City Council Agenda
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California
NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Servi ces', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID -19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov.
This City Counc il Special meeting will be conducted in person as well as telecommunication and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. *Councilmember Scozzola will attend vir tually from The Wasa Park Hotel, 1 Sankt Eriksplan, 113 20, Stockholm, Sweden. A quorum of the City Council will be in attendance at the Campbell City Hall Council Chambers.
The City Council meeting will be live -streamed on Channel 26 or Channel 88, the City's website and on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting.
Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at: https://www.campbellca.gov/signup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers.
Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 – 4:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chamber
70 N. First St., Campbell, California
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
1. Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell), 2023 -2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing), Resolving that the South of Campbell Avenue A rea Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low -Medium Density Residential Projects Shall be of No Further Force and Effect, Reestablishment of Other Existing Area, Streetscap e, and Neighborhood Plans, Establishment of a New Zoning Map, Amendments to Title 6 (Healt h and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development, and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Cod e, Adoption of Multi -Family Development and Design Standards and a Form -Based Zone Map, and Certification of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with CEQA. (Ordinance/Resolutions/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council take the following actions: (1) Adopt a Resolution , certifying a Final Programmatic Enviro nmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt required findings with a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA; (2) Adopt a Resolution, adopting the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell); (3) Adopt a Resolution , adopting the 2023-2031 Housin g Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing); (4) Adopt a Resolution, resolving that the South of Campbell Aven ue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low -Medium Density Re sidential Projects shall be of no further force and effect and reestablish other existing area, streetscape, and neighborhood plans; (5) Take first reading and introduce an Ordinance, establishing a new zoning map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code; and (6) Adopt a Resolution , adopting Multi -Family Development and Design Standards and an associated Form-Based Zone Map.
ADJOURN
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public insp ection with the agenda packet in the lobby of City Clerk’s Office, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008, during normal business hours.
These materials will also be available on the City website at https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/agendacenter with the agenda packet following the last item of the agenda, subject to staff’s ability to post the documen ts prior to the meeting. All documents not posted prior to the meeting will be posted the next business day.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the City Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (408) 866-2117, at least one week in advance of the meeting.
City
Council
Report
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell), 2023 -2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing), Resolving that the South of Cam pbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Residential Projects Shall be of No Further Force and Effect, Reestablishment of Other Existing Ar ea, Streetscape, and Neighborhood Plans, Establishment of a New Zoning Map, Amendments to Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development, and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code, Adoption of Mult i-Family Development and Design Standards and a Form -Based Zone Map, and Certification of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with CEQA. (Ordinance/Resolutions/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council take the following actions: (1) Adopt a Resolution , certifying a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt required findings with a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQ A; (2) Adopt a Resolution, adopting the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell); (3) Adopt a Resolution, adopting the 2023 -2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing); (4) Adopt a Resolution , resolving that the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Residential Projects shall be of no further force and effect and reestablish other existing area, streetscape, and neighborhood plans; (5) Take first reading and introduce an Ordinance , establishing a new zoning map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code; an d (6) Adopt a Resolution , adopting Multi -Family Development and Design Standards and an associated Form-Based Zone Map.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present the culmination of several significant long -range planning work plan items with a focu s on recent refinements made in response to Council direction, feedback from stakeholders, the public, and the Planning 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND INTRODUCTION
OF ORDINANCES
Item:
Category:
Meeting Date: April 18, 2023
1 Packet Pg. 3
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 2 of 28
Commission, and requests from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
BACKGROUND
The City of Campbell ha s been working toward completing its Envision Campbell (2040 General Plan) update in combination with the preparation of Campbell’s Plan for Housing (2023-2031 Housing Element).
To accommodate the new residential land uses and densities under considerati on as part of these updates, city staff and a consultant team (Opticos) have been working to prepare Multi-Family Development and Design Standards (MFDDS) to be adopted as part of the update process. The MFDDS will apply to all multi -family and mixed -use residential projects and are being prepared in response to recent changes in State law that require local jurisdictions to adopt “objective standards” 1 and streamline the review and permitting processes for housing (residential) development projects.
Further, to implement and effectuate these updates, city staff has separately prepared a new Zoning Map as well as a comprehensive update to the Campbell Municipal Code to be adopted as part of the update process, and will retire several older planning documents (i.e., plans and design guidelines) and reestablish others to avoid conflicts with proposed updates.
Finally, as the CEQA lead agency, the city has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide information to the public, a gencies and policy makers about the potential environmental effects that could occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Planning Commission Feedback
On March 27, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject item.
The Plan ning Commission’s discussion largely focused on the land use designation assigned to the Campbell Technology Park, the Non -Residential Ground Floor Requirements contained within the Multi -Family Development and Design Standards, and General Plan actions re lated to traffic calming measures, lighting standards, and discouraging non -residential development within the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan area and at key Gateway locations until such plans and policies are established.
After due consideration, the Pla nning Commission unanimously adopted resolutions recommending the City Council adopt the items under consideration with minor refinements. Feedback from the Planning Commission has been captured in the following discussion, summarized as a dedicated attachment (reference Attachment H – Planning Commission Feedback , March 27, 2023 ), and incorporated into updated versions of the materials brought forward for adoption.
1 State law defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.” 1 Packet Pg. 4
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 3 of 28
Expanded Background & Recent Comments
A more detailed summary of key events leading up to the preparation of the subject report and items under consideration has been provided as a separate attachment (reference Attachment G – Expanded Background). Further, recent public feedback received on topic areas covered in this report, as well as a copy of the letter received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) confirming that the 4 th Draft of the Housing Element will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted, have been attached (reference Attachment I – Public Comments and Staff Responses and Attachment K – Letter from HCD on 4th Draft Housing Element, March 27, 2023).
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is organized into five sections focused on the following topic areas: I) 2040 General Plan (Envis ion Campbell); II) 2023 -2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing); III) Multi -Family Development and Design Guidelines and Form-Based Map; IV) Implementation; and V) Environmental Determination.
I. 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell)
The General Plan serves to identify the community’s vision for the future and provide a framework that will guide local government decision -making related to a range of topics including land use, transportation, community design, economic development, fiscal sustainability, conservation and open space, community services and facilities, safety, noise, community health and wellness, and sustainability over the planning period.
The Draft 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell) was last published and distributed for public review in September 2022. Since its release, several refinements have b een made to the land use map as well as policies and programs on the topics it covers which are summarized below:
Changes to Land Use Map
A total of ten (10) changes 2 to the land use map have been made since the last publication of the General Plan in res ponse to Council direction from its meeting of February 21, 2023, to remove several sites from the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory and better align land uses with existing activities (see “Background”).
2 More than ten individual parcels are involved in the changes noted. 1 Packet Pg. 5
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 4 of 28
Figure 1: Changes to General Plan Land Use Map
In addition to these changes, staff has corrected two technical errors (one involving a small segment of Los Gatos Creek located north of Hamilton Avenue, and the second involving the southwest intersection of Union and W. Campbell Avenue) and amended the land use designation of the northerly three parcels of the Campbell Technology Park as explained in greater detail in the Housing Element discussion.
Changes to General Plan Policies & Programs
Since the General Plan was last published and distributed for public review in September 2022 (see “Background”), changes to the body of the document been made to correct typographical and technical errors, and to bring the document current with recent events (i.e., program language pertaining to parklets has bee n amended to say ‘maintain’ instead of ‘establish’). A summary of policies added, removed, or amended (including in response to Planning Commission feedback as reflected with underlines – see “Background”) have been summarized as follows:
1 Packet Pg. 6
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 5 of 28
Summary of Changes to Actions/Policies
Policies Added Reason
LU-3.b. - Explore opportunities to relocate the
Campbell Corporation Yard to the Campbell
Technology Park.
To better align the Land Use
Element with the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
LU-9.b. - Discourage the development of
nonresidential uses within the Hamilton Avenue
Precise Plan area until the plan is adopted, or two
years from the adoption of the General Plan,
whichever is less.
To discourage nonresidential
projects until the Hamilton
Avenue Precise Plan is adopted.
Language added to sunset policy
after two -years in response to
Planning Commission feedback.
LU-1.15 - City public facilities, including but not
limited to facilities such as fire stations, police
stations, parks, corporation yards, etc., are an
allowable use in any land use designation.
To clarify that city facilities may
be established on a site of any
land use designation without
requiring a general plan
amendment.
CD-3f - Discourage development of nonresidential
uses at Gateway locations until the City Gateway
Policy or Ordinance is adopted, or two years from
the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is
less.
To discourage nonresidential
projects until the City Gateway
Policy or Ordinance is adopted.
The Community Design Element
of the General Plan provides
several related policies which
would be used to evaluate
projects until the Gateway Policy
or Ordinance is adopted,
including CD -3.4 (Anchor
gateway intersections with
landmark buildings that
incorporate iconic archite ctural
design that re oriented to face
and frame the corners of
intersections).
Language added to sunset policy
after two -years in response to
Planning Commission feedback.
N-1.21 - Consider the use of traffic calming
measures, as provided for by T-3.e., to reduce
excessive noise on non-arterial streets.
Action added in response to
Planning Commission feedback
that traffic calming measures
may be used to reduce noise
impacts.
Policies Removed Reason
1 Packet Pg. 7
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 6 of 28
LU-4.3 - Preserve lands for economic
development and employment opportunities by
requiring residential projects, except 100%
affordable housing projects, in commercial, office,
or mixed-use areas to be incorporated into a
larger commercial or mixed-use projects and to
not result in adverse economic or land use
compatibility impacts.
Conflicts with Multi -Family
Development and Design
Standards under development.
LU-8.9 - Residential components of a mixed-use
project shall not be counted against the maximum
FAR allowance.
[In relation to the Pruneyard/Creekside District]
Redundant with more broadly
applicable policy.
LU-8.11 - Encourage the introduction of new
mixed-use, multifamily residential uses on parcels
designated Residential / Commercial /
Professional Office (RCPO). Residential projects
shall include a commercial and/or office
component on the ground floor, and these non-
residential uses shall be integrated into the
residential component through design consistency
and quality site planning.
[In relation to the Pruneyard/Creekside District]
Conflicts with Multi -Family
Development and Design
Standards under development.
CSF – 4.f - Update the Municipal Code to require
existing septic tank users to connect to sanitary
sewer systems with the construction of a new
home or addition.
Already completed as part of the
Reach Code update.
Policies Amended Reason
T-3.e - Consider implementation of traffic calming
measures, including traffic calming design
elements and devices, to ensure safe and
reasonable speeds in residential neighborhoods,
consistent with the City’s adopted Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program (NTCP), as long as
the measures do not impede emergency
response, bicycle travel, or hinder the complete
streets functionality of the roadway. Methods such
as radar speed signs may be used to alert drivers
on streets where speeding is prevalent. Further,
consider how traffic calming measures may be
used to decrease excessive noise on non-arterial
streets to achieve the goals of the city Noise
Element.
Policy language reflected with
underlines added in response to
Planning Commission feedback
that traffic calming measures
may be used to reduce noise
impacts.
1 Packet Pg. 8
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 7 of 28
CD-2.9 - Require that lighting and fixtures be
integrated with the design and layout of a project
and that they provide a desirable level of security
and illumination without creating glare and
overflow on adjacent properties or excessive
artificial light at night (light pollution). Lighting
should be directed downward and should be
designed to preserve dark skies, and incorporate
the best practices established by the International
Dark-Sky Association, to the greatest extent
feasible.
Policy language reflected with
underlines added in response to
Planning Commission feedback.
II. 2023-2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing)
The Housing Element, which is part of the General Plan, serves to identify how the city will meet its housing needs and comply with applicable housing policies and laws.
On March 27, 2023, the city received a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the state certifying agency, confirming that the 4th Draft of the Housing Element, with the inclusion of the amendments noted below, may be found to meet statutory requirements when adopted. As the City of Campbell is the first city in Santa Clara County to receive this confirmation, it is anticipated that Campbell will also be the first city in Santa Clara County with a certified Housing Element for the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) planning period once adopted.
Amendments to 4th Draft Housing Element
Since the receipt of HCD comments on the 3rd Draft Housing Element on February 21, 2023, city staff has worked with its consulta nt team (M -Group) to provide additional details and refinements in response. The following discussion serves to summarize HCD comments, and the responding amendments made to the 4th Draft of the Housing Element.
Changes in Response to HCD Feedback
1. Requested additional analysis of rent overpayment and homelessness.
• Overpayment: A new section on “Renter Overpayment” has been added to the Housing Element. While the section identifies that residents in Census Tract 5025.01 are overpaying on rent, only an estimated 6 of the 166 households in the area live in Campbell, with the rest living in San Jose. Given the nominal number of impacted households additional targeted policies or programs to address renter overpayment were not identified.
• Homelessness: Additional information on locations of homeless populations were added to the Housing Element as well as an expanded discussion of the 1 Packet Pg. 9
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 8 of 28
Homeless Coordinator’s role in ensuring assistance is geographically targeted in these areas.
Figure 2: Homelessness Point in Time Count
Source: Santa Clara County Housing Authority, 2022 Point in Time Count
2. Requested additional analysis substantiating the sites inventory.
An expanded analysis on “Redevelopment Factors and Existing Uses” has been added to the Housing Element that references a new table included as Appendix IV - B that notes trends, redevelopment factors, and incentives for increased residential development for each Housing Opportunity Site based on trends and recent residential development in Campbell as laid out in Appendix IV-D.
3. A description of the development standards applicable to emergency shelters.
An expanded description of emergency shelter regulations has been added to the Housing Element (page H.II -131). The parking standards for emergency shelte rs have also been updated in response to HCD feedback, amending the prior parking requirement of one space per 3 beds to now require a maximum of one space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or one space per employee, whichever is less.
4. A requirement t o include a program for rezoning housing opportunity sites to demonstrate adequate capacity for lower income housing development.
As a result of having failed to meet the January 31, 2023, Housing Element adoption deadline the city will need to develop an “Adequate Sites Program” to accommodate 1 Packet Pg. 10
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 9 of 28
the ministerial (by-right) approval of 100 percent of the shortfall of sites necessary to accommodate the remaining housing need for very -low, and low -income households.
Based on the City’s assigned Regional Housin g Needs Allocation (RHNA) and other factors, the city will need to adopt a program for approximately 1,000 low- and lower- income housing units.
Under the requirements of an Adequate Sites Program, in accordance with Government Code section 65583(f) an d 65583.2(h), the city must identify properties serving to meet the remaining housing needs and zone them accordingly to permit the following:
• Permit owner -occupied and rental multifamily uses by right (i.e., ministerial approval) for developments in whi ch 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households;
• Permit the development of at least 16 units per site, and density of 20 units per acre; and
• Ensure at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low - and very low -income housing can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses.
In response, Program H -3e has been added to the Housing Element which describes the city’s commitment to adopt a by -right housing overlay/combining district to sites serving to meet the housing shortfall by the end of December 2023.
5. Clarification regarding zoning for group homes.
In response to HCD feedback, Program H-3h, has been updated to clarify that group homes for more than six persons shall be permitted in all residential zone districts consistent with state law and fair housing requirements.
6. Quantified objectives for conserving and improving the affordable housing stock.
An expanded discussion on the specific number of at -risk units, BMR rental units, units to be assisted t hrough a housing choice voucher program, mobile home units, and households anticipated to receive tenant counseling support has been quantified by income-category on Page H.IV-63 of the Housing Element.
Campbell Technology Park and the City Corporation Yard
Throughout the General Plan and Housing Element update process the potential housing land use designation of the Campbell Technology Park, and potential relocation of the City Corporation Yard, have remained ongoing topics of discussion.
1 Packet Pg. 11
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 10 of 28
Campbell Technology Park: The Campbell Technology Park is unique among the sites considered in the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory as it is the only site considered subject to a Redevelopment Agency Agreement that would need to be reviewed and renegotiated prior to the redevelopment of the site. The Campbell Technology Park is also the only site in the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory with a Research and Development land use designation that does not support housing development.
City Corporation Yard: The City Corporation Yard stands out as the only remaining City- owned property included in the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory. As a city -owned property, the site plays a strategic and vital role for affordable housing development that fulfils the city’s Below Market Rate housing requirements.
Recognizing the city retains a need for a corporation yard, an alternative relocation site must be identified prior to a re development for housing . Over the last year, city staff have evaluated multiple alternative locat ions for the potential relocation, and based on this analysis, identified the southern portion of the Campbell Technology Park as the most feasible option. While further due diligence will be required, the Campbell Technology Park presents several signific ant advantages over other properties considered, given that it is large enough to support relocation without requiring an assemblage of properties, adjacent to industrial uses and a public park, and would not result in the displacement of any housing units or residential land use. Additionally, if the city were to redevelop the site, access may be taken from Cristich Lane which would help alleviate congestion in the area and provide an alternative means for emergency access (including for the Campbell Technology Park as it redevelops).
Following initial conversations early in the Housing Element preparation process, city staff has not continued discussion with the ownership of the Campbell Technology Park in detail concerning relocation of the Corporation Yard until recently. In order t o retain this option for relocation, staff and the Planning Commission have recommended retaining the southerly portion of the site as a Research and Development use as it is currently zoned.
Draft vs. Proposed Land Use Designation of the Campbell Technology Park
Under previous drafts of the Housing Element, the Campbell Technology Park was identified for a Medium -High Density Mixed -Use (26-33 units per gross acre) land use designation which could have allowed for the devel opment of between 449 to 569 new housing units on the 17.27-acre site.
The revised Housing Element retains the existing Research and Development land use designation for the southernmost parcel and assigns a High -Density Mixed-Use (34-45 units per gross acre) land use designation to remaining three northernmost parcels allowing for the development of between 467 to 619 units (an increase of 18 to 50 units overall) as depicted by the following exhibit:
1 Packet Pg. 12
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 11 of 28
Figure 3: Previously Considered vs. Recommended Land Uses
The ownership of the Campbell Technology Park reported that they have been advised by developers that redevelopment of the entire site, at a lower density, would be preferred (as it would yield the greatest residual land value for the property).
However the proposed modification will accomplish two goals by both allowing sufficient housing at the Technology Park and allowing the City to continue pursuing potential affordable housing development at the Corporation Yard, which is critical to meetin g the city’s RHNA under the 6th cycle.
➢ Staff Recommendation : Retention of the southerly portion of the Campbell Technology Park site as Research and Development and designating the remainder for high-density mixed use residential development.
The Campbell Technology Park ownership has requested the city consider an additional alternative that retains the southerly portion as Research and Development, and designates the remainder as medium -high density mixed use residential, with a transfer of the di fference in residential density to another Housing Opportunity Site, to prevent an overall reduction in units (reference Attachment I – Public Comments and Staff Responses).
Staff can continue to pursue this option with the Campbell Technology Park and other Housing Opportunity Site property owners following Housing Element Adoption. As such, the City Council may direct staff to return with a report outlining options with the Campbell Technology Park on a near -term basis following adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element, recognizing the Housing Element contains a policy to renegotiate the Redevelopment Agency Agreement, which expires in 2027.
1 Packet Pg. 13
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 12 of 28
III. Multi-Family Development and Design Standards (MFDDS) & Form -Based Zone Map
As part of the update proc ess, the City of Campbell has worked to prepare “objective” development and design standards for multi -family, and mixed -use residential projects that respect and build upon Campbell’s unique character and distinctive neighborhoods.
These standards are int ended to ensure that new housing development under the Housing Element fits into the Campbell community. The development of these standards has been aimed at achieving following overarching objectives:
• Allow for a variety of architectural styles that ref lect and build upon Campbell’s eclectic character.
• Incorporate the thoughtfulness of the area plans.
• Avoid “boxy” buildings and “cookie” cutter design.
• Ensure compatibility with adjacent properties, avoiding visual intrusion into single-family neighborhoods.
Changes to the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
In response to Council direction from its meeting of February 21, 2023, key components of the standards have been subject to ongoing refinement. These sections include the:
A) Form Based Zone Map; B) Commercial Ground -Floor Requirement; C) Architectural and Building Type Standards; D) Adjacency Standards; and E) Large Site Standards. A discussion on these sections, feedback received, and recent changes is provided below. A detailed summar y of stakeholder feedback and actions in response has been provided as a dedicated attachment (reference Attachment J – Responses to MFFDS Comments).
During this refinement process, city staff and Opticos have held eleven (11) meetings with stakeholders and a community meeting. Additionally, feedback from the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 27, 2023, has also resulted in changes to the Ground-Floor Non -Residential Requirement which is discussed in the related section below.
Changes to the Form-Based Zone Map
The MFDDS includes a Draft Form -Based Zone Map that is used to convey ‘where’ site specific development standards should be applied in the city.
