Staff replied that it’s unlikely that the City could require improvements on another person’s property, but the City could require developer fees for providing more bicycle parking in the public right‐of‐way.
1.i
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commitee Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) 2 Matthew Jue, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Traffic Engineer
City of Campbell | Public Works Department
70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008
www.campbellca.gov | 408.866.2150
1.i
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commitee Feedback (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) Residential Design StandardsSubcommittee FeedbackAdam Buchbinder and Matt Kamkar, 2023-02-03 What proportion of parking should be guest-assigned?No regulation in residential-only projects, 10% of residential spaces in mixed-useprojects, rounding down.
What's the effect of not requiring covered parking in multi-family buildings?No consensus. Buchbinder worries about expenses; Kamkar worries about security. Weagree on requiring no more than one covered space per unit.
Should our parking assignment requirements apply to AB 2097 areas?We didn’t have strong agreement, but lean toward no. (Buchbinder brought up a casewhere a ground-floor market couldn’t provide a few parking spaces for customers withoutproviding a large number for residents in the same building.) What proportion of shared parking should be allowed?We shouldn't regulate the proportion of parking sharing.
Bike parking minimums?We agree on one bike space per four units, which is what San Jose does. The BPAChas suggested one space per unit (!). We’re concerned that levels that high would leadto infeasibility.
What kind of substitution can you do with rideshare spaces, at what rate?Generally speaking, we should allow substitutions to reduce total parking ratios from2/unit to a minimum of 1/unit in non-AB 2097 areas. Rideshare spaces should substitutefor individual parking spaces at a 5:1 rate, subject to the 1/unit minimum.
For bike parking spaces?Substitute spaces for bikes at a 3:1 stall ratio. More detail:
A car parking stall can fit about twelve bikes in it. I'm proposing that we take threecar parking stalls allocated to cars and allow swapping it for one car parking stallallocated to bikes. That one car parking stall allocated to bikes will provide spacefor twelve bikes, so in effect, each car stall is replaced with space for four bikes,which take up one-third of a stall.
Worked example: 20-unit development, starts with 20 parking spaces, 2/unit.Substitute one carshare space, which brings it down to 16 stalls (15 regular, 1
1.j
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Subcommitee (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) car-share). Use three of these stalls to substitute in one bike-parking stall. Sothere would be 12 regular stalls, one car-share stall, and one bike-parking stall(accommodating 12 bikes), for a total of 14 stalls. We started with twenty, thenhad a 5:1 reduction (so net removal of 4) and a 3:1 reduction (net removal of 2).
How much loading space should we need? Does it come out of parking? Can it beloading-space only during certain hours?If there's no curb loading space, there should be off-street loading space, and it shouldbe prioritized within the assignment order. The assignments can be flexible (for example,loading from 6 AM to 10 AM only).
Half-stories?The “half story” nomenclature should be dropped. We shouldn’t call something that’szero percent habitable fifty percent of a story. Change “1.5 stories” to “1 story with anattic”. Where “2.5 stories” is noted, it should be 3 stories, subject to height limits.
Height and story limit?Over three stories, we shouldn’t regulate the number of stories, only height. This appliesto T4N.L and up.
Additionally, in T5.N and T5.MS, the height limit should match the citywide height limit of75’, rather than be reduced to 65’.
Adjacency standards?Add clarification that if the adjacency standards will make a parcel undevelopable orwould prevent it to be developed at General Plan compliant densities, the standards willnot apply.
1.j
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Subcommitee (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) Third Campbell Corner, LP
1501 W. Campbell Avenue
To the Mayor, City Council, & Staff,
The partnership representing the parcel located at 1501 W. Campbell Ave (APN 307 -50-074) is requesting to be included as a priority housing site in the City of Campbell’s Housing Element.
Our request is to change the land use for this property from C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to Commercial Corridor Mixed Use (45 -60 Units / Gr. Acre). This would expand the options for the site to include high density residential which could allow for a stand -alone redevelopment or a joint development with the neighboring property, San Tomas Plaza, at a time when it makes the most economical sense to do so.
We look forward to working with the City Campbell to bring the best redevelopment opportunity to the community.
Sincerely,
Gian Paolo Martire, Partner
Third Campbell Corner, LP
1.k
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: 1501 W. Campbell Avenue – Land Use Change Request Letter (Administrative Draft of the Multi-Family Development and Design