Agenda, special meeting — Campbell City Council, April 18, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

6. Any use inconsistent with state or federal law.

E. General development standards for uses in R-1 (Single-family) zoning district. New land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designated, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2-2 (Minimum Parcel Sizes for Newly Created Parcels in the R-1 Zoning District) and in Table 2-3 (General Development Standards — R-1 Zoning District), in addition to the general development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article 3 (Development and Operational Standards).

Table 2-2
Minimum Parcel Sizes for Newly Created Parcels in the R-1 Zoning District Zoning Map Symbol Minimum Parcel Area: Square
Feet/Net Acre
Minimum Lot Width: Feet
R-1-6 6,000 60
R-1-8 8,000 70
R-1-9 9,000 70
R-1-10 10,000 80
R-1-16 16,000 80

Table 2-3
General Development Standards - R-1 Zoning District
Development Feature R-1
Minimum public frontage 25 feet/15 feet for flag lots
Maximum allowable density See Table 2-1
Private open space required 750 square feet per dwelling unit. The area shall be in addition to the required front setback between the structure and any street property line. The recreational area may be occupied by facilities such as a swimming pool, playground equipment, and a patio, porch, or deck provided it is open on at least two sides and not covered by a roof or canopy. No dimension of an area to be counted as open space shall be less than 10 feet.

Setbacks required
Front 20 ft.

Side (each) A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater). The planning commission may allow a minimum side setback of five feet for structures proposed for a second story addition, when it finds:
a. The side setback would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort or general welfare of persons in the neighborhood, or the city as a whole; and
b. The side setback would not unreasonably interfere with the ability of adjoining property owners to enjoy access to air, privacy, sunlight, and the quiet enjoyment of the owner's property.

Street side 12 ft.

Rear A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Vehicular access 25 feet to any public right-of-way.

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 10 of 21 ends

Maximum floor area ratio 0.45

The planning commission may approve an F.A.R. of up to 0.50 with approval of a site and architectural review permit when it makes both of the following findings:
a. The perceived scale and mass of the home is compatible with the adjacent homes and the homes in the surrounding area.
b. The home minimizes the use of design features that make it appear significantly larger than the adjacent homes and the homes in the surrounding area.

Maximum lot coverage 40%
Main structure maximum height 35 ft./2 ½ stories
Distance between non-accessory
structures on the same lot
The distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures.

Accessory structures See Section 21.36.020 (Accessory structures) Fences, walls, lattice and screens See Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice and screens) Motor vehicle parking See Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading)

F. Design guidelines. In its review of development projects, the decision -making body shall take into consideration the single-family residential design guidelines that have been adopted by the city. (Ord. 2108 § 1(part), 2008; Ord. 2070 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2006; Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004). (Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014; Ord. No. 2216, § 10, 12-12-2016; Ord. No. 2225, § 9, 8-15-2017; Ord. No. 2252 , § 8, 11-19-2019)

21.08.040 R-D (Two-family) zoning district.

A. Purpose of R-D (Two-family) zoning district. The R-D zoning district identifies areas appropriate to provide a variety of dwelling types. The allowable maximum density range is six to thirteen dwelling units per gross acre. The R-D zoning district is intended to provide for single-family and two-family dwelling units on parcels ranging from six thousand square feet for single-family dwelling units and seven thousand square feet for two-family dwelling units. The R-D zoning district is consistent with the low-medium density residential land use designation of the General Plan.

B. Permitted uses in R-D (Two-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a zoning clearance in compliance with Chapter 21.40, (Zoning Clearances):

1. Accessory structures;

2. Accessory dwelling units;

3. Duplexes;

4. Family child day care homes, small;

5. Garage/yard sales, private;

6. Groundwater recharge facilities;

7. Hobby car restoration;

8. Home occupations;

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 11 of 21 ends

9. Junior accessory dwelling units;

10. Parks, public;

11. Residential care homes, small;

12. Residential service facilities, small;

13. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (less than three feet in diameter);

14. Schools - K-12, public;

15. Single-family dwellings;

16. Supportive housing;

17. Transitional housing.

C. Uses allowed with conditional use permit in R-D (Two-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 21.46, (Conditional Use Permi ts):

1. Convalescent/rest homes;

2. Family child day care homes, large;

3. Government offices and facilities (local, state, or federal);

4. Monastery, convent, parsonage, or nunnery;

5. Public utility structures and service facilities;

6. Residential care homes, large;

7. Residential recreational facilities, private;

8. Residential service facilities, large;

9. Rooming and Boarding houses;

10. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (greater than three feet in diameter);

11. Schools - K-12, private;

12. Tennis courts, private;

13. Reserved;

14. Wireless telecommunications facilities.

D. Prohibited uses in R-D (Two-family) zoning district. The following uses are prohibited:

1. Commercial and industrial uses (except those allowed by a home occupation permit);

2. Storage of commercial vehicles;

3. Storage of supplies and materials for commercial or industrial purpo ses;

4. Storage of supplies, materials, lumber, metal and junk exceeding an area of one hundred square feet, except when such are being used for construction on the property with a valid building permit;

5. Any use which is obnoxious or offensive or creates a nuisance to the occupants or visitors of adjacent buildings or premises by reason of the emissions of dust, fumes, glare, heat, liquids, noise, odor, smoke, steam, vibrations, or similar disturbances;

6. Any use inconsistent with state or federal law.

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 12 of 21 ends

E. General development standards for uses in R-D (Two-family) zoning district. New land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designated, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2-4 (General Development Standards - R-D Zoning District), in addition to the general development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article 3, (Development and Operational Standards).

Table 2-4
General Development Standards - R-D Zoning District
Development Feature R-D
Minimum parcel size 6,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. 7,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling.

Minimum parcel width 60 ft.

Minimum public frontage 25 ft./15 ft. for flag lots
Maximum allowable density 6 to 13 d.u./gross acre
Open space required for two-family
dwelling units
750 square feet per dwelling unit. The area shall be in addition to the required front setback between the structure and any street property line. The recreational area may be occupied by facilities such as a swimming pool, playground equipment, and a patio, porch, or deck provided it is open on at least two sides and not covered by a roof or canopy. No dimension of an area to be counted as open space shall be less than 10 ft.

Setbacks required
Front 20 ft.

Side (each) A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Street side 12 ft.

Rear A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Vehicular access 25 feet to any public right-of-way.

Maximum floor area ratio 0.45
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Main structure maximum height 35 ft./2 ½ stories
Distance between non-accessory
structures on the same lot
The distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures.

(Ord. 2108 § 1(part), 2008; Ord. 2070 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2006; Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004). (Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014; Ord. No. 2252 , § 9, 11-19-2019)

21.08.050 R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district.

A. Purpose of R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district. The R-M zoning district identifies areas appropriate to provide a variety of dwelling types. The allowable maximum density range is six to thirteen dwelling units per gross acre. The R-M zoning district is intended to provide for single-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwelling units on parcels ranging from six thousand square feet for single -family, seven thousand square feet

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 13 of 21 ends

for two-family, and nine thousand square feet for three-family dwelling units. The R-M zoning district is consistent with the low-medium density residential land use designation of the General Plan.

B. Permitted uses in R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a zoning clearance in compliance with Chapter 21.40, (Zoning Clearances):

1. Accessory structures;

2. Accessory dwelling units;

3. Apartments;

4. Duplexes;

5. Family child day care homes, small;

6. Garage/yard sales, private;

7. Groundwater recharge facilities;

8. Home occupations;

9. Junior accessory dwelling units;

10. Parks, public;

11. Residential care homes, small;

12. Residential service facilities, small;

13. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (less than three feet in diameter);

14. Schools - K-12, public;

15. Single-family dwellings;

16. Supportive housing;

17. Transitional housing.

C. Uses allowed with conditional use permit in R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 21.46, (Conditional Use Permits):

1. Bed and breakfast inns;

2. Community/cultural/recreational center;

3. Convalescent/rest homes;

4. Emergency shelters;

5. Family child day care homes, large;

6. Government offices and facilities (local, state, or federal);

7. Monastery, convent, parsonage, or nunnery;

8. Public utility structures and service facilities;

9. Residential care homes, large;

10. Residential recreational facilities, private;

11. Residential service facilities, large;

12. Rooming and Boarding houses;

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 14 of 21 ends

13. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (greater than three feet in diameter);

14. Schools - K-12, private;

15. Tennis courts, private;

16. Reserved;

17. Wireless telecommunications facilities.

D. Prohibited uses in R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are prohibited:

1. Commercial and industrial uses (except those allowed by a home occupation permit);

2. Storage of commercial vehicles;

3. Storage of supplies and materials for commercial or industrial purposes;

4. Storage of supplies, materials, lumber, metal and junk exceeding an area of one hundred square feet, except when such are being used for construction on the property with a valid building permit;

6. Any use inconsistent with state or federal law.

E. General development standards for uses in R-M (Multiple-family) zoning district. New land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designated, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2-5 (General Development Standards - R-M Zoning District), in addition to the general development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article 3, (Development and Operational Standards).