1 Packet Pg. 14
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 13 of 28
Figure 4: Form-Based Zone Map
In response to Council direction and discussions with stakeholders and the public, the following changes to the form-based map have been made:
1) Reassignment of Zones: In response to direction from the City Council to better align the assignment of form -based zones with their General Plan land use designatio n, several properties, located outside of single -family neighborhoods, have had their form-based zones changed from a lower -intensity designation (i.e., T4 -N.M) to higher-intensity designation (i.e., T4-N.L).
2) Allowable Stories/Height by Zone: In response to comments received that regulating the number of stories, particularly for taller buildings, impose an unnecessary regulatory requirement, the T5N and T5.MS zones now allow buildings up to 75 -feet tall and no longer specify a maximum number of stories. The T4.MS zone has also been amended to allow buildings up to 5 -stories in height when located on parcels with a Commercial Corridor Mixed-Use land use designation.
3) Commercial Ground Floor: The form-based map now includes a yellow (Tier 1), and orange (Tier 2) line to convey distinct development standards for commercial areas.
These are discussed in greater detail in the related discussion below.
B. Commercial Ground Floor Requirement
1 Packet Pg. 15
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 14 of 28
One outstanding discussion point from the General Plan and Housing E lement update process has been to identify where, and to what extent, mixed -use development should be “mandatory” for housing opportunity sites. To resolve this question, the Form -Based Zone map includes a line along select frontages which indicates where a commercial ground floor component shall be required.
At its meeting of February 21, 2023, the City Council expressed broad support of the areas indicated as requiring a ground floor commercial component. Developers provided feedback, citing the difficu lty to build and lease ground -floor commercial spaces, and as a result, sought to reduce or eliminate the requirement and/or receive credit for other ground floor uses toward satisfying the standard (i.e., lobbies, leasing offices). In response, the City C ouncil directed staff to meet with developers to further refine the size of tenant spaces (i.e., depth, height, width) required by the standards and consider providing for alternative means of compliance where appropriate.
Staff met with developers and the city’s Economic Development Consultant (i.e., Chabin Concepts, which is engaged to assist with the city’s Economic Development Plan) to refine the standards applied to ground -floor commercial spaces. While developers emphasized a desire for smaller/shal lower/shorter tenant spaces (which align better with residential construction methods), the city’s Economic Development Consultant advised against creating such spaces citing the difficulty to operate and lease such ‘token’ areas and the high likelihood that these smaller spaces could not be used by 50 - 70% of potential tenants and thus remain vacant (reference Attachment L – Retail Design Standards for Vertical Mixed -Use Buildings). The city’s Economic Development consultant further acknowledged that commer cial spaces are trending toward restaurant, service, and experiential uses (i.e., paint and wine, maker studios) as shopping activities continue to move online. To support this type of commercial activity in the city, larger tenant spaces with higher ceili ng heights are required, and for restaurants, access to venting and grease traps needs to be provided with the construction of the space.
Taking this feedback into account, staff developed two “Tiers” of mandatory standards for commercial ground floor areas as follows:
Requirement Tier 1 – Yellow Line Tier 2 – Orange Line
Minimum Depth 50-feet 40-feet
Minimum Width 16.5-feet 16.5-feet
Minimum Clear Height 15-feet (1) 14-feet
Access to Grease Trap Required Recommended
Roof Venting Required Recommended
Breezeway to Parking Required Recommended
Leasing Offices / Other 50%3 of required habitable
space; minimum of one
50% of required habitable
space; minimum of one
3 Except within the boundaries of the Downtown Development Plan where leasing offices shall be prohibited on the ground floor where the standard applies, and lobbies shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements for such access.
1 Packet Pg. 16
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 15 of 28
public serving use
required
public serving use
required
Public serving tenant One per building min. One per building min.
Where is this applied? Key intersections,
commercial
thoroughfares, and
downtown
Areas located mid-block;
properties that are
smaller and shallower
(1) May be reduced to 14-feet to avoid conflict with maximum allowable building height.
Figure 5: Examples of Tier 1 & Tier 2 Depth Standards
In terms of where these standards have been applied, the Tier 1 standards have generally been mapped to the Downtown, along key commercial corridors, and at the intersection of sign ificant collector and/or arterial streets. The Tier 2 standards, by comparison, have been mapped to areas located mid -block, and further away from key intersections. At large, both sets of standards apply to areas that already support commercial use or are subject to policies that either require or encourage providing a ground floor commercial component (i.e., Sub Area 2 of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan) which are in alignment with the economic development goals of the city.
1 Packet Pg. 17
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 16 of 28
Figure 6: Locations where Tier 1 & Tier 2 Standards Apply
While the minimum width, depth, and height of commercial spaces has been increased (instead of being decreased at the request of developers), two changes to the standards were made in response to developer feedback as follows:
o Exception to Minimum Clear -Height Requirement : To avoid conflicts with the maximum allowable building height, an exception has been added to the standards to allow a reduction in the clear-height to 14-feet when the building is 7 stories in height.
o Credit for Lobbies & Similar Areas : The standards now provide allow for lobbies and front offices to count up to 50% of the required frontage, provided that a minimum of one public serving tenant space is provided. These areas are also not required to meet the minimum depth requirements of the rest of the frontage.
In addition to these changes, the Planning Commission requested that the Tier 1 standards, where applied within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan area, should restrict the use of ground floor leasing offices, and require that lobbies providing access to upper -floor residential units be sized to meet the minimum requirements for such access.
C. Architectural and Building Type Standards
The architectural and building type stand ards were developed to allow for a variety of architectural styles that reflect and build upon Campbell’s eclectic character that was built organically overtime.
At its meeting of February 21, 2023, the City Council reiterated its interest to establish standards which avoid the creation of “boxy” buildings and “cookie cutter” design.
Developers expressed concern that the Architectural and Building Type standards may make it more challenging to construct new housing projects and sought to extend the length of buildings (particularly for higher density projects) before being required to vary the design of the building. Developers separately expressed concern that the standards 1 Packet Pg. 18
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 17 of 28
should allow for larger/taller buildings, with a greater number of connected build ings, and allow for the introduction of multiple curb-cuts onto a public street.
Figure 7: Townhomes with Curb-Cuts onto Street vs. Consolidated Driveway
As an outcome of the meeting, the City Council directed staff to retain standards that provided for a sufficiently eclectic and varied appearance (and prohibit curb -cuts onto public right -of-way), but meet with developers to identify high -impact, low -cost approaches to achieve that outcome and refine the “menu” of options and extent to which varied design would be required.
Figure 8: Example of a Project with “Boxy” and “Cookie Cutter Design”
Figure 9: Project with a Sufficiently Eclectic and Varied Appearance (Cresleigh)
In response to Council direction and stakeholder feedback, the following c hanges have been made:
1 Packet Pg. 19
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 18 of 28
1) Modulation Standards : To provide for sufficiently varied architectural design, and eclecticism, the design standards require larger buildings to incorporate distinct building elements and massing features. In response to concerns the standards may add costs and challenges to construct, the standards have been adjusted to allow for larger/longer buildings in more intensive form -based zones before triggering compliance with the requirements. Further, a greater number of architectural elements will now be allowed to repeat more frequently on a given building, provided they remain meaningfully separated from one another (i.e., added to non -adjacent modules). Building offsets and projections have also been decreased for ease of constructability, except in the downtown where a higher architectural standard is expected.
Figure 10: Possible Building without Proposed Modulation Standards
Figure 11: Possible Building with Proposed Modulation Standards
1 Packet Pg. 20
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 19 of 28
2) Building Widths / Depths : The bui lding standards regulate the width and depth per unit and per building. Particularly in the townhome product type, the width and depth per unit was revised to allow tandem garages which generally require shorter building widths per unit but longer building depths.
Figure 12: Example of Narrower/Deeper Tandem Townhome Units
In consideration of these changes the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 27, 2023, requested a change to the minimum width to require an average width of at least 18-feet in townhome buildings, while allowing any individual unit to be as narrow as 16 - feet. This change was requested to avoid entire buildings from being developed with exclusively narrow tandem units.
3) Maximum Number of Connected Units : Previously, the building type standards restricted how many units could be contained within a single building. The revised building type standards no longer regulate by how many connected units per building, but rather regulates by the overall the length of the building. This is approach avoids penalizing developers which pursue to add narrower and/or tandem units to their design.
Figure 13: Building Size Regulated by Length instead of Number of Connected Units 1 Packet Pg. 21
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 20 of 28
D. Adjacency Standards
Adjacency standards are intended to mini mize impacts of new higher density housing development on adjacent uses, such as single-family residences.
At its meeting of February 21, 2023, the City Council reiterated its interest in ensuring design outcomes that are compatible with their surroundin gs and limit visual intrusion into single -family neighborhoods. Developers expressed concern that the adjacency standards will limit the size and/or number of units possible and need to be adjusted to accommodate narrower/shallower properties.
Figure 14: Potential Project Outcome without Adjacency Standards
In response to Council direction and feedback from stakeholders, the adjacency standards have been adjusted to accommodate narrower and shallower properties, while still providing for sufficient bu ffers between large buildings and single -family neighborhoods. Separately, through adjustments to the Form -Based Map (see related discussion) the number of conflicts presented by adjacency standards has been minimized (i.e., fewer conflicts between zones n ow occur due to the intensity of development allowed between adjacent sites being increased). Further, a graphic has been added to support the text and convey the intent of the standards as follows:
1 Packet Pg. 22
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 21 of 28
Figure 15: Potential Project Outcomes with Adjacency Standards
E. Large Site Standards:
The large site standards apply to the largest properties in Campbell to ensure that the development of such areas is compatible with their surroundings. The large site standards also ensure larger properties provide ad equate circulation, the provision of open space for public and private use, and generally results in the assignment of more than one form-based zone and product type.
At its meeting of February 21, 2023, the City Council expressed support of the large s ite standards and the requirement to provide a public open space area equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the project site area, but directed staff to consider providing credit (in the form of a reduction to the park impact fees) to developers providing suc h areas and work on clarifying the terms and definitions used to describe the different types of open space provided.
Developers requested the city to reduce the open space requirement (from 10% to 8% or 5%) and expressed concern with the added cost to i nsure and maintain open space areas open to the public as required by the standards.
1 Packet Pg. 23
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 22 of 28
Figure 16: Project Outcome without Large Site Standards
In response to feedback from the Council and stakeholders on the Large Site Standards, in addition to clarify ing definitions, the following revisions have been made:
o Private or Public: Instead of requiring open space areas to be available to the public, projects now have the option of designating the space for either private or public use . As an incentive for m aking required open space areas available to the public, projects will receive credit toward satisfying parkland dedication requirements on a one -to-one ratio with the area provided, up to a maximum of 50% of their park land dedication requirement.
o Relationship to Public Right-of-Way: Open space must now abut and be visible from the public right -of-way and may not be fenced off or otherwise obstructed.
o Paseos: Only portions of paseos within 50 -feet public right -of-way may be counted toward satisfying the open space requirement.
Figure 17: Example of Public Open Space
In addition to the changes noted above, adjustments to the throughfare standards applied to Large Sites were also made to accommodate bike lanes and ensure compliance with fire safety requirements where appropriate. 1 Packet Pg. 24
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 23 of 28
IV. Implementation
To implement the new Housing Element and General Plan, updates to the code and associated planning documents are required. These changes affect: A) Area Plans and Design Requirements; B) Zoning Map; and C) Campbell Municipal Code.
A. Area and Design Requirements : As part of the General Plan and Housing Element update process, the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Residential Projects will be repealed to avoid conflicts with the proposed policies and development standards under consideration, consistent with previous Council direction (see “Background”).
Further, as the Downtown Development Plan, San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, and Streetscape Standards are adopted as appendices to the existing General Plan, which will be replaced by the 2040 Envision Campbell General Plan, these plans will be reestablished by separate acti on as part of the update process. As an added benefit of this change, amendments to these documents will be easier to implement in the future, as they will no longer require an amendment to the General Plan to effectuate.
B. Zoning Map: To implement the 2040 General Plan land use map, the existing Zoning Map will be repealed and replaced with a new Zoning Map in accordance with Section 65860 of the California Government Code. Generally, the new zoning map aligns on a one -to-one basis with land use designatio ns under consideration under the General Plan, while still maintaining “legacy” Planned Development (P -D) and Condominium Planned Development (C -PD) zoning designations on sites that are not city-owned or identified as a Housing Opportunity Site.
1 Packet Pg. 25
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 24 of 28
Figure 18: Proposed Zoning Map
C. Campbell Municipal Code : The Campbell Municipal Code is being updated to implement the Multi -Family Development and Design Standards (MFDDS), reduce parking requirements, and establish new zoning districts in response to the Dra ft General Plan and Housing Element update. The code updates also serve to comply with several new state laws, address workplan items, and incorporate minor technical/efficiency improvements to bring the code up to industry standards.
V. Environmental Determination
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a process through which agencies and the public can evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update ( State Clearinghouse #2022030566; the “project”), to understand the potential scale of any environmental impacts to the degree feasible and develop mitigation measures and consider project alternatives to reduce these impacts.
Mitigation Measures and Project Alternatives
The project was developed with a “self -mitigating” General Plan. Impacts identified in the Final EIR (which incorporates the Draft EIR) will be mitigated through application of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, through the application o f General Plan 1 Packet Pg. 26
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 25 of 28
policies and programs, and through project level environmental review and mitigation that reflects the implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions. In accordance with §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR describes t hree (3) reasonable alternatives to the project (i.e., a “No Project Alternative”, “Modified Project Alternative”, and “Corridor Enhancements Alternative”), which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and might avoid or substant ially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
Findings and Determinations/Statement of Overriding Considerations In accordance with Public Resources Code (§21081) and State CEQA Guidelines (§15091), the Council must make one or more written findings addressing any potentially significant impacts associated with approval of the project. The Council must balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determini ng whether to approve the project. If the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the project outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15093).
The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (reference Attachment A, Exhibit B) identified that implementation of the project could result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts in the following environmental areas: air quality, greenhouse gases (GHG), and transportation and circulation. Given this circumstance, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been prepared for the project which acknowledges the significant and unavoidable impacts of the implementation of the project but provides findings supporting the position that project conveys economic, legal, social, technological, and/or other benefits that outweigh such impacts. Once the Final EIR ha s been certified and the plan adopted, the EIR will then be used to inform and streamline CEQA review for future development projects in the city.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Fiscal impacts associated with adoption of the General Plan, Housing Element, and associated code updates are related to two broad areas – (a) the fiscal cost of implementing policies and programs identified in these planning documents and (b) the potential fiscal impacts resulting from changes in land use and subsequent future development and population / employment growth in the city.
The Fiscal Sustainability Element of the General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions aimed at ensuring the long -term financial health and prosperity of the community, by balancing the costs and expenditures.
The following table serves to summarize the larger near -term (with in the first two years) costs associated with the implementation of policies and programs identified in the General Plan and Housing Element. The identified Housing Program costs will be 1 Packet Pg. 27
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 26 of 28
identified in more detail in a Housing Program audit that is scheduled to be presented at the May 2, 2023, Council meeting.
Action Related Policy Estimated Cost
Community Development Department
General Plan
Prepare Climate Action and Adaptation Plan COS-10.c $200,000 (applied for grant)
Prepare Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan LU-9.1 $400,000
(applied for grant)
Prepare Noise Standards Ordinance N-1.d. & N-1.c. Assumed as ongoing staff costs
Update permit regulations and development
standards to spur economic growth
ED-2.a Pending result of
economic
development plan
update
Community Development Department & Public Works
Prepare geologic studies on the Cascade
Fault
SA.1.f $50,000
Update the Subdivision Ordinance I-1.b. Assumed as ongoing staff costs
Public Works Department
Prepare a Multimodal Improvement Plan T-1.i $650,000
(applied for grant)
Develop a Grading Ordinance COS-8.g Cost to be determined Prepare Objective Standards to address
resilient design and single -family
development
CD-1.b., H-1f,
H-4a
$150,000 to $225,000
Housing Element
Hire a Housing Program Manager H-3b $200,000–250,000
annual
Establish Unhoused Specialist Position H-5e $100,000-130,000 annual
(will apply for grant)
Affordable Housing & Commercial Linkage
Fee Nexus Fee Study
H-1.a., & H-1.b $150,000
Outreach and Engagement Coordination H-1e, H-2i, H-
5a., H-5f., H-5h,
H-5i, H-5j, H-5k,
H-5q, H-5u, H-
5w, H-5x, H-5y
$10,000 to $15,000
annual
Establish BMR Rent Control Ordinance H-2a Assumed as ongoing staff costs
Short Term Rental Study H-2c Cost to be determined
Evaluation of Financing Options for
Workforce Housing and Ordinance
H-2d Staff + Consultant
Support ($15,000)
1 Packet Pg. 28
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 27 of 28
Rehabilitation Assistance
(Support up to 10 households)
H-2e Cost to be determined
Prepare a Replacement Unit Ordinance H-2l Assumed as ongoing staff costs
Prepare Adequate Sites Program H-3e Assumed as ongoing staff costs
Review and Renegotiate Existing
Development Agreements
H-3i Assumed as ongoing
staff costs
Safe Parking Funds
(Support up to 30 vehicles)
H-5e $10,000
Santa Clara County Rapid Rehousing Fund
(Support up to 75 households)
H-5e Cost to be determined
Total Estimated Costs
$1,935,000 to $2,095,000
($310,000 to 395,000 are annual/ongoing costs)
With respect to the land us e changes identified under the General Plan and Housing Element and resulting development and growth, the exact fiscal impacts to the city are harder to predict. The review of development applications, permitting, and inspection associated wi th new develop ment applications resulting from the land use changes (new housing development) will be funded by Planning and Building fees / charges for service.
Residential p opulation growth resulting from new development under the Housing Element land use changes w ill result in an increased demand for additional city services, such as police services, recreation, and other city services. Land development resulting in the building of new residences and businesses would normally result in additional tax revenues assoc iated with increased property taxes and / or sales ta xes that would proportionally fund an increased demand in services . Pursuant to Council direction, the City will continue to evaluate opportunities to adopt development impact fees, that would fund impr ovements in infrastructure (transportation network, parks, utilities) needed to support the additional population growth. Nevertheless, further fiscal analysis and discussion will need to occur in the future to ensure that existing fees and taxes sufficie ntly support the anticipated additional service costs. If they do, new revenue sources, including additional fees and taxes, may need to be considered.
In consideration of the number of near -term policy objectives, and anticipated costs, the City Council will need to establish work plans that weigh priorities against budgetary and staffing constraints.
PROJECT SCHEDULE / NEXT STEPS
Following adoption of the subject item, a second reading of the Ordinance adopting the Zoning Map and Campbell Municipal Co de will be required. To ensure that the General Plan and Housing Element are aligned with the effective date of this Ordinance, the effective date of all items have been aligned to ensure concurrency (anticipated to be 1 Packet Pg. 29
General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al. Page 28 of 28
June 2, 2023). After this point in ti me, new projects may be submitted and reviewed under the policies and standards established by the update.
Prepared by:
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. City Council Resolution ~ Final Environmental Impact Report b. City Council Resolution ~ General Plan Adoption
c. City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption
d. City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines e. City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code
f. City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM
g. Expanded Background
h. Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023
i. Public Comments & Staff Responses
j. Responses to MFDDS Comments
k. Letter from HCD on 4th Draft Housing Element
l. Retail Design Standards for Vertical Mixed-Use Buildings 1 Packet Pg. 30
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL C ERTIFYING THE
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
AND ADOPTING REQUIRED FINDINGS WITH A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE ENVISION
CAMPBELL 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND 2023-2031 HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE. FILE NO. PLN-2021-12.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2021-12:
1. The City of Campbell has prepared an update to its General Plan and Housing Element, entitled “Envision Campbell ” (2040 General Plan) and “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” (2023-2031 Housing Element).
2. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a process through which agencies and the public can evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the Envision Campbell General Plan and 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update (State Clearinghouse #2022030566; the “project”), to understand the potential scale of any environmental impacts to the degree feasible and develop mitigation measures and consider project alternatives to reduce these impacts.
3. The City of Campbell , as the CEQA lead agency, has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit A) (State Clearinghouse Number: 202203566), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
4. The project was developed with a “self-mitigating” General Plan. Impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (which incorporates the Draft EIR) will be mitigated through application of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, through the application of General Plan policies and programs, and through project level environmental review and mitigation that reflects the implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions.
5. Even with the incorporation of mitigation measures, t he Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ide ntifies significant unavoidable impacts which will result from the project related to air quality, greenhouse gases, climate change and energy, and transportation and circulation.
6. In accordance with §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR describes three (3) reasonable alternatives to the project (i.e., a “No Project Alternative”, “Modified Project Alternative”, and “Corridor Enhancements Alternative”), which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and might avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
7. The City of Campbell considered the alternatives identified in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Certification of FEIR & Statements of Overriding Considerations Page 2 of 2
8. In accordance with Public Resources Code (§21081) and State CEQA Guidelines (§15091), the Council must make one or more written findings addressing any potentially significant impacts associated with approval of the project.
9. Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations (reference Exhibit B) have been prepared for the project.
10. The Findings of Fact provide additional information for the review and consideration of the project and are herein incorporated by reference.
11. The Statements of Overriding Considerations provides findings supporting the position that project conveys economic, legal, social, technological, and/or other benefits that outweigh such impacts.
12. Once the Final EIR has been certified and the plan adopted, the EIR will then be used to inform and streamline CEQA review for future development projects in the city.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrati ve record, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
13. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
14. The project conveys economic, legal, social, technological, and/or other benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts that will result from the implementation of the project as set forth in Exhibit B.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:
(1) Certifies the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (reference Exhibit A); and
(2) Adopts required Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations (reference Exhibit B).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit A
Final Environmental Impact Report
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19965/Final-EIR_Campbell-GPU_3-14-23-SR
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit B
Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19998/Findings-of-Fact- and-Statements-of-Overriding-Consideration---03-14-2023
1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ADOPTING THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN (ENVISION
CAMPBELL). FILE NO. PLN-2021-12.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2021-12:
1. Pursuant to Section 65300
of the California Government Code, each planning agency and legislative body shall adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the city, and of any land outside its boundaries in which the planning agency’s judgement bears relation to its planning.
2. Pursuant to Section 65302 of the California Government Code, the general plan shall include the following elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice.
3. The current, 2001 General Plan, was adopted by the City Council on November 6, 2001, with the Land Use and Transportation Elements updated on August 19, 2014, and the Housing Element updated on February 17, 2015 (hereinafter “2001 General Plan”).
4. The current, 2001 General Plan, includes the North of Campbell Avenue Area (NOCA) Plan, South of Campbell Avenue Area (SOCA) Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Downtown Development Plan as technical appendices.
5. On December 16, 2021, the City Council directed staff to retire the North of Campbell Avenue (NOCA) and South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) area plans.
6. Upon the effective date of the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell) the 2001 General Plan shall be of no further force or effect.
7. The 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell) contains the following elements: land use, transportation, community design, economic development, fiscal sust ainability, conservation and open space, community services and facilities, safety, noise, community health and wellness, sustainability, and implementation. In compliance with state law, Campbell’s Plan for Housing (2023- 2031 Housing Element) will be adopted with the proposed General Plan.
8. The 2040 General Plan covers all territory within the boundaries of the city.
9. During the preparation of the 2040 G eneral Plan, the City of Campbell provided opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings , the use of surveys, distribution of postcards, establishment of a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and holding public workshops, maintaining a dedicated project website, advertising in the City of Campbell Recreation Activity Guide, and other methods the city deemed appropriate.
1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ General Plan Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Adoption of the 2040 General Plan Page 2 of 3
10. As provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5 the City of Campbell referred the 2040 General Plan to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed.
11. The City of Campbell did not receive a request for consultation with a California Native American tribe.
12. The city published notice of its Planning Commission and City Council meetings in the Metro Silicon Valley newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation.
13. Review and adoption of the 2040 General Plan is done in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65853 through 65857, which require a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission whereby the Planning Commission shall provide its written recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.
14. Before the adoption of the General Plan the city reviewed and considered the following in accordance with Government Code 65350.5
:
a) An adoption of, or update to, a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720) or Part
2.75 (commencing with Section 10750) of Division 6 of the Water Code or groundwater management court order, judgment, or decree. b) An adjudication of water rights.
c) An order or interim plan by the State Water Resources Control Board pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 10735) of Part 2.74 of Division 6 of the Water Code.
15. In consideration of the considerations provided by Government Code 65350.5, the City of Campbell is not a water provider, does not manage groundwater, and does not adjudicate water rights. Impacts to water resources, including groundwater supplies , were fully analyzed, and considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Further, a water supply assessment was prepared by Valley Water which was included in the Final EIR which included an assessment and review of water resources.
16. To consider the environmental impacts of the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, a Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared (SCH #2022030566).
17. With the adoption of Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding considerations in support of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the City Council may find the adoption of the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 2031 Housing Element to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
18. The City of Campbell must amend the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and adopt a new Zoning Map for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element which will be adopted and established by a separate Ordinance.
19. To avoid conflicts between the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 2031 Housing Element and the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and Zoning Map, the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 2031 Housing Element shall be effective with, and subject to, the effective date and
1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ General Plan Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Adoption of the 2040 General Plan Page 3 of 3
adoption of the associated Ordinance amending the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and adopting a new Zoning Map.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
20. The 2040 General Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city;
21. The 2040 General Plan and all its elements comprise a logical, integrated internally consistent, and compatible statement of the City’s goals, policies, and objectives and that the 2040 General Plan is reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare as it guides and accom modates land uses, housing, and circulation infrastructure in accordance with current law, community needs, and future demands; and
22. Adoption of the 2040 General Plan is consistent with the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Findings of Fact , a nd Statements of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023-2031 Housing Element.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:
(1) Resolves that the 2001 General Plan shall be of no further force or effect upon the effective date of the 2040 General Plan (reference Exhibit A); and (2) Adopts the 2040 General Plan (reference Exhibit B), directing the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 65357, to make the final 2040 General Plan, including all diagrams, available to the public for inspection.
This Resolution shall be effective with, and subject to, the adoption and effective date of the associated Ordinance establishing a new Zoning Map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation, Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ General Plan Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit A
2001 General Plan
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2664/General-Plan- 2022?bidId=
1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ General Plan Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit B
2040 General Plan
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20051/Campbell-General-Plan_Final_4_01_2023
1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ General Plan Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ADOPTING THE 2023- 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
(CAMPBELL’S PLAN FOR HOUSING). FILE NO. PLN-2021-12.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2021-12:
1. California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.).
2. California Legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.).
3. California Legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”.
4. The Association of Bay Area Governments adopted the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 planning period, which requires the City of Campbell to plan to accommodate 2,977 new housing units between 2023-2031 to meet the city’s “fair share” of the State of California’s housing needs.
5. State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight -year period 2023- 2031 to accommodate the City of Campbell regional housing need allocation ( RHNA ) of 2,977
housing units, comprised of 752 very -low income units, 434 low-income units, 499 moderate-income units, and 1,292 above moderate-income units.
6. To comply with State Housing Element Law, the city has prepared Campbell’s Plan for Housing (2023-2031 Housing Element) in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA.
7. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is a required element of the General Plan and is to be adopted with and as part of the 2040 General Plan.
1.c
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Page 2 of 5
8. As provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5 the City of Campbell referred the Housing Element to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed.
9. The City of Campbell did not receive a request for consultation with a C alifornia Native American tribe.
10. The preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community.
11. The city conducted extensive community outreach in the preparation of the Housing Element including mailing postcards to all postal addresses in Campbell, sending out routine email notifications to the public alerting them of key events and upcoming meetings, distributing informational flyers in English and in Spanish, distributing an online housing survey that was completed by over 425 individuals, holding booths at weekly farmer market’s and community festivals, holding five (5) community outreach meetings, eight ( 8) meetings with community groups and service providers, and holding four (4) roundtable meetings with affordable and market rate developers.
12. In accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on June 9, 2022, the city posted the Draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 30-day review period, and on August 5, 2022, after responding to public comments, the city submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review . Subsequent submittals and key dates related to the preparation of the Draft Housing Element are summarized below:
a. On October 26, 2022, a 2nd D raft of the Housing Element , which added additional technical and factual information and clarity to data points provided in the initial release, was published on the Housing Element website and emailed to all individuals and organizations which requested notice. The seven- day postin g period for the second draft was from October 26, 2022, to November 2, 2022.
b. On November 3, 2022, the City of Campbell received comments from HCD on the City’s Draft Housing Element submitted for review on August 5, 2022, along with the draft revisions submitted on October 26, 2022. c. On December 16, 2023, a 3rd Draft of the Housing Element was published on the Housing Element website and emailed to all individuals and organizations which requested notice. The seven-day posting period for the third draft w as from December 16, 2022, to December 23, 2022.
d. On December 26, 2022, the 3rd Draft of the Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review.
e. On February 13, 2023, an updated version of the 3rd Draft of the Housing Element, in response to deliberative feedback provided by HCD, was published on the Housing Element website and emailed to all individuals and
1.c
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Page 3 of 5
organizations which requested notice. The seven- day posting period for the updated version of third draft was from February 13, 2022, to February 20, 2022. f. On February 21, 2023, the city submitted the updated version of the 3rd Draft of the Housing Element to HCD for review.
g. On February 23, 2023, the City of Campbell received comments from HCD on the City’s Draft Housing Element submitted for review on December 26, 2022, along with the draft revisions submitted on February 21, 2023. h. On March 17, 2023, the City of Campbell published a 4th Draft of the Housing Element, on the Housing Element website and emailed a link to all individuals and organizations which requested notice. The seven-day posting period for the updated version of third draft was from March 17, 2023, to March 24, 2023. i. On March 24, 2023, the City of Campbell submitted its 4th Draft of the Housing Element to HCD for review.
j. On March 27, 2023, the City of Campbell received a letter from HCD, indicating that HCD is pleased to find that the 4th Draft of the Housing Element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, and will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.
13. The letter received from HCD on March 27, 2023, supports the conclusion that the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory, with the minimium densities indicated, is required in order to comply with specific state or federal laws including, but not limited to, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) by demonstrating how the city will meet its Regional Housing N eeds Allocation and provide for housing that meets the needs of the community at a range of affor dability levels. Further, a ny reductions to the minimum densities of sites identified in the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory will r esult in the production of few er households, it is infe asible to approve reductions to planned for densities without rendering sites unaffordable to lower -income households in consideration that higher densities result in the production of units that are affordable by design and the production of more housing units reduces housing costs.
14. On March 27, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments.
15. Since the Housing Element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for lower-income households, it must demonstrate that existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period.
16. The Housing Element, and other materials and information in the administrative record provide substantial evidence that existing uses do not impede additional residential
1.c
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Page 4 of 5
development and will likely be discontinued during the planning period. This determination is further evidenced by the high demand for housing in the city, as well as obsolescent buildings, declining uses, low existing floor area ratio, the significant impact of the COVID- 19 pandemic and related shifts in the commercial and residential real estate markets and development expectations, an as further evidenced by recent site development inquiries, each as further specified on a categorical and site-by-site basis in the 2023-2023 Housing Element Update, that the existing uses on each existing, nonvacant site identified for inclusion within the Site Inventory, and thereby zoned to accommodate the city’s needed lower income housing needs, as noted in the Site Inventory (Appendix IV-A) , and thereby the fact that these sites are not currently vacant and not an impediment to additional residential development during the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
17. The City of Campbell must amend the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and adopt a new Zoning Map for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element which will be adopted and established by a separate Ordinance.
18. To avoid conflicts between the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 2031 Housing Element and the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and Zoning Map, the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 2031 Housing Element shall be effective with, and subject to, the effective date and adoption of the associated Ordinance amending the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and adopting a new Zoning Map.
19. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a process through which agencies and the public can evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the Envision Campbell General Plan and 2023-2 031 Housing Element Update (State Clearinghouse #2022030566; the “project”), to understand the potential scale of any environmental impacts to the degree feasible and develop mitigation measures and consider project alternatives to reduce these impacts.
20. The City of Campbell, as the CEQA lead agency, has prepared a Final Environmental
Impact Report ( State Clearinghouse Number: 202203566), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
21. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action;
22. The Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law;
23. The 2023- 2031 Housing Element is internally consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan;
24. The 2023-2031 Housing Element would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; and
1.c
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Page 5 of 5
25. Adoption of the Housing El ement is consistent with the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Findings, and Statements of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023- 2031 Housing Element.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopt s the 2023- 2031 Housing Element (reference Exhibit A).
This Resolution shall be effective with, and subject to, the adoption and effective date of the associated Ordinance establishing a new Zoning Map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation, Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
1.c
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit A
2023-2031 Housing Element
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20052/6th-Cycle-2023- 2031-Housing-Element-April-2023-Cover
1.c
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Housing Element Adoption (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL RESOLVING TO AMEND THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF
THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LOW -MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND CENTRAL CAMPBELL
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REESTABLISHING OTHER
EXISTING AREA, STREETSCAPE, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.
FILE NO. PLN-2021-12
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2021-12:
1. On January 23, 1995, the Low -Medium Density Design Guidelines were adopted by the City Council by minute action.
2. The Low-Medium Density Design Guidelines are subjective and conflict with the new Multi- Family Development and Design Standards under development.
3. The Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan was adopted June 21, 1983, by City Council Ordinance No. 1461, and subsequently amended and reinstated on January 15, 1991, by Ordinance No. 1830 and June 16, 1992, by City Council Ordinance No. 1960.
4. The Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan is referenced in various General Plan and Zoning code provisions to be repealed and replaced as part of the 2040 General Plan update rendering the document obsolete and inconsistent with the new plan and implementing ordinances.
5. In taking action to rescind the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan, it is the express intent of the Counc il for provisions within the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan, including but not limited to land use restrictions , referenced by, or relied upon, within a Disposition and Development Agreement, to remain in full force and effect for such limited purpose and scope.
6. The San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, Streetscape Standards, and the Downtown Development Plan are incorporated as appendices to the 2001 General Plan which is to be repealed and replaced by the 2040 General Plan.
7. To retain the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Downtown Development plan, a separate action is required to reestablish these documents following the repeal and replacement of the 2001 General Plan by the 2040 General Plan is required.
8. The 2040 General Plan references and relies upon the provisions of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Downtown Development P lan as established.
1.d
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Area, Streetscape, Neighborhood Plans & Design Guidelines Page 2 of 3
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
9. The San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Downtown Development Plan are consistent with the 2040 General Plan and the Programmatic Environmental Impact report (EIR) prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023-2031 Housing Element.
10. The reestablishment of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Downtown Plan serve to implement the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 203 Housing Element and are therefore consistent with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023-2031 Housing Element. Where the proposed actions are not within the scope of the EIR, such changes may found categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, because they have no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, direct ly or indirectly, or are administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant, respectively.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:
(1) Resolves that the Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Residential Development shall be of no further force and effect (reference Exhibit A); (2) Resolves that the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan shall be of no further force and effect, except when referenced by referenced by, or relied upon, within a Disposition and Development Agreement, in which case the Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan shall remain in full force and effect for the purpose of implementing the Disposition and Development Agreement (Exhibit B); (3) Reestablishes the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan as a plan separate and apart from the General Plan (Exhibit C);
(4) Reestablishes the Downtown Development Plan as a plan separate and apart from the General Plan (Exhibit D); and
(5) Reestablishes the City of Campbell Streetscape Standards as standards separate and apart from the General Plan (Exhibit E).
This Resolution shall be effective with, and subject to, the adoption and effective date of the associated Ordinance establishing a new Zoning Map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation, Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
1.d
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2021-12 – Area, Streetscape, Neighborhood Plans & Design Guidelines Page 3 of 3
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
1.d
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit A
Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Residential
Development
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/143/Design-Guidelines-For- Low-Medium-Density-Residential-Projects?bidId=
1.d
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit B
Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19996/Central-Campbell- RDA-Plan---1992
1.d
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit C
San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/167/STANP
1.d
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Downtown Campbell Development Plan & Standards
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address: https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/145/Downtown-Development-Plan
Exhibit D1.d
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit E
Streetscape Standards
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/168/Streetscape-Standards
1.d
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ Area Plans & Design Guidelines (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
ORDINANCE NO.
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ESTABLISHING A NEW ZONING MAP AND AMENDING
TITLE 6 (HEALTH AND SANITATION), TITLE 7 (ANIMALS), TITLE 20 (SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT), AND TITLE 21
(ZONING) OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE. FILE NO. PLN - 2022-90.
WHEREAS, after notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
WHEREAS, the City of Campbell is adopting a new General Plan (Campbell 2040 General Plan), inclusive of a new 2023-2031 Housing Element and therefore, the must amend the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and adopt a new Zoning Map for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element.
WHEREAS, upon the effective date of the subject Ordinance, the preceding Campbell Zoning Map, as most recently amended, shall be of no further force or effect.
WHEREAS, the subject O rdinance w ill amend Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit B.
WHEREAS, a general summary of amendments to Title 6 (Health and Sanitati on), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code, and where appropriate their relationship to implementation of state or federal law, has been included as Exhibit C.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would be consistent with the following policies and strategies of the 2040 General Plan:
LU-1.a: Update the City’s Zoning Map to be consistent with the land use designations shown on Figure LU-01.
LU-1.b: Assign zoning to properties consistent with the land use designations identified by the General Plan.
LU-1.c: Enact zoning amendments that reduce the City’s reliance on the P -D (Planned Development) and C -PD (Condominium Planned Development) zoning designation.
LU-1.e: Review the standards provided in the Campbell Municipal Code and Zoning Code (Title 21) and amend as necessary to ensure consistency with the General Plan.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would be consistent with the following program from the 2023-2031 Campbell Housing Element:
Program H-3a: Update the Municipal Code to reduce parking requirements consistent with the standards presented in Table II-33. The following parking reduction strategies in areas adjacent to light rail, and other parts of the City which will not present impacts to residential neighborhoods, are being proposed: Reducing the parking
1.e
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Ordinance No.
PLN-2022-90 – Zoning Map and Updates to Campbell Municipal Code Page 2 of 4
requirements for smaller units as a means of facilitating lower cost housing, and for sites located within walkable areas.
WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California has, in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560 and 65800, conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry.
WHEREAS, review and adoption of the proposed amendments is done i n compliance with California government Code Sections 65853 through 65857, which require a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission whereby the Planning Commission shall provide its written recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments serve to implement the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 203 Housing Element and may therefore be found consistent with the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023- 2031 Housing Element. Where the proposed amendments are not within the scope of the EIR, such changes may found categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, because they have no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, directly or indirectly, or are administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant, respectively.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments related to park fees, within Title 20 of the Campbell Municipal Code, may be found categorically exempt pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21065, which specifically excludes governmental fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the 2040 General Plan (which includes the 2023- 2031 Housing Element) and all applicable development agreements, area plans, neighborhood plans, and specific plan.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city.
WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that three acres of property be devoted and developed for park and recreational purposes for each one thousand persons currently residing or who may in the future reside within the city, as determined in the conservation and open space element of the 2040 General Plan.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
WHEREAS, in consideration of the adoption of the subject Ordinance, the City Council provided due consideration of all evidence presented and provided in the entire administrative record.
1.e
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Ordinance No.
PLN-2022-90 – Zoning Map and Updates to Campbell Municipal Code Page 3 of 4
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Campbell:
Section 1. That the City Council adopts an Ordinance ordaining that the preceding Campbell Zoning Map, as most recently amended, shall be of no further force or effect upon the effective date of the new Campbell Zoning Map as set forth in Exhibit A, establishing a new Campbell Zoning Map as set forth in Exhibit A , and amending Title 6 ( Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit B with underlining indicating new text and strikeouts indicating deleted text and directing the City Clerk to update placeholders referencing the date of adoption within the amended sections of the Campbell Municipal Code to indicate the effective date of the Ordinance.
Section 2. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Ordinance, or the validity of this Ordinance, shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision.
Section 3. The proposed amendments serve to implement the 2040 General Plan and 2023- 203 Housing Element and are therefore found consistent with the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023- 2031 Housing Element. Where the proposed amendments are not within the scope of the EIR, such changes are categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, because they have no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, directly or indirectly, or are administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant, respectively.
Section 4. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendments related to park fees, within Title 20 of the Campbell Municipal Code, are categorically exempt pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21065, which specifically excludes governmental fiscal activities which do not i nvolve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
Section 5. The City Council further finds and determines that the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the 2040 General Plan and more specifically Policy COS-1.2 of the 2040 General Plan, by providing for new public open space that serve new residents created by new housing projects.
Section 6. The C ity Council further finds and determines that the purpose of the fees imposed, or land required to be dedicated, as modified by this ordinance, is for developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities within the city. It is recognized and understood that the city is compact, comprising approximately six square miles, and consequently parks located throughout the city are a ccessible to, and used by persons residing in all parts of the City. The dedicated land and the fees imposed shall accordingly be used to develop or rehabilitate parks and recreational facilities within the City in accordance with the City's General Plan. Residential development increases the number of residents in
1.e
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Ordinance No.