Table 2-5
General Development Standards - R-M Zoning District
Development Feature R-M
Minimum parcel size 6,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. 7,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling.
9,000 square feet for a three-family dwelling.

Parcels having an area greater than 9,000 square feet may be developed at a ratio of one dwelling unit for each 3,000 square feet of parcel area.

Minimum parcel width 60 ft.

Minimum public frontage 25 ft./15 ft. for flag lots
Maximum allowable density 6 to 13 d.u./gross acre
Open space required for multiple-
family dwelling units
An area of not less than 300 square feet for each dwelling unit for recreational purposes (if not a townhouse or condominium).

When serving multiple-family dwelling units, the area may be private or common. The area shall be in addition to the required front setback between the structure and any street property line. It shall be specifically designed for recreational use, whether active or passive, and shall not be occupied by driveways, parking spaces, or walkways between structures.

When serving multiple-family dwelling units, a recreation area may be provided for each dwelling unit, or all the required space may be combined in one area. A rooftop recreation space may be counted as a part of the required space; provided, it is at least 300 square feet in area.

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 15 of 21 ends

The area may be occupied by recreational facilities (e.g., deck, patio, playground equipment, porch, or swimming pool); provided, they are open on at least two sides and not covered by a roof or canopy. When the recreation area is 500 square feet or more in size, a recreation structure may be built on not more than 25 percent of the area. No dimension of an area to be counted as open space shall be less than 10 ft.

Setbacks required
Front 20 ft.

Side (each) A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Street side 12 ft.

Rear A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Vehicular access 25 feet to any public right-of-way.

Maximum floor area ratio 0.50
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Main structure maximum height 35 ft./2 ½ stories
Distance between non-accessory
structures on the same lot
The distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures.

Accessory structures See Section 21.36.020 (Accessory structures) Fences, walls, lattice, and screens See Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice and screens) Landscaping See Section 21.26.020 (Landscaping requirements for individual zoning districts)
Motor vehicle parking See Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading)

(Ord. 2108 § 1(part), 2008; Ord. 2070 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2006; Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004). (Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014; Ord. No. 2252 , § 10, 11-19-2019)

21.08.060 R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district.

A. Purpose of R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The R-2 zoning district identifies areas appropriate to provide a variety of dwelling types. The allowable maximum density range is fourteen to twenty dwelling units per gross acre. The R-2 zoning district is intended to provide for single-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwelling units on parcels ranging from six thousand square feet for single -family, seven thousand square feet for two-family, and eight thousand square feet for three- and four-family dwelling units. The R-2 zoning district is consistent with the medium density residential land use designation of the General Plan.

B. Permitted uses in R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a zoning clearance in compliance with Chapter 21.40, (Zoning Clearances):

1. Accessory structures;

2. Accessory dwelling units;

3. Apartments;

4. Duplexes;

5. Family child day care homes, small;

6. Garage/yard sales, private;

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 16 of 21 ends

7. Groundwater recharge facilities;

8. Home occupations;

9. Junior accessory dwelling units;

10. Parks, public;

11. Residential care homes, small;

12. Residential service facilities, small;

13. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/ antenna (less than three feet in diameter);

14. Schools - K-12, public;

15. Single-family dwellings;

16. Supportive housing;

17. Transitional housing.

C. Uses allowed with conditional use permit in R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 21.46, (Conditional Use Permits):

1. Bed and breakfast inns;

2. Convalescent/rest homes;

3. Emergency shelters;

4. Family child day care homes, large;

5. Government offices and facilities (local, state, or federal);

6. Monastery, convent, parsonage, or nunnery;

7. Public utility structures and service facilities;

8. Residential care homes, large;

9. Residential recreational facilities, private;

10. Residential service facilities, large;

11. Rooming and Boarding houses;

12. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (greater than three feet in diameter);

13. Schools - K-12, private;

14. Tennis courts, private;

15. Reserved;

16. Wireless telecommunications facilities.

D. Prohibited uses in R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are prohibited:

1. Commercial and industrial uses (except those allowed by a home occupation permit);

2. Storage of commercial vehicles;

3. Storage of supplies and materials for commercial or industrial purposes;

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 17 of 21 ends

4. Storage of supplies, materials, lumber, metal and junk exceeding an area of one hundred square feet, except when such are being used for construction on the property with a valid building permit;

6. Any use inconsistent with state or federal law.

E. General development standards for uses in R-2 (Multiple-family) zoning district. New land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designated, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2-6 (General Development Standards - R-2 Zoning District), in addition to the general development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article 3, (Development and Operational Standards).

Table 2-6
General Development Standards - R-2 Zoning District
Development Feature R-2
Minimum parcel size 6,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. 7,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling.
8,000 square feet for a three- or four-family dwelling.

Parcels having an area greater than 8,000 square feet may be developed at a ratio of four dwelling units for the first 8,000 square feet, and 2,200 square feet for each additional unit.

Minimum parcel width 60 ft.

Minimum public frontage 25 ft./15 ft. for flag lots
Maximum allowable density 14to 20 d.u./gross acre
Open space required for multiple-
family dwelling units
An area of not less than 300 square feet for each dwelling unit for recreational purposes (if not a townhouse or condominium).

Setbacks required
Front 20 ft.

Side (each) A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Street side 12 ft.

Rear A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 18 of 21 ends

Vehicular access 25 feet to any public right-of-way.

Maximum floor area ratio 0.55
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Main structure maximum height 35 ft./2 ½ stories
Distance between non-accessory
structures on the same lot
The distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures.

Accessory structures See Section 21.36.020 (Accessory structures) Fences, walls, lattice and screens See Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice and screens) Landscaping See Section 21.26.020 (Landscaping requirements for individual zoning districts)
Motor vehicle parking See Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading)

(Ord. 2108 § 1(part), 2008; Ord. 2070 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2006; Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004). (Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014; Ord. No. 2252 , § 11, 11-19-2019)

21.08.070 R-3 (Multiple-family) zoning district.

A. Purpose of R-3 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The R-3 zoning district identifies areas appropriate to provide a variety of dwelling types at a controlled high density at readily accessible locations that are convenient to community facilities. The allowable maximum density range is twenty-one to twenty-seven dwelling units per gross acre. The R-3 zoning district is intended to provide for single-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwelling units on parcels ranging from six thousand square feet for single -family, seven thousand square feet for two-family, and eight thousand square feet for three- and four-family dwelling units. The R-3 zoning district is consistent with the high density residential land use designation of the General Plan.

B. Permitted uses in R-3 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a zoning clearance in compliance with Chapter 21.40 (Zoning Clearances):

1. Accessory structures;

2. Accessory dwelling units;

3. Apartments;

4. Duplexes;

5. Family child day care homes, small;

6. Garage/yard sales, private;

7. Groundwater recharge facilities;

8. Home occupations;

9. Junior accessory dwelling units;

10. Libraries, public;

11. Parks, public;

12. Residential care homes, small;

13. Residential service facilities, small;

14. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (less than three feet in diameter);

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 19 of 21 ends

15. Schools - K-12, Public;

16. Single-family dwellings;

17. Supportive housing;

18. Transitional housing.

C. Uses allowed with conditional use permit in R-3 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 21.46 (Conditional Use Permits):

1. Assisted living facilities;

2. Bed and breakfast inns;

3. Commercial child day care center;

4. Convalescent/rest homes;

5. Emergency shelters;

6. Family child day care homes, large;

7. Government offices and facilities (local, state, or federal);

8. Mobile home parks, homes must be less than one story in height;

9. Monastery, convent, parsonage, or nunnery;

10. Public utility structures and service facilities;

11. Residential care homes, large;

12. Residential recreational facilities, private;

13. Residential service facilities, large;

14. Rooming and Boarding houses;

15. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (greater than three feet in diameter);

16. Schools - K-12, private;

17. Single Room Occupancy facilities.

18. Tennis courts, private;

19. Reserved;

20. Wireless telecommunications facilities.

D. Prohibited uses in R-3 (Multiple-family) zoning district. The following uses are prohibited:

1. Commercial and industrial uses (except those allowed by a home occupation permit);

2. Storage of commercial vehicles;

3. Storage of supplies and materials for commercial or industrial purposes;

4. Storage of supplies, materials, lumber, metal and junk exceeding an area of one hundred square feet, except when such are being used for construction on the property with a valid building permit;

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 20 of 21 ends

6. Any use inconsistent with state or federal law.

E. General development standards for uses in R-3 (Multiple-family) zoning district. New land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designated, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2-7 (General Development Standards - R-3 Zoning District), in addition to the general development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article 3 (Development and Operational Standards).

TABLE 2-7
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - R-3 ZONING DISTRICT
Development Feature R-3
Minimum parcel size 6,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. 7,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling.
8,000 square feet for a three- or four-family dwelling.

Parcels having an area greater than 8,000 square feet may be developed at a ratio of four dwelling units for the first 8,000 square feet, and 1,600 square feet for each additional unit.