PLN-2022-90 – Zoning Map and Updates to Campbell Municipal Code Page 4 of 4
the City, and thereby creates a greater demand for park and recreational facilities. The dedication and fee requirements imposed, as modified by this ordinance, are to provide for three acres of park and recreational facilities for each 1,000 new residents, or proportion thereof, generated by new residential development. The number of residents per unit of new development is determined by the average number of occupants revealed by the most recent census information. The fees are determined by multiplying a number no greater than the fair market value of real property in the City on a per acre basis with number of acres of land necessary to provide three acres for every 1,000 new residents generated by the new development. Where allowed by law, the cost of improving the land with park and recreational facilities is to serve the new residents is then added. Based on these findings, the City Council further finds and concludes: (a) there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the land or fee and the type of development project on which the dedication or fee is imposed; (b) there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project on which the dedication or fee is imposed; and there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the dedication or fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the dedication or fee is imposed taking into account any credits or reductions of fees as set forth by the code as amended.
Section 7. That this Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption and shall be published, or summary thereof, one tim e within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in the Metro Silicon Valley, a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
1.e
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit A
Zoning Map
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19982/Zoning-Map-2023
1.e
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit B
Amendments to Campbell Municipal Code
Title 6 (Health and Sanitation)
Title 7 (Animals)
Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development)
Title 21 (Zoning)
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20055/Code-Amendments- Title-6-7-20-and-21
1.e
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit C
Summary of Municipal Code Changes
General Corrections
In addition to the Title and Chapter specific changes as noted below, typographical, grammatical, and structural 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 and comply with state and federal law.
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.
Chapter 20.24 Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Subdivisions
1. Added a provision allowing for a reduction in fees for projects providing for public open space meeting the requirements of Chapter 21.07 (Housing Development Regulations) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
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 Industrial Districts) as renamed.
2. Added a reference to Chapter 21.11 (Mixed-Use Districts).
3. Removed antiquated references to the former city redevelopment agency.
1.e
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
4. Added a section exempting projects which reconfigure existing square footage to increase the number of bedrooms from public hearings.
5. 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.
Chapter 21.04: Establishment of Zoning Districts
1. Updated to reflect new land use designations and zoning districts.
2. Established a reference table to prior zoning districts.
3. Established P-D as a legacy zoning district.
Chapter 21.06: District Boundaries
Chapter 21.07: Housing Development Regulations
1. Newly created chapter to establish objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use hosing development projects.
2. Provides a connection in the code to the separately adopted Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form-Based Zoning Map.
3. Provides permitting procedures, public hearing procedures, conditions and time limits, provisions providing for an amendment of the standards, phasing of projects, and provisions describing what constitutes a major change to a housing development project.
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, 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.
1.e
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
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).
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.e
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
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.
4. Lowered the threshold for eligibility for consideration of a community benefit overlay designation to 25 residential units.
Chapter 21.16: General Performance Standards
1. Added Section 21.16.105 establishing a reference in the code to the Valley Water Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams and assignment of responsible department for oversight of related requirements.
2. 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 General Plan (Envision Campbell 2040).
Chapter 21.18: Site Development Standards
Chapter 21.20: Density Bonuses and Other Housing Incentives
1. Renamed Chapter from “Density Bonus and other incentives for affordable residential units, senior housing and childcare facilities” to as indicated above.
2. Restructured Chapter to reference standards and tables contained in state law and removed locally established standards and tables which were out of date.
3. Added clarity on how a density bonus is calculated.
4. Added clarity on how concessions and waivers are applied.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Added a provision allowing for a 30% density bonus for projects that provide 5% of the total living units as target units restricted to acutely or extremely very low-income households.
8. Established a connection to the priority preference criteria established by the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for density bonus units.
Chapter 21.23: Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Incorporates amendments in response to SB-897 and AB-2221 as follows:
1.e
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 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 a reference to a former housing element policy to point to a new goal established by the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
2. Added a definition for an extremely low-income household.
3. 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.
4. 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 21.26: Landscaping Requirements
1. Established landscape standards for mixed-use districts.
2. Clarified the definition of landscaping.
Chapter 21.28: Parking and Loading
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. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Established provisions allowing for the reduction in the number of parking spaces when necessary to meet minimum accessible access requirements.
7. Established standards for the prioritization of the assignment of parking spaces when provided on property with residential uses.
1.e
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
8. Adjusted parking standards, primarily resulting in a reduction of parking requirements for residential uses contained in Table 3-1.
9. Updated parking standards for emergency shelters consistent with Housing Element Program H- 3g.
10. 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.
11. Removed the option to apply for a parking modification permit to reduce the parking obligation of residential uses.
12. Clarified that the minimum length for a driveway serving single-family and two-family uses is exclusive of any public right-of-way.
13. Established a minimum guest parking ratio for residential projects where no other standard is provided.
14. 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.
15. 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
Chapter 21.34: Wireless Communications Facilities
1. Correcting references to FCC requirements.
Chapter 21.36: Provisions Applying to Special Uses
1. Removed 21.36.070 (Large family child care homes) in response to SB 234 (2019) which
prohibits treating family child care homes differently from any other residential use.
2. Incorporated standards previously established by 21.36.070 (Large family child care homes) into
21.36.080 (Commercial child care centers).
3. 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).
4. Changed permitting requirements for large family day care homes, removed appeal procedures
1.e
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
5. Updated 21.36.095 (Health and fitness centers/studios) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type.
6. 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.
7. Removed Section 21.36.130 (Mixed-use development) which standards have been superseded by Chapter 21.07 (Multi-Family Development and Design Standards).
8. 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.
9. Updated 21.36.170 (Public assembly uses) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type relying instead on other sections of the code.
10. Updated 21.36.270 (Massage establishments) to add date of adopting Ordinance and remove reference to a specific land use permit relying instead on other sections of the code.
11. Added Chapter 21.36.207 (Single-room occupancy facilities) establishing requirements for such facilities.
12. Updated 21.36.243 (Tutoring centers) to remove reference to a specific land use permit type relying instead on other sections of the code.
Chapter 21.38: Application Filing, Processing, and Fees
1. Updated to include a reference to the establishment of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and assign decision making body and role.
2. Updated to reference new permit processes established by Chapter 21.07 (Housing Development Regulations) and assign decision making body and role.
Chapter 21.39: Ministerial Approvals
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. This section serves to implement California Government Code Sections 65650 et seq. ("State Supportive Housing Law"), 65660 et seq. ("State Low Barrier Navigation Centers Law"), and 65913.4 ("State Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process").
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. Established a voluntary pre-application process for projects subject to the Specific to Large Site Standards established by Chapter 21.07 (Housing Development Regulations).
Chapter 21.42: Site and Architectural Review
1.e
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1. Added language to clarify permitting procedures for reconfiguration of existing square footage for residential to comply with AB 916.
2. Clarified applicability for projects within the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan.
3. Added language to clarify permits filed under 21.07 (Multi-Family Development and Design Standards) are not subject to the section.
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 (Special Uses) 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 21.54: Administrative Responsibility
1. Established provisions for the Community Development Director to establish a designee for the Historic Preservation Board, consistent with current practice.
2. Added clarity to the role of the Site and Architectural Review Committee in its role reviewing existing and newly established permits.
Chapter 21.56: Permit Implementation Timeline
1. Added a provision to allow recordation of a map to serve as grounds to establish a project.
2. Included provisions for the amendment of legacy permit types.
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.
1.e
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
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 section to reflect alphabetical order.
Chapter 21.64: Public Hearings
1. Standardized public noticing requirements for properties within the San Tomas Area.
Chapter 21.68: Revocations and Modifications
1. Broadened language related to revocations and modifications to account for non-punitive actions that may be taken to rescind a legacy permit type.
Chapter 21.70: Administrative Decision Process
2. Added Administrative Conditional Use Permit to 21.71.020
3. 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 and comply with state and federal law.
1.e
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: City Council Ordinance ~ Zoning Map and Code (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF T HE CITY OF CAMPBELL ADOPT ING
MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND
AN ASSOCIATED FORM-BASED ZONE MAP. FILE NO. PLN-2022-90.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2022-90:
1. The Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form -Based Zone Map serve to establish objective standards that are measurable, verifiable, and knowable to all parties prior to project submittal for housing development projects in compliance with the Housing Accountability Act.
2. The Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form-Based Zone Map implement the goals, policies, actions, as well as planned densities of the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element , and various planning documents (e.g., area plans, neighborhood plans).
3. The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan includes Policy COS-1.2 which indicates an intention to strive to provide public access to three acres of open space, park land, and recreational facilities for every 1,000 residents.
4. The United States Census Bureau estimates an average household size of 2.52 persons per unit for the City of Campbell in the 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables.
5. The Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form -Based Zone Map serve to establish development standards pertaining to the site and architectural design of Housing Development Projects, including open space requirements.
6. The public open space standards, required of projects subject to Chapter 8: Specific to Large Sites of the Multi -Family Development and Design Standards (hereinafter “Large Sites”), serve in furtherance of Policy COS-1.2 of the 2040 General Plan, by providing for new open space areas that serve new residents created by new housing projects. a. As requirements of Large Sites require open space to be provided in proximity to new housing units, the environmental impacts resulting from the production of new housing units would be reduced by lowering VMT as well as impacts to noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise occur if residents were served by offsite open space.
b. In recognition of the cost and impact of being required to provide open space areas, sites subject to the requirements of Large Sites may select and assign form-based zones to their property. As the flexibility to select and assign form - based zones is not afforded to similarly situated properties with a smaller lot size, the flexibility to select and assign -form based zones represents a benefit and privilege for larger properties.
1.f
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2022-90 – MFDDS and Form-Based Zone Map Page 2 of 4
c. As providing for greater flexibility in the selection and assignment of form-based zones, as permitted for larger properties subject to the requirements of Chapter 8, allows for the more efficient development of property in alignment with market conditions, the impact of the open space requirement would be offset. Further, sites subject to the open space requirements of Large Sites would receive further relief through a reduction in their park in -lieu fee requirements , when making such areas publicaly available, recognizing the benefit such areas provide to the community.
d. Requiring open space, as required for Large Sites, for properties regardless of their size would impose an infeasible and impractical obligation on smaller properties and fail t o provide an equivalent community benefit as described below:
i. Limited Functionality: Smaller open spaces often have limited functionality due to their size and are unable to accommodate a wide range of recreational activities or provide diverse amenities. For example, a small park may only have a few benches and a small playground, while a larger park can provide a comprehensive range of recreational opportunities making them more versatile and appealing to a wider range of users.
ii. Reduced Capacity: Smaller open spaces support a lower capacity of people, which can lead to overcrowding, especially during peak times, which can diminish the quality of the experience using the area. iii. Ecological Impact: Smaller open spaces are unable to s upport the biodiversity of plant species or size of trees that can be accommodated on larger open space areas which result in a range of environmental benefits.
iv. Social Benefit: Smaller open spaces generally have limited social benefit compared to larger open spaces. Larger open spaces can serve as community gathering places which can promote social cohesion and foster a sense of belonging among diverse populations. They can also provide opportunities for organized events, festivals, and recreational programs that can promote social interaction and community benefit (and as a further externality can be found to reduce crime). e. Unlike a dedication of land, the parcel owner of a public open space area resulting from the Large Sites requirements will:
i. Retain title to the land, and a right to apply to redevelop the entire parcel in the future; and
ii. Retain the right to program the use of the public open space provided that the programing of the space does not preclude public access .
Further, the city could not program the use of the public open space, like it does a City park, absent consent from the parcel owner.
1.f
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2022-90 – MFDDS and Form-Based Zone Map Page 3 of 4
f. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council may find and conclude that there is a nexus and reasonable relationship between the required open space, including when provided as public open space, and the impacts of development of the Large Sites, and a rough proportionality and reasonable relationship between the burdens imposed by the open space requirement and the impacts of development of the Large Sites.
7. Housing Development Pr ojects subject to the Multi -Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form -Based Zone Map shall not be subject to other policy documents (e.g., area plans, neighborhood plans) which contain subjective policies and standards that are no longer enforceable except as otherwise provided for by the Multi - Family Development and Design Standards, such as those standards pertaining to offsite development (e.g., public right of way, street design) which remain in full force and effect.
8. The Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form-Based Zone Map may be found consistent with the following actions from the Land Use Element and Community Design Element of the 2040 General Plan:
Action LU-1.d: Establish objective standards for residential and mixed-use land uses.
Action CD-1.b: Adopt and apply objective standards for all residential projects that respect and build upon Campbell’s unique character and distinctive neighborhoods.
9. The City of Campbell must amend the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) to implement the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form-Based Zone Map which will be adopted and established by a separate Ordinance.
10. To avoid conflicts between t he Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form-Based Zone Map and the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC), Zoning Map, the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form -Based Zone Map shall be effective with, and subject to, the effective date and adoption of the associated Ordinance amending the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) and adopting a new Zoning Map.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
1. The proposed Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form - Based Zoning Map are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the 2040 General Plan and applicable development agreements, area plans, neighborhood plans, and specific plans.
2. The proposed Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form - Based Zoning Map are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city.
3. The proposed Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form - Based Zoning Map is included by reference within the Zoning Ordinance and shall be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
1.f
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) City Council Resolution No.
PLN-2022-90 – MFDDS and Form-Based Zone Map Page 4 of 4
4. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council further finds and concludes that there is a nexus and reasonable relationship between the required open space and the impacts of development of the Large Sites, and a rough pr oportionality and reasonable relationship between the burdens imposed by the open space requirement and the impacts of development of the Large Sites.
5. The Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form-Based Zoning Map serve to implement the 2040 General Plan and 2023-203 Housing Element and are therefore consistent with the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Envision Campbell 2040 General Plan and Campbell’s Plan for Housing 2023-2031 Housing Element. Where the proposed Multi-Family Development and Design Standards and associated Form -Based Zoning Map are not within the scope of the EIR, such changes may found categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, because they have no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, directly or indirectly, or are administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant, respectively.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:
(1) Adopts the Form-Based Zone Map as set forth in Exhibit A. (2) Adopts the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards as set forth in Exhibit B.
This Resolution shall be effective with, and subject to, the adoption and effective date of the associated Ordinance establishing a new Zoning Map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation, Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
1.f
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit A
Form-Based Zone Map
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19992/Form-Based-Zone-Map---Adoption-Draft
1.f
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Exhibit B
Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
This file may be accessed by visiting the following website address:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20069/Multi-Family- Development-and-Design-Standards---Final
1.f
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: City Council Resolution ~ MFDDS & FBZM (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Attachment G
Expanded Background
2040 General Plan & Environmental Impact Report:
• On March 23, 2022 , the city published its Notice of Preparation for the Envision Campbell General Plan and Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report.
• On April 12, 2022 , the city held a scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for agency representatives and the public to assist the city in determining the scope and content of the EIR. During the 30 -day public review period for the NOP, nine written comment letters were received.
• On September 12, 2022, the city published the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, providing an opportunity for public comment for 45 -days. Comments received on the EIR during the comment period have been reviewed and responded to within the Final Programmatic EIR.
2023-2031 Housing Element:
• On February 7, 2023 , a City Council study session was held to discuss modifications to the Housing Element in response to deliberative feedback received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In response to feedback provided by the Council, staff revised the Housing Element to increasing its targets for providing Extremely Low Income (ELI) Permanent Supportive Housing, expanding the areas designated to allow emergency shelters, and reducing parking standards.
• On February 13, 2023, the city published a revised version of the 3rd Draft of the Housing Element for public review and comment.
• On February 21, 2023, the city submitted a revised ve rsion of its 3rd Draft of the Housing Element to HCD.
• On February 23, 2023, the city received comments from HCD on the City’s Draft Housing Element submitted on February 13, 2023 with draft revisions submitted on February 21, 2023.
• On March 17 , 2023 , the city released a 4th Draft of the Housing Element incorporating revisions in response to the February 23, 2023 letter from HCD.
• On March 24, 2023, the city submitted its 4th Draft of the Housing Element to HCD for review.
Multi-Family Development and Design Standards & Comprehensive Code Updates:
1.g
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Expanded Background (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) • On February 14, 2023, a Planning Commission study session was held to discuss the Administrative Draft of the MFDDS and associated Municipal Code changes.
• On February 21, 2023 , a City Council stud y session was held to discuss the Administrative Draft of the MFDDS, associated Municipal Code changes, and refinements to the Draft General Plan land use map. At the meeting, Council directed staff to hold additional meetings with stakeholders and the public to further work to refine key areas of the MFFDS identified in the report.
• Between February 28, 2023, and February 29, 2023, city staff and Opticos held eleven (11) meetings with stakeholders interested in discussion the development standards included in the MFDDS in greater detail.
• On March 6 , 2023 , a Community Meeting was held on the MFDDS serving to provide an update and overview of the standards under development.
Area Plans (NOCA / SOCA):
• On December 16, 2021, the City Council held a meeting on the General Plan and Housing Element and to serving to discuss other outstanding land use issues – including how to resolve anticipated conflicts with the North of Campbell Avenue (NOCA) and South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA). At the meeting Council directed staff to retire the North of Campbell Avenue (NOCA) and South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) area plans as part of the General Plan update process.
1.g
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Expanded Background (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Summary of Planning Commission Feedback
(March 27, 2023)
P
art 1: 2040 General Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element, &
Environmental Impact Report
1. Land Use Element
a. Amend action LU-9b. to sunset the period of time in which nonresidential uses will be discouraged in the event the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan is not established in a timely manner as follows:
i. LU-9.b Discourage the development of nonresidential uses within the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan area until the plan is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is less.
2. Tr
ansportation Element
a. Amend action T-3.e. as follows:
i. T-3.e Consider implementation of traffic calming measures, including traffic calming design elements and devices, to ensure safe and reasonable speeds in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the City’s adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTCP), as long as the measures do not impede emergency response, bicycle travel, or hinder the complete streets functionality of the roadway. Methods such as radar speed signs may be used to alert drivers on streets where speeding is prevalent. Further, consider how traffic calming measures may be used to decrease excessive noise on non-arterial streets to achieve the goals of the city Noise Element.
3. C
ommunity Design Element
a. Amend action CD-2.9 to add a specific reference to the best practices established by the International Dark-Sky Association:
i. CD- 2.9 Require that lighting and fixtures be integrated with the design and layout of a project and that they provide a desirable level of security and illumination without creating glare and overflow on adjacent properties or excessive artificial light at night (light pollution). Lighting should be directed downward and should be designed to preserve dark skies, and incorporate the best practices established by the International Dark-Sky Association, to the greatest extent feasible.
b. A
mend action CD-3.f to sunset the period of time in which nonresidential uses will be discouraged in the event the City Gateway Policy or Ordinance is not established in a timely manner as follows:
1.h
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) i. CD-3.f Discourage development of nonresidential uses at Gateway locations until the City Gateway Policy or Ordinance is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is less.
4. Noise Element
a. Add the following action to explore the use of traffic calming to further the goals of the Noise Element:
i. N-1.21 Consider the use of traffic calming measures, as provided for by T-3.e., to reduce excessive noise on non-arterial streets.
5. Implementation Element
a. Amend the priority/timing related to LU-9a from medium to short to align with the sunset period separately established.
Part 2: Multi-Family Development and Design Standards
1. Non-Residential Ground Floor Requirement
a. Amend Section 3.110.B.1 to exclude credit for lobbies, leasing offices, and amenities for properties located within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan Area, and further clarifying that where upper-floor residential units within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan area require ground-floor access, a ground-floor lobby may be allowed provided that it is sized to meet the minimum requirements for such access.
Part 3: Code Amendments, Plans, and Zoning Map
1. 21.36.080 Commercial child care centers.
a. Update the code to address the deletion of 21.36.070 (Large family day care centers).
2. 21.14.040 CB (Community Benefit) overlay/combining zoning district. a. Lower the eligibility threshold from 50 to 25 units.
3. 21.28.070 Bicycle parking.
a. Correct an existing typo in the code to remove an extra “the” in the last sentence of the section.
1.h
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
6:00 P.M. TUESDAY
March 27, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission special meeting on Monday 27, 2023 , was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Buchbinder and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair: Adam Buchbinder
Vice Chair: Alan Zisser
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski
Commissioner: Davis Fields
Commissioner: Stuart Ching
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present:
Director: Rob Eastwood
City Attorney: Bill Seligmann
Senior Planner: Stephen Rose
Senior Planner: Tracy Tam
Admin Analyst: Ken Ramirez
Consultants Present:
Opticos Roger Foreman
M- Group Geoff Bradley, Asher Kohn, Karen Warner
DeNovo Ben Richie
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
No minutes needed to be approved.
1.h
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
ORAL REQUESTS
This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Adam Buchbinder read Agenda Item No 1 into the record as follows:
1. City Initiated
PLN-2022-90
PLN-2021-12
Public Hearing to consider the following:
1. General Plan and Housing Element Updates (by
Resolution): The City of Campbell has prepared a
comprehensive update to the General Plan (Envision
Campbell - 2040 General Plan) and Housing Element
(Campbell’s Plan for Housing - 2023-2031 Housing
Element) which serve to identify the community’s
vision for the future and provide a framework that will guide local government decision -making related to a
range of topics including land use, transportation,
community design, economic development, fiscal
sustainability, conservation and open space,
community services and facilities, safety, noise,
community health and wellness, and sustainability
over the related planning periods and beyond.
2. Zoning Map Update & Amendments to Campbell
Municipal Code (by Ordinance): The city has prepared
a new Zoning Map and amendments to the Campbell
Municipal Code, including Title 6 (Health and
Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Tit le 21 (Zoning) to
implement the new land uses, as well as goals,
policies, and prog rams, contemplated by the General
Plan and Housing Element. Associated with the code
updates, the city seeks to revise permitting procedures and processes, retire the P -D (Planned Development)
1.h
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 3
and C -PD (Condominium Planned Development)
zoning districts, and establish Multi -Family
Development and Design Standards (MFDDS), and an
associated Form -Based Zone Map, for the regulation
of all multi- family and mixed- use development pr oject that build upon Campbell’s unique character and
conform with recent changes to State law that require
local jurisdictions to adopt objective standards and
streamline the review and permitting processes for
housing development.
3. Area Plans & Design Gu idelines (by Resolution) : To rescind the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan
(SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Area Plan
(NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan
(CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low -Medium
Density Residential Projects and reestablish other
existing area and neighborhood plans.
4. Environmental Analysis (by Resolution) : In
consideration of the above updates, the City of
Campbell, serving as Lead Agency, has prepared a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that
identifies that the proposed project will result in one or more significant adverse environ mental effects that
cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures . Pursuant to
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), notice is hereby given that, the city will
conduct a public hearing to consider certification of the Final EIR for the proposed project (State
Clearinghouse #2022030566) with a statement of
overriding considerations finding that the project
benefits outweigh the potentially adverse effects of the significant impact(s).
Director Eastwood provided an overview of the Special Meeting Structure as follows:
1.h
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 4
Director Eastwood outlined the broad goals of the major efforts as follows:
Senior Planner Stephen Rose outlined the overview of the Special Meeting initiated by the City as follows:
1.h
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 5
Senior Planner Rose presented in detail key elements of the proposed 2040 General Plan, 2023 – 2041 Housing Element, Identified Campbell Technology Park, and Environmental Impact Report.
2040 General Plan Overview:
2023-2031 Housing Element Overview:
1.h
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 6
Campbell Technology Park Recommendations and Alternatives:
Environmental Impact Report Overview:
1.h
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 7
Commissioner Davis asked for more details about the submitted letter from Campbell Technology Park’s owner and for the City to provide more insight on the issue.
Director Eastwood clarified that the site was preliminary identified as a possible corporation yard for the City but wanted to retain the option of looking at the potential for different uses in the future. Indicated interest to retain the opportunity for potential development for a corporation yard in the future.
Commissioner Ching asked what happened to the open space property on Virginia Avenue.
Senior Planner Rose indicated that the former water district property on Virginia Avenue would no longer be open space, as it would now be designated for housing.
Ostrowski asked whether area plans would be done away with and if there would be a provision for the San Tomas area within the General Plan.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the current General Plan will be repealed and plans and documents included as appendices will need to reestablished by separate action.
1.h
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 8
Commissioner Krey asked whether normal for the EIR to state that we have unavoidable and unmitigable issues and whether all general plans self-mitigating?
Senior Planner Rose clarified that self-mitigating approaches within the General Plans speak to the sections. Mitigation efforts in play are added to address items. What this is saying is there are significant impacts but project benefits outweigh the impacts.
Commissioner Krey asked if the City was changing the parking standards?
Senior Planner Rose indicated that the parking standards will be adjusted by the update, and broadly resulting in a reduction in parking standards for residential uses.
Commissioner (inaudible) asked why minor adjustments to existing residential densities were being made.
Senior Planner Rose clarified minor adjustments in residential density due to new gross counting now the corners of the property as opposed to counting to the centerline of the street.
Commissioner Kamkar asked what the other property corrected on the land use map had been? Open space area north of Hamilton Avenue and which other?
Senior Planner Rose stated the other correction was at the southwest intersection of East Campbell and Union Avenue.
Commissioner Kamkar provided an opinion that the name of the standards should be multi- unit instead of multi-family.
Commissioner (inaudible) asked how the form-based zones were adjusted.
Senior Planner Rose stated that form-based standards were adjusted to better align with the land use designations, placing less emphasis on existing context.
Vice Chair Zisser asked if the proposed zoning map (Fig. 18) on page 25 was the final iteration?
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the zoning map will be discussed later in the meeting but designations will be carried forward and not changed.
Vice Chair Zisser asked if the Kohls parcel is designated as medium high density mixed use.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the idea was to accommodate residential components within the parcel but to not allow wholesale redevelopment of the site.
Vice Chair Zisser asked about for clarification on group home policy for more than 6 persons.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that current group home policy can be seen as discriminatory per HCD review and will need to revisit the municipal code to provide for larger group home settings than we currently restrict without requiring a conditional use permit.
1.h
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 9
Chair Buchbinder asked why if General Program L-U 1.15 allows the City to ignore zoning, do we need to keep the Campbell Tech Park zoned as R&D?
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the R&D designation was intended to limit the property from developing from housing.
Senior Planner Rose presented in detail key elements of the Multi-Family Development & Design Standards.
The following changes were noted with Form-Based Map:
1.h
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 10
The following are changes for Commercial Ground Floor along the corridors to ensure that spaces are as leasable as possible without curtailing the housing supply:
The following Architectural & Building type standards would attempt to avoid boxy building and repetitious designs.
1.h
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 11
Requirement for larger buildings to be divided to more discrete modules to reach eclecticism desired by the community and staff.
Developers advised building narrower townhomes (18 ft. to 16 ft.). intent is to prevent garage door façade and introduce genuine frontage for units.
1.h
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 12
Many concerns with adjacency standards were modified with Form Based map.
No seven-story homes adjacent to single-family homes in Campbell. Adjacency standards better account for narrower/shallow lots. No longer mapping incompatible zones right next to each other.
Limits now match with adjacent buildings:
1.h
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 13
Per City Council’s feedback, terminology was clarified. The Large Site standards encompassed the following:
1.h
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 14
Commissioner Krey asked what the biggest difference in height would be next to a single- family home.
Roger Foreman (consultant from Opticos) stated that the immediate adjacent height would be limited at 2.5 stories.
Senior Planner Rose stated that protections were retained for single-family zone. Zone mapped based on what it could be not what it is today.
Commissioner Krey asked if the ground floor for mixed use can be leased?
Roger Foreman clarified that homes along yellow have allowance of 50% that can be leased
Commissioner Kamkar asked if 2.5 story adjacency standard would apply for a multi-family use in one lot but if there a single-story building .
1.h
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 15
Roger Foreman, Opticos, clarified that it would go by multi-family land use.
Commissioner Kamkar asked if the adjacency standards would apply if the designation is for single-family.
Roger Foreman confirmed that they would.
Commissioner Fields asked how it was determined that Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards would fulfill the needs, how would Tier 1 work when Tier 2 wouldn’t. Also asked how 16 foot with minimum dimension of a space was determined.
Roger Foreman clarified that the Economic Development consultant stated that a 16 and a half foot wide space is the minimim width for a space that a tenant could lease. This is how the minimum dimension was determined. Tier 2 standards were determined after the Economic Development consultant stated that only 50-70% of prospective tenants would look for a gold standard and some tenants would be ok with lower ceilings and small spaces. .
Senior Planner Rose stated that when you don’t build to the minimum sizes advised by the economic consultant that you will result in commercial spaces that are vacant.
Commissioner Ching asked if staff can provide for an example of a 16.5 ft width requirement.
Senior Planner Rose clarfied that 16.5ft is width of the front space but the depth can be longer (like hair salon)
Commissioner Ching asked what the minimum width of townhomes and whether the 16.5 ft width minimum comes from.
Senior Planner Rose that 16ft minimum accomodates narrower widths like townhouses.
1.h
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 16
Roger Foreman stated that developers brought floor plans for units and stated that 16ft was the minimum width that a unit would need to build.
Commissioner Ching asked if the open space requirement is still 10%.
Senior Planner Rose stated that 10% is still the requirement.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked about height of single-family adjacencies and how high they could be and how they account for fire access.
Senior Planner Rose stated that standards provide for needs from fire department about rear access requirements.
Vice Chair Zisser asked about maximum height in single family adjacency. Expressed concern abount having narrow standards that will produce 16 ft wide, three story narrow homes with tandum parking, resulting in massive narrow homes and propenderence of market rate, expensive homes in the future that do not fulfill the needs of the missing middle or lower-income people.
Vice Chair asked what it would if somebody wants to redevelop a block of downtown and what the maximum height would be.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the maximum height would be 3 stories for single-family home adjacency and development in the downtown can be upto 4 stories in pre-density bonus scenario.
Chair Buchbinder asked if it is the intent to prohibit wrap buildings entirely by changing the depth to 50 ft in required commercial spaces.
Roger Foreman clarified that it is not the intent and minimum depth does not apply to entire façade.
Chair Buchbinder asked if there were no adjustment to open space requirements.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that there was no change to open space requirements and that adjcacency standards apply to for the full run of properties.
Senior Planner Rose presented in detail key elements of the Code Amendments, Plans and Zoning Map, Multi-Family Development & Design Standards.
1.h
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 17
t
Commissioner Krey asked if any other sites changed zoning besides Campbell tech Park.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that zoning is aligned with changes in land use designation.
Chair Buchbinder asked if there were going to be future streetscape standards
Senior Planner Rose stated that it was not a presently slated update.
Chair Buchbinder asked about the following Code References:
1.h
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 18
1) 21.36.130; requiring City to maintain LOSD operations which seem to contradict our attempts to swith to VMT, why is that?
2) 21.23.100; attempts to legalize ADUs and solve problem for ADUs built one foot to close to one side.
3) 21.28.045; references AB2097 maps, are they available yet. 4) 21.36.070; appear to be getting rid of large family childcare homes.
Director Eastwood clarified the first point that under CEQA City can no longer look at LOS
Senior Planner Rose clarified that ADU problem would be resolved with update, that maps are development with GIS team and would be available with effective date ordinance, and that provisions applying special requirements to uses such as childcare homes be treated the same as other single-family home uses, so by deleting provisions within the city code would be accomplishing that.
Chair Buchbinder closed public hearing for a 5 min break, public hearing would recommence at 7:54 PM.
Chair Buchbinder opened public hearing.
Chair Buchbinder opened Public Comment on Item 1.
Jim Sullivan, member of the public, made 3 points, appears to be a gap on the density ranges between 16 to 18 acres. Noted City Council meeting moved to 4/18/23. EIR has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated.
1.h
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 19
Tim Pasquinglli stated that there was a discussion not about a land swap but about giving up 3 acres. At the the time asked what he would received in return but did not receive a response. 11 days ago was zoned all 4 parcels (17 acres) at 26 units per acre. Made repeated requests for the City to reduce that density. Planning a development on 26 units per acre. 10 days ago, without communication from staff, was told that they would be removing the 3 acres off the list and forcing them to build instead of 34 units per acre after telling the City that 26 units per acre does not work. Stated that Mr. Eastwood received information from apartment developers that high-density apartments would work well on that site. Completely disagree, offers received from developers asked to reduce density, not increase it. No interest in discussing a landswap or City corp yard. Understand that the city has an interest in building homes but not like this.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked Tim Pasquinglli why they are interested in developing lower density.
Tim has been told by large developers that site does not do well for high density apartments it does well for townhomes and can’t build townhomes at 26 units per acre.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked what is it specifically of the geometry of the site that prohibits a larger density development.
Tim responded that realistically 19-20 townhomes can be built on the acres.
Planning to build an apartment building on remaining 3 acres. Been told that townhomes are a better product type. Per market analysis that was conducted.
Commissioner Ching asked Tim if they were planning for 26 units per acre .
Tim stated that 14 acres were going to be for townhomes of townhouse. One single apartment building was going to be built on 3 acres to make up the density.
Commissioner Kamkar asked if apartments are sold by buildings but townhomes are sold individually.
Tim confirmed that although he believes that is a developer question that that is correct.
Raj Pallela addressed the retiring and reestablishing of neighborhood plans. Had previosuly addressed changing the height limitations in neighborhood plans. Would have had a petition from people, if they knew there was not diversity in housing. Requesting that the commission not incorporate the changes.
Chair Buchbinder closed public comment.
Commissioner discussion started.
Commissioner Krey thinks that Campbell Technology Park project should be a separate item to be discussed at a different time. In regards to General Plan and Housing element, believe that the City is paving the way for advances.
1.h
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 20
Commissioner Kamkar believes that we should be open to special consideration, regarding Campbell Tech Park. Sometimes bottom line can be affected in other ways.
Because it can produce so many units, should consider working with the developer and owner.
Commissioner Ostrowski is wondering if there is another way that items at Campbel Tech Park can be looked at to find a creative solution. Encouraged thinking a little bit outside of the box.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the City’s corporation yard also functions as an equipment and storage yard, and provides storage for police.
Director Eastwood clarified that moving a corps yard is not a small deal. Looked at other sites like parking garages. Council mandated that this (Campbell Tech Park) was the only viable site for a potential City corp yard at this time.
Commissioner Ching observed disconnect with owner concerns and what were trying to do. Would be uncomfortable pushing it through with that existing disconnect. Should explore the options for Campbell Tech Park site. Rezoning it as housing could be a benefit for the owner. Might not be the ideal outomce from what is being proposed.
Keeping it at R&D would be a bad outcome for the city and the owner.
Commissioner Fields commented that an option might be a resolution or adopting as is.
Have empathy of city staff but in favor of doing something. Concerned, however, of blocking the path of the city and the progress that has been accomplished given time- specific schedule.
Vice Chair Zisser apprecaites hearing from the owner. City has researched other possibilities and has not come up with other choices. Makes practical sense for the corp yard to be there. Public area should be more accessible for the city. Would like to see 400 units but not 200 condos with a private community with their own park rather than something that would benefit a wide-variety of people with different incomes. Would like to see more negotiations between both parties. Believe it should be more of a community.
Chair Buchbinder stated that there is an issue with something being rentable and something being constructable. Not in favor of supporting a working housing proposal to a non working proposal.
Chair Buchbinder recommended adjusting sections of general plan:
1) L-U. 9B and C-3F; discourages non-residential development in lieu of waiting for the Hamilton Ave precise plan or gateway ordinance to be adopted. Suggest changing to when it is adopted or 2 years from now to not wait for something to happen that may not happen.
2) Would like add a process for residents to request speed reductions in non-arterials nearby streets that produce excessive noise. Being able to address a significant driver of noise at a local level.
1.h
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 21
3) CD 2-9; references reducing light pollution. Suggest including the Internation Dark Sky Association’s Model Lighting Ordinance or it’s goals by reference. Has different levels of intensity.
4) Want to add a policy to rely on design elements to enforce slow speeds rathen than just speed limit signs.
Chair Buchbinder asked for specific actions that would require straw polls to be included as recommendations for City Council.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that the intent is following the adoption of what is currently presented, they will follow up with other area plans.
Vice Chair Zisser stated that there are not a lot of parcels for a corporation yard.
Director Eastwood clarified that there are not a lot of sites. Once you zone something it’s a one way zone. Not the only parcel but would need to do a lot more due diligence to look at other parcels.
Below is a summary of key actions and suggested revisions:
1. Proposal to restore Campbell Tech Park’s 4-parcels to the original residential zoning (4 Commissioners in favor, 3 opposed)
a. Item was later discussed in the meeting, with greater clarity on the motion which was confused in its original presentation, and the Commission decided against this initial action.
2. Land Use Element (5 Commissioners in favor, 2 opposed) a. Amend action LU-9b. to sunset the period of time in which nonresidential uses will be discouraged in the event the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan is not established in a timely manner as follows:
i. LU-9.b Discourage the development of nonresidential uses within the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan area until the plan is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is less.
3. Transportation Element (7 Commissioners in favor)
a. Amend action T-3.e. as follows:
i. T- 3.e Consider implementation of traffic calming measures, including traffic calming design elements and devices, to ensure safe and reasonable speeds in residential neighborhoods, consistent with the City’s adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTCP), as long as the measures do not impede emergency response, bicycle travel, or hinder the complete streets functionality of the roadway.
Methods such as radar speed signs may be used to alert drivers on streets where speeding is prevalent. Further, consider how traffic calming measures may be used to decrease excessive noise on non- arterial streets to achieve the goals of the city Noise Element.
1.h
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 22
ii. City Attorney clarified that if reducing speeds in the 85th percentile it would make speeds unenforceable.
4. Noise Element (Note: Optional with amendment to T-3.e.) - (5 Commissioners in favor, 2 opposed)
a. Add the following action to explore the use of traffic calming to further the goals of the Noise Element:
i. N-1.21 Consider the use of traffic calming measures, as provided for by T-3.e., to reduce excessive noise on non-arterial streets.
5. Community Design Element (5 Commissioners in favor, 2 opposed)
a. Amend action CD-2.9 to add a specific reference to the best practices established by the International Dark-Sky Association:
i. CD-2.9 Require that lighting and fixtures be integrated with the design and layout of a project and that they provide a desirable level of security and illumination without creating glare and overflow on adjacent properties or excessive artificial light at night (light pollution).
Lighting should be directed downward and should be designed to preserve dark skies, and incorporate the best practices established by the International Dark-Sky Association, to the greatest extent feasible.
b. Amend action CD-3.f to sunset the period of time in which nonresidential uses will be discouraged in the event the City Gateway Policy or Ordinance is not established in a timely manner as follows:
i. CD-3.f Discourage development of nonresidential uses at Gateway locations until the City Gateway Policy or Ordinance is adopted, or two years from the adoption of the General Plan, whichever is less.
6. Proposal to restore Campbell Tech Park’s 4-parcels to the original residential zoning was withdrawn by Planning Commission through a straw poll vote (2 commissioners in favor, 5 opposed)}
7. Implementation Element (Note: adjustment to PC recommendation to sunset related policy from 2 years to 6 to 10 years to align with the ‘medium’ priority timing)
a. Amend the priority/timing related to LU-9a from medium to short to align with the sunset period separately established.
1.h
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 23
Motion: Upon motion by Commission Krey and seconded by Commissioner Fields, the Planning Commission move to taking the following actions: 1) adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Programming Environments Impact Report (EIR) and adopt required findings with a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA; 2) adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell); and 3) adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Campbell’s Plan for Housing).
AYES: Fields, Ching, Ostrowski, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Buchbinder NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Buchbinder opened public comment for Part 2.
Jim Sullivan spoke about the benefit to have different garage door widths. Request that commission have 3-story minimum on larger sites.Open civic spaces and park spaces that are neighborhood inducing would not be possible with existing standards.
Mark Field wanted to discuss the concept of parking ratios. Parking in higher density gets absorbed by communities with lower density. Recommends adjacency standards for parking ratios similar to adjacency standards to building heights. If you cant do it City has to do it City will have to deal with issues in other areas if this is not done.
Sarah Chaffin pointed out three areas that could be amended in plan; 1) T-5 neighborhood and T-5 Main street should have the same standards as T-5 main streets; 2) Instead of having yellow and orange tier just have the orange tier; and 3) PD zones standard to be dropped from 50 to 25 units.
Raj Pallela encourages Planning Commissioners to tour and visit developments in Santa Clara County and East Bay where developments are being constructed with 16 ft. wide.
1.h
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 24
The immmediate adjacency standards should have 4 story minimums. Asked whether the City knows how much space is needed for a Corporation yard. Parts of Campbell can be repurposed for a site like a corporation yar.
Matt Weber, developer with Ellis Partners, expressed concerns with Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements, as is not acieveable with small sites. 50 ft wiuld preclude wrap and podium building. Prior draft had a 15ft minimum floor to floor. proposing 12x12ft floor to floor minimum. Recommend that section 3.110, be reverted back to 30 ft. with no maximum width. depth minimum no maximum width. Sepearate section 7.040 states that you could only 50 ft. wide when some tenants want to have a wider width. Section7.30 subsection 3- 5 requires 8 different types of architectural variety but that amount of architectural variety would create inefficiencies and mismatched units, resulting in fewer units being built.