Minimum parcel width 60 ft.

Minimum public frontage 25 ft./15 ft. for flag lots
Maximum allowable density 21 to 27 d.u./gross acre
Open space required for multiple-
family dwelling units
An area of not less than 300 square feet for each dwelling unit for recreational purposes (if not a townhouse or condominium).

Setbacks required
Front 20 ft.

Side (each) A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Street side 12 ft.

Rear A minimum of five feet or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the side property line (whichever is greater).

Vehicular access 25 feet to any public right-of-way.

Maximum floor area ratio 0.55
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Main structure maximum height 40 ft./3 stories

Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)

Page 21 of 21 ends

Distance between non-accessory
structures on the same lot
The distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures.

(Ord. 2108 § 1(part), 2008; Ord. 2070 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2006; Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004). (Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014; Ord. No. 2252 , § 12, 11-19-2019)

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council

Date: April 18, 2023
From: Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Subject: Desk Item 1 – Correspondence

Attached are public comments and correspondence related to the Housing Element and General Plan adoption.

City of Campbell

MEMORANDUM
City Clerk’s Office

From: Tim Pasquinelli
To: Brian Loventhal; Stephen Rose
Cc: Rob Eastwood; Jason; Pete Beritzhoff
Subject: Campbell Tech Park
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:06:00 PM
Brian and Stephen,

Thank you for meeting with us regarding Campbell Tech Park and the viable paths forward. To that end, we propose the following options:

Option 1
Revert to the 3rd public draft designation of the HE which would re-zone all 4 parcels totaling 17.3 acres at the Medium-High Density Mixed-Use zoning density (26-33 units/acre).

Option 2
Re-zone the 3 parcels totaling approximately 14 acres at the Neighborhood Mixed-Use density (18-25 units/acre) while leaving the existing R&D zoning on the 3.25 acre parcel. The City has suggested this parcel could be a future site for the Corp Yard or a future site for high density housing. We would work with the City to achieve your desired outcome. With the reduced density of the 14 acres, increased density as needed would be accommodated on the San Tomas Plaza site to maintain overall housing unit production numbers in 4
th public draft documents.

We look forward to continuing to work with the City to achieve a mutually beneficial solution.

Regards,

Tim Pasquinelli

From: Stephen Rose
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Item 1 of April 18, 2023 City Council Meeting - 10 percent open space requirement for large sites, illegalities Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 12:54:54 PM
Attachments: 3.27.2023 Comment on Campbell Planning Commission Item 1.pdf image003.png
image005.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image012.png
image013.png

Stephen Rose
Senior Planner, Housing Coordinator
City of Campbell | Community Development Department
(408) 866-2142
(call or text)

Book an Appointment with a Planner here.

Apply for Planning and Building Permits here.

From: Sean Marciniak <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:38 AM
To: Anne Bybee <[email protected]>; Susan M. Landry <[email protected]>; Sergio Lopez <[email protected]>; Dan Furtado <[email protected]>; Elliot Scozzola <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Division <[email protected]>; Stephen Rose <[email protected]>; William Seligmann - Offsite <[email protected]>; City Managers Office <[email protected]>; Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>; Pete Beritzhoff <[email protected]>; Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 1 of April 18, 2023 City Council Meeting - 10 percent open space requirement for large sites, illegalities

Dear Honorable Members of the Campbell City Council,

Hanson Bridgett represents Bay West Development with respect to the potential redevelopment of 90 North San Tomas Aquino Road. We understand that you’ll be considering, this evening, a zoning proposal that includes form-based code provisions (Item 1). To this end, we wish to alert you to significant legal infirmities in City staff’s proposed requirement that developers of large sites must effectively dedicate 10 percent of their property to open space, whereas owners of smaller sites do not. This inequality makes for an illegality that is constitutional in its size, and the unlawfulness is more apparent after reviewing the Item 1 staff report. This email supplements the original public comment we submitted to the Planning Commission on March 27, 2023, which is attached.

City staff are proposing that large site developers must set aside 10 percent of their properties “as large site open space,” where such an exaction is not proposed for smaller sites. (Proposed Multi-Family Development & Design Standards [“MFDDS”] § 8.020(3)(B).) A large site is defined to include 5.0 or more acres. While we appreciate that City staff have amended their original proposal to allow the 10-percent set aside to function as private open space (as opposed to public open space), and have extended developers the right to a partial credit against open space dedication requirements, these refinements do not cure the proposal’s illegalities. The explanation in the staff report as to why City staff may distinguish between large and small sites is contradicted by the record.

For the detailed reasons below, we respectfully request that the City Council eliminate the requirement that owners of large sites set aside 10 percent of their property for open space. Please consider the following:

The requirement is still an exaction, even if the City demands no transfer of title. The refinement that allows the developer of a large site to choose whether the 10-percent set aside will be public or private open space does not provide for a satisfactory, legal option. Whether public or private, the City’s MFDDS would require that such open space be publicly accessible, “for the shared enjoyment of all” citizens. (MFDDS § 10.020(O)(3).) This encumbrance is clarified in the City’s proposed findings in support of the MFDDS (agenda package pages 69-71) and, in particular, Finding 6(e). Whether or not the City demands the open space be subject to a fee title transfer, an easement, or some other encumbrance, this demand is an exaction that is unlawful in nature, and calling it something else does not change the nature of what it is. At the end of the day, 10 percent of open space on large sites will be public land, even if the legal title does not belong to the City.

The City’s rationale for treating large sites differently contradicts the record.

Not all large sites will have the proclaimed flexibility in choosing zoning. Various findings in the proposed resolution adopting the MFDDS attempt to justify the onerous open space requirements for large sites by asserting that owners of all large sites will, in fact, have a choice of form-based zoning. The proposed findings further state that, because of this flexibility, the owners of large sites may develop their properties with greater efficiency and thus can bear the burden of providing more open space. For instance, the City’s proposed Findings 6(b) and 6(c) include such claims. The problem is, it’s just not true.

The City must be referring to Section 8.020(3)(D) of the MFDDS, which allows large site owners to replace assigned zoning with other zones. But there is a pretty important caveat:

Per Sections 8.020(3)(D)(1) & (2), as well as Tables 8.020.B and 8.020.C, a large site owner’s zoning choices include only those zoning districts which comply with the assigned General Plan designation, and which are mindful of nearby residential uses. With respect to our client, the City is assigning its property a Commercial Corridor Mixed Use (CC-MU) zone, which whittles down zoning options. Moreover, this site is within 65 feet of single family residential homes, which further reduces zoning options. Given these facts, it appears our client must designate the property as Zone T4N.M and that, in fact, no other options exist. To this end:

Here is the City’s proposed general plan designation for your site:

Meanwhile, it appears our client’s site directly abuts a single family residential neighborhood:

Below are the tables which show zoning options for large sites, based on General Plan designation and residential use proximity. When one cross-references the two tables, and accounts for the fact that our client’s property abuts single family homes, it appears that the only zoning permitted is T4N.M. That is, the zones consistent with General Plan designation of CC-MU include T4N.M, T4N.L, T4MS, T5N, and T5MS. But accounting for the homes nearby, options only include T3N, T4N.S, and T4N.M. If one charts this with a Venn diagram, the only overlap is T4N.M .

It is unclear how many other properties in fact are limited in this manner. Clearly, the findings are not supported by evidence of any substantiality.

There is no evidence demonstrating that 5 acres is an appropriate “watershed” to distinguish between properties. Further, the City’s decision to distinguish between properties with 5 acres or more acre from properties with less than 5 acres is not explained.

Finding D discusses, at great lengths, the limited functionality of smaller sites, but it is unclear why a

4.9-acre property is significantly more limited than a 5.0-acre property. There is no evidence to support this finding. It is conclusory.

The reasoning in the findings, to the extent it exists, is further eroded by the fact that the MFDDS requires that large sites be broken into smaller blocks, thereby making them indistinguishable from smaller sites.

Finally, to the extent smaller sites are relieved of open space requirements, it would appear the City is mandating that larger sites will be required to shoulder the burden of providing recreational space for occupants of the smaller sites. Such an arrangement violates constitutional jurisprudence. Open space dedications must be proportional to the impact of a given project. It is impermissible to require one property owner to solve issues created by another property owner.

There is no evidence demonstrating that a site with 5 acres will have significant impacts that require mitigation in the form of open space. Finding A suggests that large sites require open space in order to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated noise, air quality emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, while environmental review has occurred on a citywide scale, no individual project has in fact been analyzed, and it is conceivable that infill development will not increase VMT. In fact, the City has established screening thresholds whereby certain projects need not undergo rigorous analysis, including projects within ½ mile of transit and projects where proposed homes will have less VMTs than existing uses. (See https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17944/-Campbell-VMT-Policy.) No nexus or proportionality, or even a reasonable relationship, has been adequately documented in the administrative record to support any assertion that large site redevelopment creates any disproportionate impact on VMT or any other environmental impact.