Recommend having an architectural variety of 2-3.
Commissioner Krey asked for staff to confirm that issues were brought up and discussed with developers and recommendations kept input in mind.
Director Eastwood stated that Economic Consultant cautioned the City to not put too much ground floor retail in developments. Very important to build spaces that people will occupy.
Senior Planner Rose spoke and gave context to the issues brought up by Sarah Chaffin and her property’s unique situation.
Roger Foreman clarfied that when you have multiple modules in single buildings there are a total of 8 differences that need to be introduced between those modules. In response to Jim Sullivan’s comments, conditioning the zones by adjacency means that there are no longer blanket requirements in multiples zones.
Commissioner Kamkar stated that there should be more leniency with setback issues with corner lots.
Vice Chair Zisser asked if issues from Matt Weber were clarified.
Senior Planner Rose clarified that Mr. Weber was arguing for a lower clear height requirements, and that photographs provided for the Pruneyard as a desk item were provided which indicate lower ceiling heights for leased spaces.
Chair Buchbinder closed Public comment.
Chair Buchbinder opened Commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Ostrowski recognizes that there will be situations that the City has not encountered. In agreement with having an appeal process for 25 units and above.
Commissioner Fields in favor with the balance that the City is pursuing. Campbell has struck a nice balance. Trying to strike a good mix. In favor of what we are proposing.
Good place to start. Very supportive of plan. In favor of an iterative process that looks to
1.h
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 25
improve and the hard work from City staff. Not particularly in favor of 3-story town homes that may not be ideal for older adults or families.
Commissioner Ching echoed Commissioner Fields comments. plan have considerable thoughts by the city. Overwriting recommendations of the cty at this stage is a tough thing to think about. City has spent a lot of time with consultants to get it right. Fully in suport with staff’s recommendtaion.
Commissioner Kamkar in support of 16ft wide townhomes. Need to be open to 3 stories.
Set 25 unit per acre as desirable density.Flexibility in meeting goals is important.
Commissioner Krey in favor of staff reommendations. Lowering limits to 25 units for appeal in Campbell is fine. Would not being in favor of allowing up to 50% of ground floor in the yellow area.
Vice Chair Zisser echoes Commissioner Ching and Field’s comments. Supports staff recommendations. Acknowledges not always being able to meet everybodys particular needs. Downtown works really well with dominantly retail space. Concerned about 50% where new development replaces storefronts. Three stories are not the missing middle.
Developers building 16 ft. wide townhomes is not indicative or reflective of the need but rather the availability. Support what staff has developed. Agree with lowering limits to 25 units for appeal in Campbell.
Chair Buchbinder states that lowering limits to 25 units for CB overlay is fine. Concerned with idea that useful commercial spaces preclude the possibility of prodicng a wrap building which is very common, very reasonable low-cost way to produce a lot of housing with availability on the ground floor. Have to err on the side of building too much. Trusts the staff. Nothing in this city is going to be taller than 7 stories.
Below is a summary of key actions and suggested revisions:
1. 21.14.040 CB (Community Benefit) overlay/combining zoning district.(6 commissioners in favor, 1 opposed)
a. Lower the eligibility threshold from 50 to 25 units.
2. Non-Residential Ground Floor Requirement (6 commissioners in favor, 1 opposed)
a. Amend Section 3.110.B.1 to exclude credit for lobbies, leasing offices, and amenities for properties located within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan Area, and further clarifying that where upper-floor residential units within the limits of the Downtown Development Plan area require ground-floor access, a ground-floor lobby may be allowed provided that it is sized to meet the minimum requirements for such access.
3. Recommended adjacency limitations should not apply once you get about 3 stories, that is, that if you have something that’s 3 stories tall, and it’s adjacent to something that might be taller than that, you don’t have to setback or gradual that.
1.h
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 26
a. (2 commissioners in favor, 5 opposed)
4. Town-homes and multi-family homes should have a minimum average width of 18 ft. instead of 16 ft. Individual homes can be 16 ft. but have a higher than average ceiling height.
a. (3 commissioners in favor, 4 opposed)
5. Recommend removing 2.5 story limitation in T-4 N.S neighborhoods to 3 stories.
a. (3 commissioners in favor, 4 opposed)
Motion: Upon motion by Commission Kamkar and seconded by Commissioner Krey, the Planning Commission move to taking the following action: 1) adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Multi-Family Development and Design standards and an associated Form-Based Zone Map.
AYES: Fields, Ching, Ostrowski, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Buchbinder NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Buchbinder opened public comment for Part 3.
Alan Ainsley Hicks long time community member stated that he was happy to see this resolve. Will be submitting an application later this year and hopefully add to the housing stock of Campbell. Thankful that the Planning Departmnet has helped make the governement more efffective.
1.h
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 27, 2023 Page 27
Raj Pallela request that the City not adopt the area plan of San Tomas neighborhood.
Believes commissioners are disconnect from reality. Emotions have no place in economics. Urges that the City increase the number of units. More supply than the demand will help reduce home prices.
Chair Buchbinder closed public hearing.
Planning Commissioners are in support of Code Amendments, Plans, and Zoning Map.
Acknowledge that staff went through an exhaustive process to solicit feedback.
Appreciatitive of public comments.
Motion: Upon motion by Commission Ching and seconded by Commissioner Kamkar, the Planning Commission move to taking the following action: 1) adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council rescind the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA) Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Residential Projects and reestablish other existing area, streetscape, and neighborhood plans; and 2) adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing a new zoning map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (Animals), Tule 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code.
AYES: Fields, Ching, Ostrowski, Krey, Kamkar, Zisser, Buchbinder NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
None
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2023, at 7:30 p.m. This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person/
SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
1.h
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Planning Commission Feedback, March 27, 2023 (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Public Comments & Staff Response
1. Letter from Transform
On March 10, 2023, the City of Campbell received comments from TransForm expressing an opinion that the city should do more to require unbundled parking and expand the transportation demand management program by requiring the provision of VTA SmartPass memberships to each resident.
➢ Staff Response : The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.28 (Parking and loading) allow for a reduction of parking to accommodate shared/unbundled parking for residential and mixed -use projects with a residential component, provided that a minimum of one bundled (assigned) parking space per residentia l unit is provided. A multi -modal transportation plan will be prepared following adoption of the 2040 General Plan and Housing Element that may explore VTA SmartPass memberships as a way to reduce VMT.
2. Letter from Liz Gibbons
On March 13, 2023, the City of Campbell received comments from former Councilmember Liz Gibbons expressing the importance that the objective standards allow and encourage designs that contribute to the physical environment of the City of Campbell.
➢ Staff Response : The Multi -Family Development and Design Standards have been developed with the aim of respecting and building upon Campbell’s unique character and distinctive neighborhoods.
3. Letter from Matt Weber
On March 17, 2023, the City of Campbell received comments from Matt Weber of Ellis Partners, on behalf of the Pruneyard, seeking to clarify comments provided on ground floor heights and making the following requests:
• T5 zones, we would request the standard ground floor height be modified to 10’ for residential/non-retail and 12’ for retail.
• Revise the City’s height definition be revised to describe the height as measured from highest adjacent ground (or highest top of curb) on a sloped site to the lowest point on the roof or the top of the structural surface (as roof insulation tapers for a flat roof)
1.i
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) ➢ Staff Response: The ground floor commercial (non -residential) standards reflect feedback from the city’s economic development consultant which advised against creating ‘token’ areas (shallow depths, low ceiling) which are unable to be used by 50 -70% of potential tenants. Nonetheless, the standards allow for a reduction in the required clear height when building to the maximum height/stories permitted in certain circumstances . The suggested change to the method of measuring height would result in less predicable outcomes and allow for the downslope side of a building to exceed the maximum city height limit.
4. Letter from Mark Fannuchi
On Marc h 19, 2023, the City of Campbell received c omments from Mark Fanuchhi, on behalf of the congregation of the Campbell United Church of Christ, expressing support of the General Plan and Housing Element.
➢ Staff Response: Comment noted.
5. Letter from HansonBridgett on behalf of Bay West Development On March 27, 2023, the City of Campbell received a letter on behalf of Bay West Development expressing concerns with the requirement to make open space available to the public, citing concerns with the nexus and rough proportionality of the requirement as well as fair treatment.
➢ Staff Response : The proposed Ordinance adopting code amendments, and Resolution adopting the Multi-Family Development Design Standards and associated Form -Based Map, provide evidence and findings concerning the nexus and proportionality of requiring the provision of larger open space areas to offset the impact of housing development.
These findings notwithstanding, the standards have been amended to remove the requirement to make the required open space available to the public but provide a credit against the park dedication (in -lieu fee requirement) for developers who make the required open space available to the public.
6. Letter from Campbell Technology Park
On March 27, 2023, the City of Campbell received comments from Tim Pasquinelli representing the ownership of the Campbell Technology Park. In the letter, he requests that the Tech. Park be designated 26 -33 dwelling units per acre, and for an exempt ion to the public open space requirements be provided for the property on the basis that it is located within ¼ mile of a public park.
➢ Staff Response: The staff report provides an expanded discussion on the Campbell Technology Park. See previous comment (above) in response to Hanson Bridgett on public open space requirements.
1.i
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
7. Letter from Campbell Technology Park
On April 6, 2023, the City of Campbell received comments from Tim Pasquinelli representing the ownership of the Campbell Technology Park. In the letter, he proposes two options for the development of the Technology Park as follows:
• Option 1: Revert to the 3rd public draft designation of the H ousing Element 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 des ired 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 4th public draft documents.
➢ Staff Response: The staff report provides an expanded discussion on the Campbell Technology Park in response to Option 1. In response to Option 2, staff is support ive of retaining a R&D land use and zoning designation for the southernmost parcel but would not be suppor tive of lowe ring the density of the rest of the Campbell Technology Park or transferring density to San Tomas Plaza would result in impacts to that area of the community not contemplated or studied under the Housing Element and Multi -Family Development and Design Standards.
8. Letter from HansonBridgett on behalf of Campbell Technology Park On April 11, 2023 the City of Campbell received a copy of a letter transmitted from HansonBridgett to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) representi ng the ownership of the Campbell Technology Park. In the letter, the Campbell Technology Park requests that HCD withdraw its findings that the 4th Draft of the Housing Element complies with State law on the basis of the following points (staff responses are provided in response to each below):
• The City does not have substantial evidence to conclude that these uses will be discontinued in favor of residential development.
➢ Staff Response: The Housing Element, and adopting resolution, provide substantial evidence as required by State Housing Element law. The Housing Element is more than one site, but a compilation of sites and policies that serve to meet the housing needs of the community and the City’s assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
1.i
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) • The City does not have enough units to meet the very-low and low-income RHNA requirements without the Campbell Technology Park and City Corporation Yard.
➢ Staff Response : The City Corporation Yard and Campbell Technology are both proposed to be included in the Housing Element. Disinterest by a property owner does not preclude inclusion in the Housing Element .
Regardless, to meet the City’s assigned RHNA the Housing Element includes policies and programs that will contribute toward the creation of additional affordable housing in addition to the number achieved by the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory alone, which provide s a conservative estimate based on minimum densities.
• City Staff altered the Housing Element's Zoning of Campbell Technology Park at the 11th Hour.
➢ Staff Response : The Campbell Technology Park and City Corporation Yard have been ongoing topics of discussion throughout the Housing Element update process. Th e last time the Campbell Technology Park was presented to Council it was an option for removal . An expanded discussion is provided in the staff report.
• Residential Development of Campbell Technology Park will not occur at 34 du/ac.
➢ Staff Response: City staff asked the Cam pbell Technology Park representatives to submit any referenced studies documenting that residential development at 34 du/acre is infeasible. City of Campbell received a copy of a Draft Market Study prepared by John Burns Real Estate Consulting, dated December 12, 2022. The Study identifies that the site may support apartment units and townhome units as supported by the planned density and that market conditions indicate very low vacancy rates of apartment buildings. The study does not document that residential development at higher densities is infeasible at the site. Staff has asked the Technology Park representatives for a ny additional relevant documentation but has not received a response.
• The 4th Draft Housing Element Cannot Meet Campbell's Housing Allocation Under RHNA.
➢ Staff Response: See prior response regarding the city’s ability to meet its very-low and low-income requirements.
1.i
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 3/10/23
Campbell Planning Department and City Council70 N 1st StreetCampbell, CA 95008 Re: Campbellstill lacks ambitious parking reform
To the CampbellPlanning Department and City Councilmembers, TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities thatcan meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone.
We acknowledge the work to date on the 6th Cycle Housing Element, however we still see roomfor improvement in regards to Campbell’s outdated parking standards. H-3.a is still an excellentfirst step towards parking reform with reduced parking for smaller units and legalizingunbundling. We also appreciate the removal of “consider” before the program objectives,following recommendations from many organizations. However, we still encourage Campbell togo further with parking reforms particularly when it comes to TDMs andrequiredunbundling.
The City claims in response to our previous letter that the parking study from H-3a will “trigger atransportation demand study which will include VTA Smartpass Membership programs as aconsideration where appropriate.” While this study has great potential, we do not see it includedin the current housing element draft. Without a clear plan for study with objectives and atimeline, it is hard to take this response as a commitment to action. We urge Campbell toinclude this proposed transportation demand study as a unique housing program.
In our previous letter we offered a suite of smart parking policies we believe are best suited toCampbell:
1. Requireunbundled parking for certain developmentsin “walkable areas”. This is easierfor building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools likeParkade.2. Expand Transportation Demand Management program by requiring provision of VTASmartPass memberships to each resident.
We strongly urge you to include the policies above in the final draft of Campbell’s HousingElement as they would help create safer and healthier communities. 560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1
1.i
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) As with other cities likeSan JoseandAlameda, parking reform packages can be passed even ifnot identified as a program in your Housing Element and we are committed to assisting cities inthis endeavor.
To support Campbell in their efforts to reform outdated parking standards, we believe thefollowing resources could be useful:
1. MTC/ABAG Parking Playbook: This guide provides descriptions, real-world examples,and sample code for various smart parking policies. A true “one-stop shop” for parkingreform in the Bay Area.2. GreenTRIP Connect: Our Connect tool can be used onany parcel in the city. This tool isparticularly useful to demonstrate exactly how policies like reduced parking provision canhelp meet citywide goals, as we demonstratedin thisscenario(that was in our firstletter).
We sincerely hope to see Campbell take steps to implement smarter parking reforms and TDMmeasures in the near future. During the course of potential study and implementation our teamis available to partner with you and answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,Zack Deutsch-GrossPolicy [email protected] 560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 2
1.i
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 1 Rob Eastwood
From: Elizabeth Gibbons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Anne Bybee <[email protected]>; Susan M. Landry <[email protected]>; Dan Furtado <[email protected]>; Sergio Lopez <[email protected]>; Elliot Scozzola <[email protected]> Cc: Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>
Subject: Multi-family housing design that contributes to the community.
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
Hello all, I was researching firms for a different purpose and found these examples of multi-family housing that contribute to quality homes, several are affordable projects.
It is important that the objective standards allow and encourage designs that contribute to the physical environment of the City of Campbell. The city is defined by the space and envelops outside: think façade and roof-top articulation, creation and access to interior spaces – not at right angles, range of ground floor uses. https://www.fougeron.com/multi-family
Enjoy,
Liz Gibbons, AIA, LEED AP
2018-19 AIA Strategic Council
1.i
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 1 From: Matt Weber <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Rob Eastwood <[email protected]>; Stephen Rose <[email protected]> Cc: Austin Rosso <[email protected]>
Subject: MFDDS Meeting Follow-up
Hi Rob & Stephen,
Happy Friday.
Thanks again for the recent MFDDS developer listening sessions. While there was a lot to cover, we came away from the meeting understanding that Opticos were genuinely interested in ensuring the standards were revised in a way to promote housing effectively and efficiently. That said, we currently are unsure which of our (and other’s) inquiries are being incorporated into the revisions.
Understanding the urgency to adopt these standards, is there an avenue for the developer/architect/others working group to review & comment on an updated (redlined) draft MFDDS quickly before it goes to Planning Commission? We only make this request, as we fear that waiting for the revised MFDDS to be issued as part of the Planning Commission staff report could likely result in an outsized number of detailed comments that would be challenging to address in the normal course of a public hearing.
Also, we would like to clarify our comments regarding ground floor heights:
- In T5 zones, we would request the standard ground floor height be modified to 10’ for residential/non-retail and 12’ for retail. At the Pruneyard, we have not had any issues leasing retail/restaurant space that is 12’ FTF or less (our heights start at 10’) – see attached examples of how a 12’ or less works. - Additionally, we would request that the City’s height definition be revised to describe the height as measured from highest adjacent ground (or highest top of curb) on a sloped site to the lowest point on the roof or the top of the structural surface (as roof insulation tapers for a flat roof); I defer to others on how to address a pitched roof - Based on the two bullet points above, the excel attachment demonstrates that a typical 7-story podium building is able to fit if the ground floor is 12’.
I hope the requests and the associated context is useful, as the City continues its good work to produce housing. Please let us know if there are any questions or if you would prefer to discuss further.
All the best,
Matt
Matt Weber
Vice President, Development
One Sansome Street, Suite 1550
San Francisco, CA 94104
o: 415.391.9800
[email protected]
www.ellispartners.com
1.i
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Floor Height Notes
1 12.00 ft Concrete construction
2 10.75 ft Concrete construction; height accounts for depth of landscape podium 3 10.30 ft
4 10.30 ft
5 10.30 ft
6 10.30 ft
7 10.44 ft
74.40 ft Top of structural surface
75.00 ft Height Max
-7.25 in Buffer to meet height max with assumptions below Notes
Assumes concrete podium with typical TJIs as ceiling assembly above (floors 3-7) Assumes there is no roof garden on top of level 7
Assumes height is measured from highest adjacent ground (or top of curb) elevation, which would require an update to the City's zoning code height definition
Assumes height is measured from level 1 FF to lowest point on roof or the top of structural surface (as roof insulation tapers for drainage), which would require an update to the City's zoning code height definition
1.i
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
CAMPBELL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
400 W. Carnpbetl Ave
Campbell, Ca. 95008
sa!0pustl[qssIg
a just
world
for all
ucc.orS
March L9, 2023
To: Mayor Anne Bybee
Cc: Campbell City Councilmembers, City Manager Loventhal, Community Development Director Eastwood
Re: Support for Campbell's General Plan and Plan for Housing (Housing Element) Please see the attached letter from our congregation in support of Campbell's Gen$il Plan and Campbell's Plan for Housing (Housing Element).
Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if there are any questions.
Best Rega rds,
Mark Fanucchi, Moderator
Campbell United Church of Christ (UCC)
Cc: CUCC Church Council, CUCC Oikos Team
o
1.i
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Dear Campbell Gity Gouncil:
We, the members of Campbell United Church of Christ, are writing to express our support for the General Plan that would allow us to change our property's land use designation. This change will allow us to serve our congregation's mission of community service in new and amazing ways.
We at CUCC are deeply invested in the principles of respect, deep connections, and generosity. lf the General Plan goes through, a world of possibility will open to us about how we can serve and uplift our Campbell neighbors. ln particular, it would allow us to explore our ability to address the affordable housing shortage affecting our city. We ask the members of city council to trust and invest in the General Plan, so that Campbell residents and organizations can expand our capacity to help one another.
Signed
Name Signature Date
L ,61
.1 a-)
\-/
)
)c,r;z1A..(h 1/-
a3a
1 2
J
6. 7
8 I
t
o T-o't'r1t \ .-N", n
Iilri' rfa a5t I
!i6-
eu\&S
5. u a
-)A5
l*r
(
,-)
L-
9l>r'
1 ,1 t /zt
->- j
1.i
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
10. 11.
12. 13.
14. 15.
16. 17.
,&,W,
o*, 6
f^\Lil,
A *zG
./_ t Lq Z
"7
)
=2 ,r{b e -4tl- ,l
Lhrisfi^,r^" 4iliwt rtwl (ru/ 3l q, lzs
\,U 3 IT Z
){rz- L3
a
18 19
24. 21.
22. z)
-)tt)
I
3 ri i:
jl tz/z>
I23.
24. 25.
26. 27.
1.i
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
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
1.i
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
70 N. First Street
March 27, 2023
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
1.i
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
70 N. First Street
March 27, 2023
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
1.i
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
70 N. First Street
March 27, 2023
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]
1.i
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
1.i
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) From: Tim Pasquinelli
To: Brian Loventhal; Stephen Rose
Cc: Rob Eastwood; Jason; Pete Beritzhoff
Subject: Campbell Tech Park
Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:06:24 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
1.i
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 1 Stephen Rose
From: Sean Marciniak <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Anne Bybee; Susan M. Landry; Sergio Lopez; Dan Furtado; Elliot Scozzola Cc: William Seligmann - Offsite; City Managers Office; Rob Eastwood; Stephen Rose; Tim Pasquinelli; Niran Somasundaram
Subject:
Public comment on April 18, 2023 City Council hearing re proposed adoption of Draft Housing Element
Attachments: 4.11.2023 Letter to HCD re Campbell Housing Element Deficiencies.pdf Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I represent the owners of the Campbell Technology Park who, as you know, have shown some interest in redeveloping their existing technology park with residential uses. As you also know, inclusion of residential units on the Campbell Technology Park is necessary for the City to meet its RHNA obligations.
Upon review of the City’s 4th Draft Housing Element, our clients were alarmed to see that the residential uses envisioned on their property were not in line with the direction provided by the City Council at its November 29, 2022 meeting. The City Council and our clients always understood that medium density development was necessary to incentivize our client to redevelop its property (e.g., 18‐25 du/ac). Currently, City staff are proposing very high density residential development of 34 to 45 du/ac, which guarantees that our client will continue to operate a technology park for the foreseeable future. We understand City staff revised density upwards in order to pencil out a plan that, on paper, would satisfy RHNA obligations.
This decision has legal consequence on the City’s Draft Housing Element. Per state law, a housing element must constitute a realistic blueprint for the provision of housing, and must contend with obstacles that hinder redevelopment of existing uses.
If the City adopts the 4th Draft Housing Element in its current iteration, the development potential for the Campbell Technology Park is, unfortunately, zero units. While the technology park has some vacancies, these exist because the owners have hesitated to re‐tenant the site based on expectations of medium density redevelopment. If only high density homes are allowed, our client will continue to operate the site with non‐residential uses as a legal, non‐conforming use. If the City cannot, in turn, count on the addition of new residential units to our client’s property, the 4th Draft Housing Element effectively will have failed to identify sufficient low income housing to satisfy RHNA obligations.
Earlier today we sent the attached letter to HCD, requesting that, in light of the foregoing information, the agency withdraw previous findings that the 4
th Draft Housing Element complied with state law. We request the City Council consider this letter, and that it be included in the administrative record of proceedings pertaining to the City’s consideration of a new Housing Element.
Notwithstanding the above, the attached letter identifies some solutions that, we believe, would satisfy all parties. We
respectfully request the City Council direct staff to engage with our client in implementing one of these solutions, and revise the 4th Draft Housing Element accordingly. Our client would very much like to partner with the City to provide much‐needed housing, but only insofar as the City’s housing plan follows the City Council’s November 2022 direction, which reflect practical expectations of how the Campbell Technology Park may be redeveloped with new homes.
Thank you for your time, we appreciate that you are very busy,
Sean Marciniak
1.i
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 2 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
To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. ht tps://www.hansonbridgett.com/img/email/HB_Logo_NoTag_160x36.png
San Francisco | Sacramento | North Bay | East Bay | Los Angeles
Click on the below link to access information on COVID-19 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/ABBA12ACD 6794A91B7D5D2730FBF8A41.ashx
To help
protect
your
privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
automati
c
download of this
picture from the Internet.
https://
www.hansonbrid
To help
prot ect
your
privacy,
Micro so ft O ffic e prevented
auto mati
c
download of this
picture fr o m th e In ternet.
ht tps://
www.hansonbrid
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.
1.i
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
19514010.2
Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
NIRAN S. SOMASUNDARAM
ATTORNEY
E-MAIL [email protected]
April 11, 2023
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Department of Housing and Community
Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Re: City of Campbell's 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element D
ear Mr. McDougall:
We represent Campbell Technology Park LLC ("CTP"), which owns the four parcels comprising the Campbell Technology Park, a currently operating technology campus located at 635, 655, 675, and 695 Campbell Technology Parkway (shown below). Three of the four parcels are listed on the City of Campbell's March 24, 2023 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element (the 4th Draft Housing Element) Suitable Sites Inventory, though under circumstance that guarantee no housing will be development at this location.
A
ccordingly, the City of Campbell cannot, under State housing laws, adopt the 4th Draft Housing Element as proposed.
We
understand that the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") recently found that the 4th Draft Housing Element meets the statutory requirement of State Housing Element Law, and are writing to inform HCD of serious inaccuracies in the City's methodology for determining that non-vacant sites will be redeveloped for low-income housing. In particular,
1.i
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
Paul McDougall
April 11, 2023
t
he City's assumption that a high density, low-income housing use — well in excess of the City's Inclusionary Ordinance — will replace the current technology campus use at Campbell Technology Park is not realistic. The City Council knows this, and what appears to have happened is that City Staff, in an effort to mathematically pencil out a housing element that works, contradicted City Council direction and lumped extremely high-density, low-income housing on our client's property, knowing such buildout will never happen.
We write to bring these practicalities to HCD's attention, as housing elements must, under State law, provide a realistic blueprint for providing sufficient housing units. Under the City's plan, which we can only describe as fabulist in its aspirations, no housing units will be built within the Campbell Technology Park. Without housing on this site, the City cannot show it has provided enough units to meet its regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA.
A
ccordingly, we request that HCD withdraw its findings that the 4th Draft Housing Element complies with State law.
CT
P has been transparent with the City from the start. The site has potential for residential development at a low to medium density, since only this type of housing product would incentivize CTP to redevelop what is already a viable, existing use. The City understood this, and listed all four Campbell Technology Park parcels in its Suitable Sites Inventory of the first three drafts of the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element, which showed a density of 26 du/a to 33 du/a. However, contrary to direction provided by the City Council, City Staff completely upended this in the 4th Draft Housing Element, choosing to list only the northern three Campbell Technology Park parcels, and slate them at a significantly higher density of 34 du/a to 45 du/a.
This last-minute decision presumably accomplishes two things: (1) it allows the City to pencil out an equation that, at first blush, satisfies RHNA obligations; while (2) allowing the City to relocate a City-owned Corporation Yard to our client's property, which satisfies a City goal but would amount to a taking of our client's property.
T
he Corporation Yard, located at 290 Dillon Ave (APN # 41208072), is currently listed on the Suitable Sites Inventory for residential redevelopment. In the City vision, the current Corporation Yard will be redeveloped with housing once the yard activities are transferred to the southern- most parcel of the Campbell Technology Park. Of course, this swap of locations assumes our client will consent to this arrangement, which further assumes our client is willing to cease current technology campus operations on its property. At this time, and under the existing circumstances, none of this will happen without a protracted legal battle. Any consensual swapping of property is contingent on the City properly incentivizing our client to redevelop the technology park with residential uses that are higher and better uses than the existing office complex. The behemoth amount of high-density, low-income units that City Staff have penned in, while laudable in some respects, completely ignores the understanding between our clients and the City Council, and ignores the reality that CTP will, under these circumstances, continue operating the technology park for the foreseeable future. There will be zero housing on the site, plain and simple. Again, this is no surprise. This information was communicated to City Staff prior to the City's submission of 4th Draft Housing Element.
A
ll these facts bear on the legal validity of the 4th Draft Housing Element.
T
he four parcels comprising the Campbell Technology Park and the single Dillon Ave parcel accommodating the City's Corporation Yard are all sites with existing non-residential uses and,
1.i
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
Paul McDougall
April 11, 2023
as explained in further detail below, the City does not have substantial evidence to conclude that these uses will be discontinued in favor of residential development. In fact, all evidence suggests that the Campbell Technology Park parcels cannot and will not be developed at the City's listed density, and all four parcels will continue their current use as a technology campus.1 As a result, the 431 low-income unit capacity provided by the Campbell Technology Park parcels and 290 Dillon Ave is not realistic. Without these units, the City has failed to provide for the 1,186 very-low and low-income units allocated to it under RHNA. As things stand, it can only show 1,007 units will be provide — i.e., 17 fewer units than would be needed to meet the City's very-low and low-income RHNA requirement.
However, this need not be the case. If the City were to simply revert to the proposed density for the Campbell Technology Park parcels included in all previous drafts of the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element, residential redevelopment of the parcels would be feasible, and entirely realistic. Appreciating that this solution does not resolve the problem of where to locate the City's Corporation Yard, there is an alternative solution that we outline below, which may satisfy all the parties. Without this change in circumstance, however, the City cannot adopt a compliant housing element.
City Staff altered the Housing Element's Zoning of Campbell Technology Park at the 11th Hour.
Throughout the 6th Cycle Housing Element process, CTP has been clear with the City about the reality of redeveloping Campbell Technology Park for residential uses. CTP sees a very real opportunity to build much-needed housing on the site, but forsaking the existing technology campus, which is a viable use requiring no investment, requires proper incentives. All of CTP's market research suggests that the site would need to be developed at a low or medium density to properly incentive its development. In fact, lower density units are required to make the property marketable to residential developers.
The City Council understood this. In the City's first three drafts of the Housing Element, all of which were submitted to HCD with the input of the City Council, the four parcels comprising the Campbell Technology Park were zoned "Medium-High Density Mixed-Use," allowing for development at a density of 26 du/a to 33 du/a. On November 29, 2022, the City Council considered whether to remove the Campbell Technology Park entirely from the Suitable Sites Inventory, noting CTP's repeated representations that the site could only be developed at a low to medium density, and that a portion of the Campbell Technology Park has been identified as "a potential option for relocation of the Corporation Yard to allow development of housing at the Corp Yard." (November 29, 2022 City Council Meeting Staff Report Packet at Packet Pgs. 15- 16).2 The City Council voted to keep all four parcels of the Campbell Technology Park on the Housing Element's Suitable Sites Inventory.
1 The existing technology campus has vacancy rates because CTP has hesitated re- tenanting the site based on expectations, formed by actions of the City Council, that the site could be developed with lower - density residential uses with a 15 percent affordability component. CTP has found current market demand for office uses, and vacancy rates merely reflect a hesitancy to enter into long-term leases as the City made land use decisions in considering a new housing element. If the City does not provide desired residential zoning for the Campbell Technology Park, CTP intends to energize the office campus with long-term commercial tenancies.
2 Available at: https://www.campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11292022- 2633.
1.i
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
Paul McDougall
April 11, 2023
H
owever, with no direction from City Council, and with no prior warning to CTP, the 4th Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD by City Staff made two key changes. First, it removed the southern-most parcel of the Campbell Technology Park from the Suitable Sites Inventory entirely. Second, it changed the zoning of the three remaining parcels to "High Density Mixed Use," which imposes a minimum density of 34 du/a.
T
he City's motivation for this last minute change is fairly clear. The City has long desired to use the southern-most parcel of the Campbell Technology Park as destination to relocate its existing Corporation Yard (again, located at 290 Dillon Ave). As noted above, the City also currently lists 290 Dillon Ave on its Suitable Sites Inventory, stating a predicted capacity for 158 low-income and moderate income units on that site. However, development of 290 Dillon Ave is essentially contingent on the City being able to shift the existing Corporation Yard to our client's property. In an apparent attempt to gain credit for both the existing Corporation Yard site and the majority of the Campbell Technology Park site, the City eliminated the parcel it hoped to use for Corporation Yard relocation, and correspondingly increased the density on the remaining three parcels of Campbell Technology Park. However, this back-of-the-envelope math does not pencil out when one considers the realistic likelihood of residential development on the Campbell Technology Park parcels.
R
esidential Development of Campbell Technology Park will not occur at 34 du/a.
CT
P has repeatedly informed the City that its market studies and development partner interest have demonstrated that the site could be realistically developed for housing at a medium density between 18 and 25 du/a, which can accommodate a three-story townhome product.
However, CTP simply cannot build housing at 34 du/a – doing so would require the development of high density multifamily apartment buildings, which is not economically feasible for the site, and has not drawn any interest from potential development partners. The land value of a high density apartment project at the site is lower than that of a technology campus. It certainly would not incentivize CTP to redevelop the existing technology park. So long as a minimum density of 34 du/a is imposed on residential development at Campbell Technology Park, CTP will be forced continue to operate Campbell Technology Park as a technology campus.
T
o the extent the City raises the fact that there are lower vacancy rates in the Campbell Technology Park, the reason for this underutilization is because CTP has hesitated entering into long-term tenancies in expectation the site would be rezoned pursuant to discussions CTP had with the City Council, and the City Council's direction during the first three housing element drafts.
T
he 4th Draft Housing Element Cannot Meet Campbell's Housing Allocation Under RHNA.
C
ity Staff's last-minute changes to the draft housing element result in an unrealistic Suitable Sites Inventory that will fail to provide the amount of low-income housing that the City of Campbell must provide under RHNA.
T
he City's Housing Element currently lists 431 low-income units in its Suitable Sites Inventory that, under existing circumstances, will never be developed in reality. Specifically, the City's Housing Element currently lists capacity for 158 units on the 290 Dillon Ave (112 low-income and 46 moderate-income units), and capacity for 130, 98, and 128 units on the three listed
1.i
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
Paul McDougall
April 11, 2023
Campbell Technology Park parcels (including a total of 319 lower-income units and 37 moderate-income units). So long as three remaining Campbell Technology Park parcels are zoned to require a minimum density of 34 du/a, there is no realistic potential for redevelopment of Campbell Technology Park. Instead, all four parcels will continue to operate as a technology campus. In turn, if the southern-most parcel of Campbell Technology Park continues to operate as a technology campus, the City-Owned Corporation Yard cannot be relocated to that parcel.
In its March 27, 2023 Letter to the City of Campbell, HCD notes that, with regard to each site slated to provide housing for lower-income households, the City must find that "existing uses do not impede additional residential development and will likely be discontinued during the planning period." (HCD's March 27, 2023 Letter to the City of Campbell, p. 2; Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2)). This finding must be based on substantial evidence. HCD's guidance echoes the general requirement for a City to produce a realistic site inventory — not a theoretical list that simply pencils out on paper. State law is clear that a city must identify "sites having realistic and demonstrated potential
3 for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level …." (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3), emph. added.) As noted in the previous paragraph, there is realistic potential for zero units on four of the City's identified parcels.
Furthermore, for sites larger than 10 acres, "the locality must either (1) demonstrate sites of equivalent size and number of lower income housing units were successfully developed during the prior planning period or (2) provide other evidence to the HCD that the site can be developed as lower income housing. (§ 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(B).).” The City treats the Campbell Technology Park as three different parcels but, in reality, it is a single site larger than 10 acres.
The City has not put forth any evidence that the site can be developed as lower income housing. CTP has never indicated to the City that it intends to develop the site with more affordable units than required under the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The City is required to provide a total of 1,186 very-low and low-income units pursuant to its RHNA allocation. Accounting for the listed pipeline project and ADUs, the Suitable Sites Inventory must provide capacity for 1,024 future units of low-income and very-low-income housing. Currently, Appendix IV-A of the City's 4th Draft Housing Element provides capacity for 1,438 lower-income units.
4 However, adjusting for the 431 lower-income units that are not realistic, the City's Suitable Sites Inventory only includes 1,007 units, 17 fewer units than would be needed to meet the City's very-low and low-income RHNA requirement. Accordingly, the City's Housing Element fails to fulfill its most basic function – to provide sites sufficient to satisfy the City's RHNA requirement for all income levels.
3 In particular, the City is directed to utilize a methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (g)(1), italics added.) The City has not included any such analysis for Campbell Technology Park. 4 The City's Suitable Site's inventory does not differentiate between very-low and low-income unit capacity; instead it included a single lower-income capacity number.
1.i
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
Paul McDougall
April 11, 2023
C
TP Has Proposed Solutions which Solve the City's Problem.
T
here are win-win solutions on the table that would allow for the development of needed housing on the Campbell Technology Park site, and which would allow the City to demonstrate a realistic potential to hit its RHNA targets. These solutions also potentially afford the City with its desired flexibility to relocate its Corporation Yard.
C
TP has presented two options to City Staff, which can be placed before City Council as revisions to the 4th Draft Housing Element.
O
ption 1 is to entirely revert to the version of the Suitable Sites Inventory in the first three drafts of the City's Housing Element. This would place all four Campbell Technology Park parcels back on the Suitable Sites Inventory, to be zoned as "Medium-High Density Mixed-Use," allowing for development at a density of 26 du/a to 33 du/a. Under this approach, the Campbell Technology Park site could realistically be developed into housing, and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring 15% of units to be affordable would result in the provision of 68-86 affordable housing units leaving it with at least 1,075 lower-income units - more than enough for the City to meet its 1,024 very-low and low-income unit RHNA requirement, even before considering the City's possibilities for redevelopment of the 290 Dillon Ave parcel.
H
owever, understanding that the City may want to use the southern-most parcel of the Campbell Technology Park for relocation of its Corporate Yard, CTP has proposed a second option. Under Option 2, the three northern parcels currently listed on the 4th Draft Housing Element Suitable Sites Inventory would be zoned as "Neighborhood Mixed-Use," allowing for development at a density of 18 du/a to 25 du/a and provision of affordable units pursuant to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The southern-most parcel would remain with its current R&D zoning, providing the flexibility for the parcel to accommodate relocation of the Corporate Yard. Furthermore, any additional units needed for the Suitable Sites Inventory could be accommodated on the San Tomas Plaza site, which is under separate ownership but, we understand, these owners would be willing to accommodate more density. *
* *
The lower-income unit capacity underlying Campbell's 4th Draft Housing Element is not supported by substantial evidence because it relies on the redevelopment of the Campbell Technology Park at a density and low-income unit count the City knows is infeasible. As a result, the Housing Element fails to satisfy the City's RHNA requirement for all income levels, and therefore cannot be certified to be in compliance with State Housing Element law.
We ask HCD to reconsider its certification of Campbell's 4th Draft Housing Element in light of this evidence.
Sincerely,
Niran S. Somasundaram
Attorney
cc: Clients
Sean Marciniak, Partner, Hanson Bridgett LLP
1.i
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Public Comments & Staff Responses (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Comment/Feedback Staff Response
Clarification on purpose and intent with parking setback, particularly side and rear parking setback
Standards have been clarified; parking setbacks have been amended.
Clarification on how front, side, and rear design site lines are determined.
Additional information and graphics added to Chapter 11 in MFDDS.
Concern regarding floor to floor standards, particularly 15‐foot floor to floor requirement
Altered requirement to allow 14‐foot floor to floor
requirement in certain areas.
Concern regarding commercial ground floor depth; particularly if it is not a retail tenant.
Per City Council direction, built in flexibility to activities which can occur within the required commercial ground floor
depth.
Concern regarding requiring new building module after 120‐ feet of building. Suggest 200‐feet.
Architectural standards provide a variety of methods to comply.
Box, middle, top appraoch is too limiting.
Architectural standards provide a variety of methods to comply.
Concern regarding driveway widths; desire to widen to allow two‐way vehicular circulation.
Driveway widths have been revised to allow two‐way
vehicular circulation.
Concern regarding number of loading parking spaces. Allow developer to decide how many is needed. Loading parking spaces to be determined by the CMC.
Concern in requiring two form‐based zones for Large Site Standards. Desire to only have one zone to build a singular product type.
Sites subject to the Large Site Standards must include two form‐based zones to respond to existing context.
Concern with stepping back the building as it may lead to waterproofing issues.
Watertight construction practices may be used in areas
where design articulation is required.
Total perimeter requirement is a concern.
The large site standards serve to ensure the development of project sites are compatible with their surroundings;
establishing a maximum perimeter length is in furtherance of this objective.
Concerns with T4MS only allowing 4‐stories when 5‐stories is more marketable.
Staff and Opticos reviewed the form‐based zone map and
have made changes to better reflect General Plan land use designation.
Concern with 10% requirement of civic space; suggest lowering this requirement to 5%.
In accordance with previous Council feedback, 10% of project sites sujbect to the large site standards to allocated to public open space. To offset this impact, projects providing a public open space shall now receive a credit (reduction) in their parkland dedication requirements/in‐lieu fees.
Concerns with location of civic space and safety.
Civic space must be within 50 feet of a public right‐of‐way to be publicly visible and mitigate safety concerns of
developers.
Concerns with parking ratio requirements being too high. Parking standards have been decreased.
Desire to have 5‐stories in T4MS form‐based zone.
Staff and Opticos reviewed the form‐based zone map and
have made changes to better reflect General Plan land use designation.
Clarification on adjacency requirements and where it is measured from.
A graphic has been added to support the text. The adjacency standards have also been adjusted to accommodate
shallower and narrower properties.
Suggest to have variances to standards in order to save more protected trees.
Adjustment to standards section in MFDDS and CMC contain flexibility for mature trees.
Clarification on what is the front, side, and rear of a design site.
Additional information and graphics added to Chapter 11 in MFDDS.
Suggest to have flexibility for required commercial ground floor requirement.