The change allowing for credit against in-lieu fees is well-intentioned, but the partial credit now allowed is not shown to be sufficient. Finally, while we appreciate that City staff are now allowing large site owners to offset open space dedication burdens by applying for credit against park in-lieu fee requirements, there is a limit on such credits (e.g., 50 percent). Given the significant amount of land at stake with the proposed 10-percent open space requirement, it is necessary, in order to rule out the possibility that property owners are ineligible for a 100-percent credit, that City undertake a nexus study, supported by substantial evidence. As part of this study, the City must evaluate whether the 10-percent set aside requirement will result in significantly more open space than the City hopes to provide its citizenry.

How much open space does the City need? General Plan Policy COS-1.2, as proposed, provides the City shall “[s]trive to provide three acres of open space, park land and recreational facilities and one acre of school open space and recreational facilities per 1,000 residents in the City.” This policy sets forth a standard and, insofar as this standard is supported by law and/or a nexus study, there is no analysis demonstrating that the 10-percent set aside requirement for large sites is calibrated to achieve this standard. These failures to provide evidence and analysis are unlawful in and of themselves.

We urge the City Council to eliminate the 10 percent open space requirement for large sites. Thank you for your time and attention,

Sean Marciniak
Partner
Hanson Bridgett LLP
(925) 746-8471 Direct
(925) 746-8498 Fax
[email protected]
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

San Francisco | Sacramento | North Bay | East Bay | Los Angeles Click on the below link to access information on COVID-19

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have.

The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.

19476513.2
Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
SEAN R. MARCINIAK
E-MAIL [email protected]
NIRAN S. SOMASUNDARAM
E-MAIL [email protected]
March 27, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Campbell Planning Commission
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re
: Comment on proposed Multi-Family Development & Design Standards (Item 1 of March 27, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda)
P
lanning Commissioners,
O
ur law office represents Bay West Development. We are writing to comment on Chapter 8 of the proposed Multi-Family Development & Design Standards (the "MFDDS") being considered by the Planning Commission at its March 27, 2023 meeting, which apply to infill housing developments. Specifically, we are concerned that the MFDDS' requirement that owners of large sites set aside ten percent of their property for public open space violates federal and state constitutional rights, the Mitigation Fee Act, and other California planning and zoning laws.

Accordingly, we request clarification on the City's justification for this requirement.

T
he ten percent dedication requirement for large sites. As written, the MFDDS requires that all development sites over five acres provide at least ten percent of site's net developable area as public open space, one side of which must abut a public right of way. (the "Open Space Requirement") (MFDDS at sections 8.020(3)(B); 8.030). There is no similar requirement applying to sites that are less than 5 acres, and smaller sites must provide only private open space or common area proportional to the number of units developed, which may be located anywhere on site. (See, e.g., MFDDS at section 3.090(3)).

T
he ten percent dedication requirement appears arbitrary and capricious. The City only vaguely justifies the MFDDS' Open Space Requirement based on vague references to compatibility and circulation. (Planning Commission Report – March 27, 2023, page 20.) However, there are numerous other development standards in the MFDDS that ensure all development will be compatible with neighboring uses, and this different rule for large sites appears to have no rational basis.

For
instance, other provisions of the MFDDS use the City's land use police power to regulate building heights, setbacks, building facades, frontages, and building mixes in a manner sufficient to allow the City to control the contours of development. For instance, the MFDDS provides, in micro-detail, regulations on the interface of a project site with the public frontage (See, e.g., MFDDS §§ 3.070.5, 3.070.8, 8.030.4). For large sites, moreover, there are already rules that control massing and walkability insofar as the MFDDS break large sites into "blocks" with maximum block lengths, depths, and perimeters, with internal spaces to be travailed by

70 N. First Street
March 27, 2023

Page 2 ends

paseos and other byways. (See, e.g., MFDDS §§ 8.020, 8.040, Table 8.020.A.) Given all this micro-regulation of form, large sites will not look any different from smaller sites in any meaningful way, and there is no reasonable basis to distinguish between the two. Especially alarming is that the Open Space Requirement does more than control the look and feel of a housing development — it requires owner to dedicate a significant portion of their property to the City for park and open space use.

Accordingly, the Open Space Requirement is something wholly different that a run-of-the-mill development standard. By requiring that developers of large sites essentially convey ten percent of the site as a public easement for open space, the City appears to be imposing an exaction. (See, e.g. California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 435, 460 ["It is the governmental requirement that the property owner convey some identifiable property interest that constitutes a so-called 'exaction' under the takings clause and that brings the unconstitutional conditions doctrine into play."].). However, the City has not provided any of the required evidence or justification for the imposition of an exaction, or any argument as to why the Open Space Requirement should not be considered an exaction.

The Constitution protects development projects from exactions which plainly lack connection to that project's impacts. There must be a "nexus" and "rough proportionality" between an exaction and the proposed development. Under the two-prong nexus rule, an exaction imposed by a City must address the same type of impact caused by the development, and the must be in reasonable proportion to the burden created by the new impact. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Com. (1987) 483 U.S. 825.) In Nollan, the Supreme Court held that a beach access dedication requirement imposed as an exaction for a building permit for construction of a beach house was an unconstitutional taking because no nexus existed between the recognized burden created by the project (obstruction of the ocean view) and the required easement allowing public access to the beach. Even if a nexus exists, the connection between the development's impacts and an exaction must be "roughly proportional." (Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. 374.) Under this rough proportionality rule, a court considers whether dedications demanded as an exaction are proportional to the development's anticipated impacts. (Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 166.)

These principles are echoed and codified in state statute. Specifically, the Mitigation Fee Act requires a local government to establish a "reasonable relationship" between an exaction and a project's impact. (Gov. Code, § 66001(a)-(b).) And it is the City that has the burden of demonstrating an exaction is constitutional. (Shappell Indus., Inc. v. Governing Bd. of the Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. (1991) 1 Cal.4th 218, 235; Gov. Code, § 66024(a) [A local government "has the burden of producing evidence to establish that the development fee does not exceed the cost of the service, facility, or regulatory activity for which it is imposed"].)

The City has chosen to only subject sites greater than five acres to the Open Space Requirement. However, the MFDDS contains no discussion of why these sites in particular create impacts that need be remedied by such a burdensome exaction. Chapter 8 of the MFDDS states that the purpose of imposing targeted regulations on sites greater than five acres is to "create walkable neighborhoods with a mix of housing, civic, retail, and service uses within a compact, walkable, and transit-friendly environment." (MFDDS at sections 8.010(1)).

However, this vague statement of purpose is not sufficient to show a nexus or proportionality between the Open Space Requirement and any City goal. Moreover, as documented above, the City already has imposed development standards that break large sites up into units, regulate

70 N. First Street
March 27, 2023

Page 3 ends

the circulation network within these sites, and control how large site developments interface with the public frontage.

Meanwhile, the City has failed to identify any impact that would specifically be remedied by the Open Space Requirement, as opposed to the many other non-exaction land use regulations within the MFDDS, and certainly has not demonstrated that the ten percent of net developable area targeted by the Open Space Requirement is proportional to any such impact. There is no showing that housing developments on large sites will impact the public's open space and recreational enjoyment. For instance, the MFDDS applies to infill locations — not raw land — and development of these infill locations therefore will not occupy property that the City previously envisioned for open space. Nor is there any showing that occupants of large sites will utilize public open space any more than occupants of small sites. Under the City's proposed zoning and the MFDDS, there are similar building form controls and open space requirements for sites of all sizes. In other words, if the Open Space Requirement was not applied, occupants of large sites under the City's proposed laws will not be left with less open space than their counterparts.

Exclusive of the Open Space Requirements, the requirements of the MFDDS already ensure that large sites will have adequate circulation, diversity in form, and open space, and will have the same look and feel as small site developments. The City's arbitrary decision to burden sites that are 5.0 acres and not burden sites that are, for instance, 4.9 acres, threatens to violate the foregoing constitutional and statutory laws, as well as guarantees of equal protection. (See, e.g.

Norsco Enterprises v. City of Fremont (Ct. App. 1976) 54 Cal. App. 3d 488, 498).

The City has also failed to make clear how this Open Space Requirement comports with the City's existing parkland dedication requirements. The Open Space Requirement demands a very sizeable public open space dedication, potentially above and beyond requirements found elsewhere in the City's laws, and yet still only allows credits of up to only 50 percent. There are additional problems with this credit approach. For instance, the City's existing regulations (see, e.g., Campbell Municipal Code sections 13.08.110(c) and 20.24.110(b)) allow up to 50 percent credit for private open space. Under the Open Space Rule, it appears owners of large sites will have to forfeit credits for the provision of private open space insofar as public open space dedications will "eat up" allowable credits. The City has proposed some amendments to these existing rules, such as to section 20.24.110(b), but they do not address this inequity.

* * *

It appears the City has not thought through its proposal of the Open Space Requirement. We request the that City staff and the City attorney can explain their justification for requiring more public open space of large sites. As things stand, the City has not demonstrated any nexus between or other rationale justifying the impact of sites over five acres. The plan appears to be arbitrary, and all of the observations above constitute separate and independent bases to conclude that the Open Space Requirement violates the federal and state constitutional law, the Mitigation Fee Act, and protections against arbitrary exercises of police powers.

We ask that the City provide further information demonstrating that the Open Space Requirement does not constitute an exaction, or is supported by evidence showing either a nexus and rough proportionality, or a reasonable basis for classifying sites greater than five

70 N. First Street
March 27, 2023

Page 4 ends

acres differently than other sites. In the absence of such further information, we urge the City to continue the matter and reconsider imposition of a potentially unconstitutional regulation.

Sincerely,

Sean Marciniak
Attorney

Niran Somasundaram
Attorney

cc: William R. Seligmann, City Attorney, [email protected]

To: Anne Bybee and City Council Members

Date: April 18, 2023
From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Special Meeting Agenda, Item 1 – 2040 General Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Multi-Family Development and Design Standards, et al. ~ Financial Feasibility Analysis on Campbell Technology Park

In response to comments that the planned for densities for the Campbell Technology Park are ‘unrealistic’ and that the city has “not put forth any evidence that the site can be developed as lower income housing” the City engaged with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., based on their subject matter expertise as a r eal estate advisory firm with specialization in preparing financial feasibility pro forma analysis , to prepare a Financial Feasibility Analysis of the Campbell Technology Park.

In relevant part, the analysis concludes that:

• The development of stacked flat apartments generated higher residual land value per square foot of land when compared to townhomes; and

• The development of the site as lower -density townhomes and higher density stacked flat apartments at the studied land use density is feasible.

A draft copy of the Keyser Marston Associates report and conclusions has been included as an attachment.

Attachments:

1. Summary Email & Keyser Marston Associates Financial Feasibility Analysis City of Campbell

MEMORANDUM
Planning Division

1 Stephen Rose
To: Michael Tactay
Cc: Rob Eastwood; Linnie Gavino
Subject: RE: Campbell Technology Park - Financial Feasibility Analysis

From: Michael Tactay <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 9:52 AM
To: Stephen Rose <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>; Linnie Gavino <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Campbell Technology Park ‐ Financial Feasibility Analysis

Hi Stephen:

Please see the KMA concluding statement below and revised report attached:

KMA conducted a financial feasibility analysis of a mix of low‐ density townhomes and higher density stacked flat
apartments under two (2) scenarios: (a) for‐sale and (b) rental (Prototype Projects) on 13.76 acres within Campbell Technology Park (Site). The combined densities of each scenario ranged between 38‐44 units per acre. The KMA feasibility analysis determined feasibility by estimating residual land value of each of the Prototype Projects and comparing them to comparable multi‐family residential land sales within the trade area. The analysis demonstrates the following:

 The development of the Site as low‐density townhomes and higher density stacked flat apartments between 38‐44 units per acre is feasible.
 The development of townhomes and stacked flat apartments on the Site are within the range of financial feasibility when measured against comparable land sales.
 Stacked flat apartments generated higher residual land value per square foot of land when compared to townhomes.
 In general, stacked flats developed at higher densities but still within Type V construction, when compared to stacked flats at lower densities, demonstrate increased financial feasibility due to greater economies of scale and increased project amenities.

Please let us know if you have any questions. Good luck tonight!

Thank you,
Michael
Michael D. Tactay (he/him/his) | Manager | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. |  619.718.9500 x 102 | [email protected]

555 W. BEECH STREET, SUITE 460  SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101  PHONE 619.718.9500 23018kal WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 11057.004.001

ADVISORS IN:

REAL ESTATE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BERKELEY
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
DEBBIE M. KERN

DAVID DOEZEMA

LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMES A. RABE
GREGORY D. SOO-HOO
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY

TIM BRETZ

SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA
LINNIE A. GAVINO

MEMORANDUM

To: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner, Housing Coordinator
City of Campbell

From: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.

Date: April 18, 2023

Subject: Financial Feasibility Analysis – Campbell Technology Park

I. OBJECTIVE

In accordance with our contract dated April 3, 2023, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has prepared a draft financial development feasibility analysis of the redevelopment potential of Campbell Technology Park. The Campbell Technology Park business park is currently situated on a 13.76-acre property (Site) along Campbell Technology Parkway and across the street from Edith Morley Park. The City of Campbell (City) is evaluating a proposal by Campbell Technology Partners (Developer) to develop for-sale or for-rent townhomes and four-story stacked-flats on the Site with a density of 34-45 units per acre (Project). The objectives of the KMA analyses were to:

• Conduct independent market research related to land sales comparables, market rents, and sales prices.
• Determine the residual land value supported by the Project. • Compare the residual land value ﬁndings in comparison to trade area comparable land sales.

II. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

KMA prepared a comparative financial evaluation of the Project based on the development program and concepts provided by City staff. KMA reviewed background documents such as the Project Opportunity Analysis prepared by John Burns Real Estate Consulting dated December 13, 2022 (Opportunity Analysis). Additionally, KMA reviewed permit and fee data compiled by City staff. KMA further compiled current market data and industry trend information for townhomes and multi-family residential developments.

To: Stephen Rose, City of Campbell April 18, 2023
Subject: Financial Feasibility Analysis – Campbell Technology Park Page 2 23018kal
11057.004.001
Based on this information, KMA prepared financial pro forma models for the Project assuming a total of 516 units developed on a for-sale basis and 609 units developed on a for-rent basis, and the unit sizes and unit mix provided in the Opportunity Analysis, as summarized below:

Project Descrip�on
For-Sale Rental
Site Area 13.76 Acres 13.76 Acres
Density (Units/Acre) 38 Units/Acre 44 Units/Acre
Number of Units 516 Units 609 Units
Unit Mix 2 and 3 Bedrooms 1, 2, and 3 Bedrooms
Stories 2 – 4 Stories 2 – 4 Stories
Average Unit Size 1,560 SF 1,097 SF

Additionally, the Project was assumed to be developed with a 15% inclusionary affordable housing requirement. The inclusionary requirements assumed in the financial feasibility analysis are summarized below:

Inclusionary Aﬀordable Housing Requirement
For-Sale Rental
40% of the 15% @Low Income
60% of the 15% @ Moderate Income
40% of the 15% at Very Low Income
60% of the 15% @ Low Income

Each pro forma solves for residual land value, defined as the maximum land value supported by a proposed development. Residual land value is calculated as the difference between total development costs (exclusive of land acquisition) vs. the total supportable private debt and equity investment supported by the development’s anticipated income generation. KMA then compared the residual land value outcomes in comparison to trade area comparable land sales, as summarized below.

To: Stephen Rose, City of Campbell April 18, 2023
Subject: Financial Feasibility Analysis – Campbell Technology Park Page 3 23018kal
11057.004.001
Residual Land Value
I. For-Sale
Residual Land Value $88.1 M
Per Unit $171,000
Per SF Site Area $147
II. Rental
Residual Land Value $47.2 M
Per Unit $77,000
Per SF Site Area $79
III. Land Sale Comparables
Concentrated Range $60 - $200/per SF Site Area
Median $115/SF Site Area

• For the For-Sale Scenario, KMA es�mates the residual land value of the Project to be $88.1 million, or $147 per square foot (SF) of site area.

• For the For-Rent Scenario, KMA es�mates the residual land value of the Project to be $47.2 million, or $79 per SF of site area.

• Financial feasibility of each Scenario was measured by comparing the residual land value for each development scenario vs. recent comparable land sales. A survey of mul�-family land sales between January 2018 to the present, within a 10-mile radius of the Site, were found to be concentrated between $60 and $200 per SF of site area, with a median of $115 per SF. Based on this market context KMA can conclude:

o The development of the Site as low-density townhomes and higher density stacked ﬂat apartments between 38-44 units per acre is feasible.

o The development of townhomes and stacked ﬂat apartments on the Site are within the range of ﬁnancial feasibility when measured against comparable land sales.

o Stacked ﬂat apartments generated higher residual land value per square foot of land when compared to townhomes.

o In general, stacked ﬂats developed at higher densi�es but s�ll within Type V construc�on, when compared to stacked ﬂats at lower densi�es, demonstrate increased ﬁnancial feasibility due to greater economies of scale and increased project ameni�es.

To: Stephen Rose, City of Campbell April 18, 2023
Subject: Financial Feasibility Analysis – Campbell Technology Park Page 4 23018kal
11057.004.001
III. LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data from secondary sources such as state and local government, planning agencies, real estate brokers, and other third par�es. While KMA believes that these sources are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.

2. The analysis assumes that neither the local nor na�onal economy will experience a major recession.

If an unforeseen change occurs in the economy, the conclusions contained herein may no longer be valid.

3. The ﬁndings are based on economic rather than poli�cal considera�ons. Therefore, they should be construed neither as a representa�on nor opinion that government approvals for development can be secured.

4. Development opportuni�es are assumed to be achievable during the speciﬁed �me frame. A change in development schedule requires that the conclusions contained herein be reviewed for validity.

5. The analysis, opinions, recommenda�ons, and conclusions of this document are KMA's informed judgment based on market and economic condi�ons as of the date of this report. Due to the vola�lity of market condi�ons and complex dynamics inﬂuencing the economic condi�ons of the building and development industry, conclusions and recommended ac�ons contained herein should not be relied upon as sole input for ﬁnal business decisions regarding current and future development and planning.

6. Any es�mates of development costs, capitaliza�on rates, income and/or expense projec�ons are based on the best available project-speciﬁc data as well as the experiences of similar projects. They are not intended to be projec�ons of the future for the speciﬁc project. No warranty or representa�on is made that any of the es�mates or projec�ons will actually materialize.

7. KMA is not advising or recommending any ac�on be taken by City with respect to any prospec�ve, new, or exis�ng municipal ﬁnancial products or issuance of municipal securi�es (including with respect to the structure, �ming, terms, and other similar maters concerning such ﬁnancial products or issues).

8. KMA is not ac�ng as a Municipal Advisor to the City and does not assume any ﬁduciary duty hereunder, including, without limita�on, a ﬁduciary duty to the City pursuant to Sec�on 15B of the Exchange Act with respect to the services provided hereunder and any informa�on and material contained in KMA’s work product.

To: Stephen Rose, City of Campbell April 18, 2023
Subject: Financial Feasibility Analysis – Campbell Technology Park Page 5 23018kal
11057.004.001

9. The City shall discuss any such informa�on and material contained in KMA’s work product with any and all internal and/or external advisors and experts, including its own municipal advisors, that it deems appropriate before ac�ng on the informa�on and material.

attachments

APPENDIX

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
TABLE 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATE OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
I. Project Description
A. Developable Site Area 8.94 Acres 4.82 Acres 8.94 Acres 4.82 Acres 13.76 Acres 13.76 Acres Percent 65% 35% 65% 35% 100% 100%
Construction Type Type V Type V Type V Type V Type V Type V Number of Stories 2-3 Stories 4 Stories 2-3 Stories 4 Stories 2-4 Stories 2-4 Stories Density 20 Units/Acre 70 Units/Acre 25 Units/Acre 80 Units/Acre 38 Units/Acre 44 Units/Acre Number of Units 179 Units 337 Units 224 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units B. Gross Building Area (GBA)
Net Residential Area 312,400 SF 99.7% 492,550 SF 84.7% 313,600 SF 99.7% 354,200 SF 84.6% 804,950 SF 90.0% 667,800 SF 90.9% Circulation/Common Area 0 SF 0.0% 87,185 SF 15.0% 0 SF 0.0% 64,264 SF 15.0% 87,185 SF 9.7% 64,264 SF 8.7% Amenities
1,000 SF 0.3% 1,500 SF 0.3% 1,000 SF 0.3% 1,500 SF 0.4% 2,500 SF 0.3% 2,500 SF 0.3% Total GBA 313,400 SF 100.0% 581,235 SF 100.0% 314,600 SF 100.0% 419,964 SF 100.0% 894,635 SF 100.0% 734,564 SF 100.0% C. Average Unit Size (1) 1,745 SF 1,462 SF 1,400 SF 920 SF 1,560 SF 1,097 SF D. Unit Mix (1)
One Bedroom 0 Units 0% 0 Units 0% 0 Units 0% 173 Units 45% 0 Units 0% 173 Units 28% Two Bedroom 45 Uniits 25% 95 Units 28% 67 Units 30% 193 Units 50% 140 Units 27% 260 Units 43% Three Bedroom 134 Units 75% 242 Units 72% 157 Units 70% 19 Units 5% 376 Units 73% 176 Units 29% Total 179 Units 100% 337 Units 100% 224 Units 100% 385 Units 100% 516 Units 100% 609 Units 100% E. Market-Rate Units 152 Units 85% 286 Units 85% 190 Units 85% 327 Units 85% 438 Units 85% 517 Units 85% F. Affordable Units
Very-Low 0 Units 0% 0 Units 0% 14 Units 6% 23 Units 6% 0 Units 0% 37 Units 6% Low 11 Units 6% 20 Units 6% 20 Units 9% 35 Units 9% 31 Units 6% 55 Units 9% Moderate 16 Units 9% 31 Units 9% 0 Units 0% 0 Units 0% 47 Units 9% 0 Units 0% Total Affordable Units (2) 27 Units 15% 51 Units 15% 34 Units 15% 58 Units 15% 78 Units 15% 92 Units 15% Total Units 179 Units 100% 337 Units 100% 224 Units 100% 385 Units 100% 516 Units 100% 609 Units 100% G. Parking Spaces 358 Spaces 337 Spaces 448 Spaces 385 Spaces 695 Spaces 833 Spaces Parking Ratio 2.00 Spaces/Unit 1.00 Spaces/Unit 2.00 Spaces/Unit 1.00 Space/Unit 1.35 Spaces/Unit 1.37 Spaces/Unit Type Attached Garages/Wrap Parking Attached Garages/Wrap Parking

FOR-SALE
Townhomes Stacked Flats
Attached Garages Wrap Parking Wrap Parking
Townhomes + Stacked FlatsTownhomes Stacked Flats Townhomes + Stacked Flats RENTAL TOTAL PROJECT: FOR-SALE TOTAL PROJECT: RENTAL
Attached Garages
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 6 TABLE 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATE OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL

FOR-SALE
Townhomes Stacked Flats Townhomes + Stacked FlatsTownhomes Stacked Flats Townhomes + Stacked Flats RENTAL TOTAL PROJECT: FOR-SALE TOTAL PROJECT: RENTAL
II. Development Costs
A. Direct Costs
Sitework (3) $7,792,000 $20 /SF $5,245,000 $25 /SF $7,792,000 $20 /SF $5,245,000 $25 /SF $13,037,000 $22 /SF $13,037,000 $22 /SF Parking $0 Included Below $10,110,000 $30,000 /Space $0 Included Below $11,550,000 $30,000 /Space $10,110,000 $15,000 /Space $11,550,000 $14,000 /Space Shell Construction $101,855,000 $325 /SF GBA $203,432,000 $350 /SF GBA $86,515,000 $275 /SF GBA $125,989,000 $300 /SF GBA $305,287,000 $341 /SF GBA $212,504,000 $289 /SF GBA FF&E/Amenities $1,343,000 $7,500 /Unit $2,528,000 $7,500 /Unit $1,120,000 $5,000 /Unit $1,925,000 $5,000 /Unit $3,871,000 $8,000 /Unit $3,045,000 $5,000 /Unit Contingency $5,550,000 5.0% of Above Directs $11,066,000 5.0% of Above Directs $4,771,000 5.0% of Above Directs $7,235,000 5.0% of Above Directs $16,616,000 5.0% of Above Directs $12,006,000 5.0% of Above Directs Subtotal Direct Costs $116,540,000 $372 /SF GBA $232,381,000 $400 /SF GBA $100,198,000 $318 /SF GBA $151,944,000 $362 /SF GBA $348,921,000 $390 /SF GBA $252,142,000 $343 /SF GBA B. Indirect and Finacing Costs
Permits and Fees (4) $14,196,000 $79,300 /Unit $23,863,000 $70,800 /Unit $14,310,000 $63,900 /Unit $20,867,000 $54,200 /Unit $38,029,000 $73,700 /Unit $35,147,000 $57,700 /Unit Indirect/Financing Costs (5) $29,135,000 25.0% of Directs $58,095,000 25.0% of Directs $25,050,000 25.0% of Directs $37,986,000 25.0% of Directs $87,230,000 25% of Directs $63,036,000 25% of Directs C. Total Development Costs (6) $159,871,000 $314,339,000 $139,558,000 $210,797,000 $474,180,000 $350,325,000 Per SF GBA $510 $541 $444 $502 $530 $477
Per Unit $893,000 $933,000 $623,000 $548,000 $919,000 $575,000 (1) Based on assumptions from John Burns Real Estate Consulting Project Opportunity Analysis, December 13, 2022. (2) Based on the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Campbell Code of Ordinances, Title 21-Zoning, Chapter 21.24). (3) Includes demolition costs.
(4) Based on fee estimates provided by the City. See Worksheet A. (5) Assumed to include architecture & engineering, legal & accounting, taxes & insurance, developer fee, marketing/leasing, loan fees, interest during construction and other indirect costs. (6) Excludes acquisition costs.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 7

FOR-SALE
TABLE 2

GROSS SALES PROCEEDS AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE - FOR-SALE

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
I. Gross Sales Proceeds # Units $/SF Price/Unit (1)(2) Total # Units $/SF Price/Unit (1)(2) Total Total A. Market-Rate (2)
Two Bedroom 1,400 SF 38 $922 $1,290,350 $49,033,000 1,300 SF 80 $897 $1,166,600 $93,328,000 $142,361,000 Three Bedroom 1,700 SF 53 $865 $1,470,600 $77,942,000 1,450 SF 106 $874 $1,266,600 $134,260,000 $212,202,000 Three Bedroom 2,000 SF 61 $838 $1,676,600 $102,273,000 1,600 SF 100 $862 $1,379,900 $137,990,000 $240,263,000 Subtotal/Average 1,745 SF 152 $864 $1,508,000 $229,248,000 1,460 SF 286 $875 $1,278,000 $365,578,000 $594,826,000 B. Affordable (3)
Two Bedroom @ 70% AMI 1,400 SF 2 $219 $307,000 $614,000 1,300 SF 5 $219 $285,000 $1,425,000 $2,039,000 Two Bedroom @ 110% AMI 1,400 SF 5 $453 $634,000 $3,170,000 1,300 SF 10 $471 $612,000 $6,120,000 $9,290,000 Three Bedroom @ 70% AMI 1,700 SF 9 $203 $345,000 $3,105,000 1,450 SF 15 $223 $323,000 $4,845,000 $7,950,000 Three Bedroom @ 110% AMI 2,000 SF 11 $355 $709,000 $7,799,000 1,600 SF 21 $429 $686,000 $14,406,000 $22,205,000 Subtotal/Average 1,744 SF 27 $312 $544,000 $14,688,000 1,468 SF 51 $358 $525,000 $26,796,000 $41,484,000 C. Total/Average 1,745 SF 179 $781 $1,362,771 $243,936,000 1,462 SF 337 $797 $1,164,315 $392,374,000 $636,310,000 II. Net Sales Proceeds
A. Gross Sales Proceeds $243,936,000 $392,374,000 $636,310,000 B. (Less) Cost of Sale (2) 1.5% of Value ($3,580,000) 1.7% of Value ($6,740,000) ($10,320,000) C. (Less) Target Developer Profit 10.0% of Value ($24,394,000) 10.0% of Value ($39,237,000) ($63,631,000) D. Net Sales Proceeds $215,962,000 $346,397,000 $562,359,000 III. Residual Land Value
A. Net Sales Proceeds
$215,962,000 $346,397,000 $562,359,000
B. (Less) Development Costs ($159,871,000) ($314,339,000) ($474,210,000) C. Residual Land Value $56,091,000 $32,058,000 $88,149,000 Per Unit $313,000 $95,000 $171,000
Per SF Site $144 $153 $147
(1) Includes options and premiums. Excludes closing costs. (2) Source: John Burns Real Estate Consulting Project Opportunity Analysis, December 13, 2022. See Page 20. (3) Source: Santa Clara County household income limits. See Worksheets C and D.

Unit Size

TOWNHOMES STACKED FLATS
Unit Size

TOTAL PROJECT
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 8 RENTAL
TABLE 3

NET OPERATING INCOME AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE - RENTAL

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Units Unit SF $/SF $/Month Total Units Unit SF $/SF $/Month Total Total I. Net Operating Income
A. Gross Scheduled Income - Market-Rate (1)
One Bedroom 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 147 800 $4.45 $3,560 $6,280,000 $6,280,000 Two Bedroom 57 1,200 $3.83 $4,472 $3,059,000 164 1,000 $3.86 $3,863 $7,602,000 $10,661,000 Three Bedroom - Stacked Flats 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 16 1,200 $3.60 $4,318 $829,000 $829,000 Three Bedroom - Townhomes (Small) 76 1,400 $3.39 $4,749 $4,331,000 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 $4,331,000 Three Bedroom - Townhomes (Large) 57 1,600 $3.14 $5,025 $3,437,000 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 $3,437,000 Total/Average - Market-Rate 190 1,400 $3.39 $4,749 $10,827,000 327 920 $4.08 $3,749 $14,711,000 $25,538,000 B. Gross Scheduled Income - Affordable (2)
One Bedroom @ 60% AMI 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 11 800 $2.45 $1,959 $259,000 $259,000 One Bedroom @ 50% AMI 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 15 800 $2.03 $1,622 $292,000 $292,000 Two Bedroom @ 60% AMI 4 1,200 $1.82 $2,189 $105,000 11 1,000 $2.19 $2,189 $289,000 $394,000 Two Bedroom @ 50% AMI 6 1,200 $1.51 $1,810 $130,000 18 1,000 $1.81 $1,810 $391,000 $521,000 Three Bedroom - Stacked Flats @ 60% AMI 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 1 1,200 $2.01 $2,418 $29,000 $29,000 Three Bedroom - Stacked Flats @ 50% AMI 0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 2 1,200 $1.66 $1,996 $48,000 $48,000 Three Bedroom - Townhomes (Small) @ 60% AMI 5 1,400 $1.73 $2,418 $145,000 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 Three Bedroom - Townhomes (Small) @ 50% AMI 9 1,400 $1.43 $1,996 $216,000 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $216,000 Three Bedroom - Townhomes (Large) @ 60% AMI 5 1,600 $1.51 $2,418 $145,000 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 Three Bedroom - Townhomes (Large) @ 50% AMI 5 1,600 $1.25 $1,996 $120,000 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 Total/Average - Affordable 34 1,400 $1.51 $2,110 $861,000 58 921 $2.04 $1,879 $1,308,000 $2,169,000 C. Total/Average - All Units 224 1,400 $3.11 $4,348 $11,688,000 385 920 $3.77 $3,467 $16,019,000 $27,707,000 Add: Other Income $100 /Unit/Month $269,000 $125 /Unit/Month $578,000 $847,000 Total Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) $11,957,000 $16,597,000 $28,554,000 D. Effective Gross Income
(Less) Vacancy 5.0% of GSI ($598,000) 5.0% of GSI ($830,000) ($1,428,000) Total Effective Gross Income (EGI) $11,359,000 $15,767,000 $27,126,000 E. Operating Expenses
(Less) Operating Expenses $5,500 /Unit/Year ($1,232,000) $5,500 /Unit/Year ($2,118,000) ($3,350,000) (Less) Property Taxes (3) $10,000 /Unit/Year ($2,324,000) $8,000 /Unit/Year ($3,128,000) ($5,452,000) (Less) Replacement Reserves $250 /Unit/Year ($56,000) $250 /Unit/Year ($96,000) ($152,000) Total Operating Expenses ($3,612,000) ($5,342,000) ($8,954,000) F. Net Operating Income (NOI) $7,747,000 $10,425,000 $18,172,000

STACKED FLATSTOWNHOMES TOTAL PROJECT
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 9 RENTAL
TABLE 3

NET OPERATING INCOME AND RESIDUAL LAND VALUE - RENTAL

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL

STACKED FLATSTOWNHOMES TOTAL PROJECT
II. Residual Land Value
A. Net Sales Proceeds
Stabilized NOI $7,747,000 $10,425,000 $18,172,000
Capitalization Rate 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
Capitalized Value Upon Completion $193,675,000 $260,625,000 $454,300,000 (Less) Cost of Sale @ 2.5% of Value ($4,842,000) 2.5% of Value ($6,516,000) ($11,358,000) (Less) Developer Profit @ 10.0% of Value ($19,368,000) 10.0% of Value ($26,063,000) ($45,431,000) Total Net Sales Proceeds $169,465,000 $228,046,000 $397,511,000 B. Residual Land Value
Net Sales Proceeds $169,465,000 $228,046,000 $397,511,000 (Less) Development Costs ($139,558,000) ($210,797,000) ($350,325,000) C. Residual Land Value $29,907,000 $17,249,000 $47,186,000 Per Unit $134,000 $45,000 $77,000
Per SF Site $77 $82 $79
(1) Source: John Burns Real Estate Consulting Project Opportunity Analysis, December 13, 2022. See Page 40. (2) Based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2022 income limits. See Worksheet E. (3) Based on capitalized income approach; assumes a 4.00% capitalization rate and a 1.20% tax rate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 10

WORKSHEET A

ESTIMATE OF FEES

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
I. City Fees
A. Permit Application
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $77.62 /Unit $62.03 /Unit $41.23 /Unit $36.09 /Unit $26.93 /Unit $22.81 /Unit Total Permit Application (pre-application fees) $13,894 $13,894 $13,894 $13,894 $13,894 $13,894 B. Tentantive Parcel Map
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $43 $34 $23 $20 $15 $13
Total Tentative Parcel Map (flat fee) $7,694 $7,694 $7,694 $7,694 $7,694 $7,694 C. Park Impact Fee
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $19,720 $19,720 $19,720 $19,720 $19,720 $19,720 Total Park Impact Fee $3,529,880 $4,417,280 $6,645,640 $7,592,200 $10,175,520 $12,009,480 D. Final Parcel Map
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $161 $153 $142 $140 $135 $133
Total Final Parcel Map (base fee + $121/lot) $28,889 $34,334 $48,007 $53,815 $69,666 $80,919 E. Encroachment Permit
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $3 $3 $2 $2 $1 $1
Total Encroachment Permit (per application) $602 $602 $602 $602 $602 $602 F. Storm Drain Fee
Acres 8.94 Acres 8.94 Acres 4.82 Acres 4.82 Acres 13.76 Acres 13.76 Acres Per Acre $2,385 $2,385 $2,385 $2,385 $2,385 $2,385
Total Storm Drain Fee (per acre) $21,331 $21,331 $11,486 $11,486 $32,818 $32,818 G. Building Permit Fee
% of Valuation 1.66% 1.66% 1.66% 1.66% 1.66% 1.66%
Valuation $243,936,000 $193,675,000 $392,374,000 $260,625,000 $636,310,000 $454,300,000 Total Building Permit Fee $4,049,338 $3,215,005 $6,513,408 $4,326,375 $10,562,746 $7,541,380 H. Building Plan Check Fee
% of Building Permit Fee 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
Building Permit Fee $4,049,338 $3,215,005 $6,513,408 $4,326,375 $10,562,746 $7,541,380 Total Building Plan Check Fee $1,336,281 $1,060,952 $2,149,425 $1,427,704 $3,485,706 $2,488,655 I. Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $44 /Unit $44 /Unit $43 /Unit $43 /Unit $43 /Unit $43 /Unit Total Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical (base fee + $7,809 $9,744 $14,603 $16,667 $22,300 $26,299 J. Construction License Tax
Gross Building Area (SF) 313,400 SF 314,600 SF 581,235 SF 419,964 SF 894,635 SF 734,564 SF Per SF $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50
Total Construction License Tax $156,700 $157,300 $290,618 $209,982 $447,318 $367,282 K. Roadway Maintenance Fee
% of Valuation 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32%
Valuation $243,936,000 $193,675,000 $392,374,000 $260,625,000 $636,310,000 $454,300,000 Total Roadway Maintenance Fee $780,595 $619,760 $1,255,597 $834,000 $2,036,192 $1,453,760 L. General Plan Maintenance Fee
% of Valuation 0.016% 0.016% 0.016% 0.016% 0.016% 0.016% Valuation $243,936,000 $193,675,000 $392,374,000 $260,625,000 $636,310,000 $454,300,000 Total General Plan Maintenance Fee (based on va $39,030 $30,988 $62,780 $41,700 $101,810 $72,688 M. State Seismic Fee
% of Valuation (includes only residential fee) 0.013% 0.013% 0.013% 0.013% 0.013% 0.013% Valuation $243,936,000 $193,675,000 $392,374,000 $260,625,000 $636,310,000 $454,300,000 Total Seismic Motion Fee $31,712 $25,178 $51,009 $33,881 $82,720 $59,059 II. Non-City Agency Fees
A. School District - Elementary
Per SF (rate increased 2022) $3.35 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35 $3.35 Gross Building Area (SF) 313,400 SF 314,600 SF 581,235 SF 419,964 SF 894,635 SF 734,564 SF Total School District - Elementary $1,049,890 $1,053,910 $1,947,138 $1,406,880 $2,997,028 $2,460,790 B. School District - High School
Per SF (rate increased 2022) $1.44 $1.44 $1.44 $1.44 $1.44 $1.44 Gross Building Area (SF) 313,400 SF 314,600 SF 581,235 SF 419,964 SF 894,635 SF 734,564 SF Total School District - High School $451,296 $453,024 $836,979 $604,749 $1,288,275 $1,057,773 C. Sewer - Permit Fee
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit $425 /Unit $425 /Unit $425 /Unit $425 /Unit $425 /Unit $425 /Unit Total Sewer Permit Fee $76,075 $95,200 $143,225 $163,625 $219,300 $258,825 D. Sewer - Connection Fee
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit (townhome/condo and MF are diff) $10,786 /Unit $10,786 /Unit $8,351 /Unit $8,351 /Unit $9,196 /Unit $9,247 /Unit Total Sewer - Connection Fee $1,930,694 $2,416,064 $2,814,287 $3,215,135 $4,744,981 $5,631,199 E. Sewer - Treatment Plant Capacity Fee
Units 179 Units 224 Units 337 Units 385 Units 516 Units 609 Units Per Unit (townhome/condo and MF are diff) $1,642 /Unit $1,642 /Unit $1,271 /Unit $1,271 /Unit $1,400 /Unit $1,407 /Unit Total Sewer - Treatment Plant Capacity Fee $293,918 $367,808 $428,327 $489,335 $722,245 $857,143 F. Fire Plan Check
% of Valuation 0.16% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16%
Valuation $243,936,000 $193,675,000 $392,374,000 $260,625,000 $636,310,000 $454,300,000 Total Fire Plan Check $390,298 $309,880 $627,798 $417,000 $1,018,096 $726,880 III. Total Fees $14,196,000 $14,310,000 $23,863,000 $20,867,000 $38,029,000 $35,147,000 Per Unit $79,300 $63,900 $70,800 $54,200 $73,700 $57,700 Townhomes Stacked Flats Total Project
For-Sale Rental For-Sale Rental For-Sale Rental
Source: Based on 4th Submittal Draft of Campbell's Plan for Housing - 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 11

TOWNHOMES

WORKSHEET B
ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES - TOWNHOMES (1)

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
I. Maximum Affordable Sales Price
Percent of AMI 70% 70% 110% 110%
Assumed Family Size 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Household Income $106,155 $117,950 $166,815 $185,350
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 35% 35%
Amount Available for Housing $31,847 $35,385 $58,385 $64,873 Annual HOA (2) $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600
Annual Utilities (3) $3,312 $3,768 $3,312 $3,768
Tax Rate (2) 1.20% 1.20% 1.20% 1.20%
Annual Taxes (4) $3,684 $4,140 $7,608 $8,508
Available for Mortgage $21,251 $23,877 $43,865 $48,997
Interest Rate (3) 6.11% 6.11% 6.11% 6.11%
Down Payment 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
Supportable Mortgage $291,915 $327,995 $602,570 $673,057 Add: Down Payment $15,400 $17,300 $31,700 $35,500
II. Maximum Unit Price $307,000 $345,000 $634,000 $709,000 (1) Based on 2022 income limits published by the State of California Department of Housing and Community and Development (HCD). (2) Source: John Burns Real Estate Consulting Project Opportunity Analysis, December 13, 2022. See Page 20. (3) Source: City of Campbell estimates. April 13, 2023. (4) Based on affordable unit price. Property tax assessment may be based on market value of actual home.

Moderate Income
Two Bedroom Three BedroomTwo Bedroom Three Bedroom
Low Income
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 12

STACKED FLATS

WORKSHEET C
ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES - STACKED FLATS (1)

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
I. Maximum Affordable Sales Price
Percent of AMI 70% 70% 110% 110%
Assumed Family Size 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Household Income $106,155 $117,950 $166,815 $185,350
Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 35% 35%
Amount Available for Housing $31,847 $35,385 $58,385 $64,873 Annual HOA (2) $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $5,400
Annual Utilities (3) $3,312 $3,768 $3,312 $3,768
Tax Rate (2) 1.20% 1.20% 1.20% 1.20%
Annual Taxes (4) $3,420 $3,876 $7,344 $8,232
Available for Mortgage $19,715 $22,341 $42,329 $47,473
Interest Rate (3) 6.11% 6.11% 6.11% 6.11%
Down Payment 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
Supportable Mortgage $270,815 $306,895 $581,470 $652,123 Add: Down Payment $14,250 $16,150 $30,600 $34,300
II. Maximum Unit Price $285,000 $323,000 $612,000 $686,000 (1) Based on 2022 income limits published by the State of California Department of Housing and Community and Development (HCD). (2) Source: John Burns Real Estate Consulting Project Opportunity Analysis, December 13, 2022. See Page 20. (3) Source: City of Campbell estimates. April 13, 2023. (4) Based on affordable unit price. Property tax assessment may be based on market value of actual home.

Low Income Moderate Income
Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 13 RENTAL

WORKSHEET D

ESTIMATE OF AFFORDABLE RENTS

CAMPBELL TECHNOLOGY PARK

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Very Low Low Very Low Low Very Low Low
I. Maximum Affordable Rent
Percent of AMI 50% 60% 50% 60% 50% 60%
Assumed Family Size (1) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
Household Income (2) $67,400 $80,880 $75,825 $90,990 $84,250 $101,100 Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Monthly Housing Cost $1,685 $2,022 $1,896 $2,275 $2,106 $2,528 (Less) Utility Allowance (3) ($63) ($63) ($86) ($86) ($110) ($110) II. Maximum Allowable Rent $1,622 $1,959 $1,810 $2,189 $1,996 $2,418 (1) As assigned by California Redevelopment Law.
(2) State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2022 income limits. (3) Reflects monthly utility allowance per the Santa Clara County 2022 Utility Allowance Schedule effective October 1, 2022. Profile consists of electric heating, electric cooking, and other electric.

One Bedroom Three BedroomTwo Bedroom
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: i:/Campbell_Campbell Technology Park_Financial Feasibility Analysis_v2;4/18/2023;mdt Page 14

Campbell City CouncilApril 18, 2023

Campbell City Council
April 18, 2023