Per City Council direction, built in flexibility to activities which can occur within the required commercial ground floor
depth.
1.j
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Responses to MFDDS Comments (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Concern regarding floor to floor standards being too tall.
An exception to the minimum "clear height" required for commercial ground floor areas has been provided to ensure buildings remain under the maximum height permitted.
Standards serve to ensure tenant spaces created are viable.
Concern regarding 3 inch recession requirement for windows.
Suggest 2 inches as it is easier to frame.
The standards have been adjusted to allow a 2 inch deep window recess; except in the Downtown where a higher
architectural standard is applied.
Suggest to allow recessed windows on facades that are
publicly visible.
Providing for windows with alternating depths would result in an undesired design outcome.
MFDDS does not consider lot consolidation. Lot consolidation will be regulated by Title 20 of the CMC.
Concerns with how form‐based zones were mapped and
whether they considered the General Plan land use
designation.
Staff and Opticos reviewed the form‐based zone map and
have made changes to better reflect General Plan land use designation.
Concerns with adjacency standards being too restrictive.
The adjacency standards have been adjusted to account for narrower and shallower properties.
Exterior material standards in Architectural chapter are too restrictive.
The standards serve to ensure that appropriate weather
resistent materials are used when exposed to the elements.
This results in a specific list of wood types that may be permitted, but any type of wood may be used when
appropriately treated to resist the elements (i.e., painted).
Consider an opt‐out process for smaller projects (25 or fewer units).
A minimum of 50 units has been established for
consideration of projects through the community benefit (CB) overlay process. This is to ensure the process is not misused by smaller projects to avoid compliance with the standards, and to recognize the level of complexity, staff time, and cost incurred with processing such a request.
Desire to have housing on the ground floor.
Except where denoted by the form‐based map as needing to provide a commercial ground component (Tier 1, or Tier 2); housing is permitted on the ground floor.
Concern with architectural standards being too restrictive.
The "menu of options" has been adjusted to provide for
greater flexibility.
Concern that 120 feet max for one module is too restrictive, suggest 180 feet max for one module.
The modulation standards have been adjusted to allow for larger modules in more intensive form‐based zones.
Concerns with balcony standards requiring brackets; seems overly restrictive.
Adjustments to the balcony standards have been
incorporated where appropriate. Balconies without brackets, except when over porches, are less preferred.
Concerns with landscape requirements within parking lots.
Standards adjusted to account for solar. Smaller tree species may be planted in other areas (where under power lines
etc.).
Concerns with floor to floor requirement for residential; 12 feet floor to floor seems too restrictive. Suggest not to dictate floor to floor height.
Neighborhood zones allow 10‐foot minimum floor to floor heights for residential on the ground floor. Higher floor to floor heights are allowed.
Clarification sought for intent of civic space when located adjacent to a public park.
Consistent with City Council direction, open space remains a priority to the city. No change.
Building width for tandem parked townhome product. Concern of 18‐foot minimum width requirement; suggest 16‐feet.
Revised to allow 16‐feet building width for townhome
building type.
Suggest allowing more units per building in townhome product type.
Number of units per building is no longer regulated; building width is now regulated.
1.j
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Responses to MFDDS Comments (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Concern with number of product types for large site standards.
Large site standards are required to have 2 form‐based zones to respond to existing context. No change.
Clarification if curb cuts along a private street is permissible.
Curb cuts are permitted interior to a site along alleys, but not into the public right of way.
Concern regarding maximum height allowed in T4N.S form‐ based zone. Suggest allowing 3‐stories and 35‐feet maximum height
Staff and Opticos reviewed the form‐based zone map and
have made changes to better reflect General Plan land use designation.
Concern regarding curb cuts not allowed on front access sites. Curb cuts on front access now allowed in certain situations.
1.j
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Responses to MFDDS Comments (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
M
arch 27, 2023
R
ob Eastwood, Director
Community Development Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
D
ear Rob Eastwood:
RE: Campbell’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element
T
hank you for submitting Campbell’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on March 24, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.
H
CD is pleased to find the revised draft housing element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code). The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in HCD’s review on February 23, 2023. The housing element will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) when it is adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.
P
ublic participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any draft revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
Sin
ce the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for lower-income households, it must demonstrate that existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period. As part of the adoption resolution, the City must find, based on substantial evidence, existing uses do not impede additional residential development and will likely be discontinued during the planning period. Otherwise,
1.k
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Letter from HCD on 4th Draft Housing Element (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) Rob Eastwood, Director
existing uses are presumed to impede additional development and the sites will not be utilized toward the RHNA. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).)
P
lease note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected]. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the electronic sites inventory. See HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
F
or your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the RHNA shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed.
S
everal federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
H
CD appreciates the hard work and dedication of the housing element update team throughout the housing element review and update process. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Shawn Danino, of our staff, at [email protected].
S
incerely,
P
aul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
1.k
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Letter from HCD on 4th Draft Housing Element (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.)
(925) 381 8666
3527 MT. DIABLO BLVD, #487
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
RETAIL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RETAIL SPACES IN VERTICAL MIXED USE
BUILDINGS TO ENSURE MAXIMUM ABILITY FOR LEASE UP
Introduction:
These suggested design standards for mixed use buildings allow the retail in a mixed use building to be considered by the maximum amount of retail tenants. Nearly 70% of retail tenants have strict space criteria with only 30% of the retailers being flexible to take differently designed spaces. Designing for 100% of the retail tenants allows a higher likelihood that the retail space will get leased. Whenever any of the below suggested standards are missing, the breadth of possible retail tenants reduces.
• Retail spaces should only be required along the intersections of two main thoroughfares. • Those retail spaces should be designed to be at least 50‘deep (but no deeper than 60’) x a minimum 16.5’ wide.
• The retail space should have venting designed into the vertical building allowing for the spaces to be available for restaurant tenant’s consideration. • All the retail spaces should have access to a grease trap that meets health codes. This normally means one full sized (at least 1500 gallons) grease trap for about 3000 sf of retail space depending upon the type of retail being leased. • Celling heights should have a clear height of at least 15’. • On-site parking should be provided, (not including street parking) with at least 2.5 stalls per 1000 square feet and be easily accessible to the retail space. • Customers should not have to elevator into an office lobby; walk outside and around the side of the office or residential building to reach the retail. The retail should be accessed directly from the parking garage.
• Parking should be accessible to retail customers via a breezeway from the retail storefronts to the parking if located behind the retail. The breezeway should be located midway thru the retail area, if the total retail square footage is greater than 6000 sf. • Vertical beams, running thru the retail space should be designed so that the beams are at least 30’ from each other in all directions.
1.l
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Retail Design Standards for Vertical Mixed-Use Buildings (General Plan, Housing Element, Et Al.) 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.
Following the publication of the April 18 , 2023, agenda packet, staff made two observations warranting minor corrections to Chapter 21.08 (Residential Districts) of the Campbell Municipal Code. These changes serve to provide for the subdivision of townhome units when meeting the minimum width and depth requirements of the Multi - Family Development and Design Standards (MFDDS) and the development of an individual single-family home, on a property with a multi-family land use designation, that do not otherwise trigger compliance with the MFDDS (uncommon).
These changes are reflected with yellow highlights as an attachment to this memo. Other changes reflected with strikeouts and underlines were already included in the packet. To reflect these changes, please read the amended action as follows:
(1) Adopt a Resolution, certifying a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt required findings with a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA;
(2) Adopt a Resolution, adopting the 2040 General Plan (Envision Campbell); (3) Adopt a Resolution, adopting the 2023- 2031 Housing Elemen t (Campbell’s Plan for Housing);
(4) Adopt a Resolution, resolving that the South of Campbell Avenue Area Plan (SOCA), North of Campbell Avenue Plan (NOCA), Central Campbell Redevelopment Plan (CCRP), and Design Guidelines for Low -Medium Density Residential Projects shall be of no further force and effect and reestablish other existing area, streetscape, and neighborhood plans;
(5) Take first reading and introduce an Ordinance, establishing a new zoning map and amending Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), Title 7 (A nimals), Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), and Title 21 (Zoning) of the Campbell Municipal Code incorporating changes to Chapter 21.08 (Residential Districts) as provided as a desk item; and
(6) Adopt a Resolution, adopting Multi -Family Development and Design Standards and an associated Form-Based Zone Map.
Attachments:
1. Changes to Chapter 21.08 (Residential Districts)
City of Campbell
MEMORANDUM
Planning Division
Title 21 - ZONING
Chapter 21.08 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Campbell, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST] (Supp. No. 37)
Chapter 21.08 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
21.08.010 Purpose of chapter—Applicability.
A. Residential zoning districts. This chapter provides regulations applicable to development and new land uses in the residential zoning districts established by Section 21.04.020 (Zoning Districts Established). The purpose of this chapter is to achieve the following:
1. Preserve and enhance the predominately low density, high quality residential character of the city, while providing a variety of housing opportunities and residentia l land use options to accommodate existing and future residents;
2. Strive to attract quality development, while providing opportunities for neighborhood interaction;
3. Ensure that existing residential neighborhoods, and any remaining vacant lands, are developed in a manner that preserves and enhances neighborhood character, establishes neighborhood identity, and provides a consistent land use pattern;
4. Ensure compatibility of residential development, which is generally determined by prevailing density, parcel configuration and size, and structure design, scale, and type;
5. Ensure adequate air, light, privacy, and open space for each dwelling;
6. Minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of public services and utilities; and
7. Facilitate the provision of public improvements commensurate with anticipated increase in population, dwelling unit densities, and service requirements.
(Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004).
(Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014)
21.08.020 Residential zoning districts.
The purpose and zoning district map symbols of individual residential zoning districts are as follows:
A. Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
1. Purpose: The single-family residential zoning district is intended to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the district and to encourage a suitable environment for domestic home life. The single-family residential zoning district is intended to provide for detached single-family homes on larger parcels (ranging from six thousand to sixteen thousand square foot parcels). The designation of an area in the single-family zoning district includes establishing a minimum lot area for new subdivisions, expressed as a suffix to the “R-1” zoning map symbol (e.g., R-1-6). The single-family residential zoning district is consistent with the low-density residential land use designations of the General Plan.
2. Zoning District Map Symbol: R-1
3. Zoning District Map Symbol with Suffixes: R-1-6, R-1-8, R-1-9, R-1-10, R-1-16 B. Low-Medium Density Residential Zoning District.
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
1. Purpose: The low-medium density residential zoning district is intended for duplexes, apartment buildings, townhomes, detached small-lot single family homes, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. The low-medium density residential zoning district is consistent with the low-medium density residential land use designation of the General Plan.
2. Zoning District Map Symbol: LMDR
C. Medium Density Residential Zoning District.
1. Purpose: This medium density residential zoning district is intended for duplexes, apartment buildings, townhomes, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. This designation is typically applied to transition areas between lower-density neighborhoods and higher-density developments or commercial areas.
2. Zoning District Map Symbol: MDR
D. Medium-High Density Residential Zoning District.
1. Purpose: The medium-high density residential zoning district is intended for apartment buildings and condominiums, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. This designation is typically applied to areas away from major commercial intersections. The medium-high density residential zoning district is consistent with the medium-high density residential land use designation of the General Plan.
2. Zoning District Map Symbol: MHDR
E. High Density Residential Zoning District.
1. Purpose: The high density residential zoning district is intended for apartment buildings and condominiums and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. This designation is typically applied to sites along Class I, or Class II arterial roadways that abut lower -density neighborhoods. The high density residential zoning district is consistent with the high density residential land use designation of the General Plan.
2. Zoning District Map Symbol: HDR
F. Mobile Home Park Zoning District.
1. Purpose: The mobile home park zoning district is intended for mobile homes, modular homes, and uses in support of, and comparable to, such land uses. The mobile home park zoning district discourages the conversion of existing mobile home parks to other uses. The mobile home park zoning district is consistent with the mobile home park land use designation of the General Plan .
2. Zoning District Map Symbol: MHP
21.08.020 Residential district general requirements.
A. Zoning clearance. A zoning clearance is a ministerial permit that the co mmunity development director uses to verify that a proposed structure or land use activity complies with the list of activities allowed in the applicable zoning district, the development standards applicable to each type of use, and any conditions of approval of permits previously issued for the subject site. Before commencing any work pertaining to the alteration, construction, conversion, erection, moving, or reconstruction of any structure, or any addition to any structure, a building permit shall be obtained from the building division and a zoning clearance from the community development department by an owner or owner's agent.
B. Site and architectural review required. All construction activities (e.g., additions, alterations, construction, reconstruction, or remodeling) shall receive site and architectural review approval in compliance with Chapter 21.42 (Site and Architectural Review).
(Ord. 2043 § 1(part), 2004).
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
(Ord. No. 2182, § 1(Exh. A), 10-7-2014)
21.08.030 Residential land uses.
The permissibility of land uses in residential districts shall be as specified by Table 2 -1 (Land Use Table – Residential Zoning Districts) subject to the operational and locational standards contained in Article 3. Land uses that are listed as (P) are permitted and approved by issuance of a zoning clearance in compliance with Chapter
21.40 (Zoning Clearances). Land uses listed as (AC) may be allowed subject to the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and land uses listed as (C) may be allowed s ubject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, in compliance with Chapter 21.46 (Conditional use permits). Land uses listed as (X) and those not otherwise listed are prohibited and shall not be allowed. Land uses listed as (N/A) shall not be: (1) permitted; (2) allowed subject to approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit; or (3) prohibited unless otherwise specified. The list of land uses is organized by headers which themselves do not convey an intended land use.
Table 2-2
Land Use Table — Residential Zoning Districts
# Land Use Zoning District Map Symbol
R-1 LMDR MDR MHDR HDR MHP
Residential
1 Accessory structures
P
(When compliant with Chapter 21.36 - Special Uses)
2 Accessory dwelling units P P P P P X
3 Apartments X P P P P X
4 Assisted living facilities X X X C C X
5 Convalescent/rest homes X C C C C X
6 Duplexes X
(1)
P P P P X
7 Hobby car restoration P P X X X P
8 Home occupations P P P P P P
9 Junior accessory dwelling units P P P P P P
10 Manufactured housing P P P P P P
11 Mobile home parks C C C C C P
12 Residential care homes, large C C C C C C
13 Rooming and Boarding houses X C C C C C
14 Single-family dwellings P P P P P P
15 Single Room Occupancy facilities X X X C C X
16 Supportive housing P P P P P P
17 Transitional housing P P P P P P
Recreation, Education, & Assembly
18 Commercial child day care
center
X X X C C X
19 Community/cultural/recreational
center
X C X X X X
20 Emergency shelters X C C C C C
21 Family child day care homes,
large
P P P P P P
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
# Land Use Zoning District Map Symbol
R-1 LMDR MDR MHDR HDR MHP
22 Family child day care homes,
small
P P P P P P
23 Libraries, public X X X P P X
24 Monastery, convent, parsonage,
or nunnery
X C C C C C
25 Parks, public P P P P P P
26 Residential care homes, small P P P P P P
27 Residential recreational facilities,
private
C C C C C C
28 Residential service facilities,
large
X C C C C C
29 Residential service facilities,
small
P P P P P P
30 Schools - K-12, private C C C C C C
31 Schools - K-12, public P P P P P X
32 Tennis courts, private C C C C C C
General Services
33 Bed and breakfast inns X C C C C X
34 Garage/yard sales, private P P P P P P
Other
35 Government offices and facilities
(local, state, or federal)
C C C C C C
36 Groundwater recharge facilities P P P P P P
37 Public utility structures and
service facilities
C C C C C C
38 Satellite television or personal
internet broadband
dishes/antenna (less than three
feet in diameter)
P P P P P P
39 Satellite television or personal
internet broadband
dishes/antenna (greater than
three feet in diameter)
May be allowed in compliance with CMC Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities)
40 Wireless telecommunications
facilities
May be allowed in compliance with CMC Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities)
Expressly Prohibited Uses
41 Commercial and industrial uses
(except those allowed by a home
occupation permit)
X X X X X X
42 Short term rental X X X X X X
43 Storage of commercial vehicles X X X X X X
44 Storage of supplies and materials
for commercial or industrial
purposes
X X X X X X
45 Storage of supplies, materials,
lumber, metal and junk
X X X X X X
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
# Land Use Zoning District Map Symbol
R-1 LMDR MDR MHDR HDR MHP
exceeding an area of one
hundred square feet, except
when such are being used for
construction on the property
with a valid building permit
46 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
X X X X X X
47 Any use inconsistent with state
or federal law
X X X X X X
(1) Except as provided for by Chapter 21.25 – Two-Unit Housing Developments.
21.08.040 Residential subdivision standards.
In addition to the permitting procedures and requirements contained in Title 20 (Subdivision and Land Development), the minimum area, width, and frontage of parcels proposed in new subdivisions in residential zoning districts shall be as specified by Table 2-3 (Minimum Parcel Sizes for Newly Created Parcels – Residential Zoning Districts). Areas of special limitations may also be identified on the zoning map as a number with the number indicating the minimum parcel area for subdivision in thousands of square feet (i.e., 80 = 80,000 sq. ft. minimum).
Table 2-3
Minimum Parcel Sizes for Newly Created Parcels — Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Map
Symbol
Minimum Parcel Area: Square
Feet/Net Acre
Minimum Lot Width:
Feet
Minimum Public Frontage
R-1-6 6,000 60
25 feet
(15 feet for flag lots)
R-1-8 8,000 70
R-1-9 9,000 70
R-1-10 10,000 80
R-1-16 16,000 80
LMDR
May be subdivided into lots compliant with the minimum design site sizes (i.e., area, lot width, depth) established by Chapter 21.07 (Multi-Family Development and Design Regulations) for the applicable form-based zone. Exception: Common lots, lots and/or property dedicated to the city, townhouse and core townhouse units meeting the minimum width and depth requirements of the applicable form-based zone and individual condominium units when included within a lot meeting the minimum design site sizes established by Chapter 21.07 (Multi-Family Development and Design Regulations), shall not be subject to a minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision.
MDR
MHDR
HDR
MHP None
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
21.08.050 Residential development standards.
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 -3 (Minimum Parcel Sizes for Newly Created Parcels – Residential Districts) and in Table 2-4 (General Development Standards – Residential Districts), in addition to the development standards contained in Article 3 (e.g., landscaping, fences, parking and loading) and Article 4 (e.g., accessory structures).
Table 2-4
General Development Standards – Residential Districts
Development Standard Zoning District Map Symbol
R-1 LMDR MDR MHDR HDR MHP
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
.45
(1)
See CMC 21.07 – Multi-Family
Development and Design
Regulations for the specified form-
based zone.
(3) (4)
N/A
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% N/A
Minimum Required Open Space 750 sq. ft. N/A
Minimum Setbacks
Front 20 ft.
See CMC 21.07 – Multi-Family
Development and Design
Regulations for the specified form-
based zone.
(3) (4)
N/A
Side (each) 5 ft.
(2) N/A
Street Side (where applicable) 12 ft. N/A
Rear 5 ft. N/A
Parking Structure or Garage to
Public Right of Way 25 ft. N/A
Maximum Height and Stories
Main Structure Maximum Height 35 ft. See CMC 21.07 – Multi-Family Development and Design
Regulations for the specified form-
based zone.
(3) (4)
N/A
Main Structure Maximum Stories 2 ½ stories
Homes
must be
less than
one story
Distance Between Non-Accessory Structures on the Same Lot Minimum Separation Required
The distance equal to
the taller of the two
structures.
See CMC 21.07 – Multi-Family
Development and Design
Regulations for the specified form-
based zone.
(3) (4)
N/A
(1) The Planning Commission may approve a 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. (2) A minimum of the setback indicated or one-half (½) the building wall height, whichever is greater. The Planning Commission may allow a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for structures proposed for a second story addition, when it makes both of the following findings:
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
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
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.
(3) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the maximum FAR for a housing development project consisting of three (3) to seven (7) units shall not be less than 1.0, and the maximum FAR of a housing development project consisting of eight (8) to ten (10) units shall not be less than 1.25, when the following conditions are met:
a. The housing development project consists of at least 3, but not more than 10, units. b. The housing development project is not located in any of the following:
i. A property with a single-family zoning or land use designation; ii. A historic district property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resource Code; and iii. Within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.
(4) Exception. The development standards of an individual single-family dwelling, not otherwise subject to the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards established by Chapter 21.07 , shall be the same as those development standards applicable to the R-1 zoning district, except that the LMDR zone shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 50%, and the MDR, MHDR, and HDR zones shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 55%. Further, the MHDR and HDR zones shall be permitted to build up to 3-stories and 40-feet in height.
21.08.030 R-1 (Single-family) zoning district.
A. Purpose of R-1 (Single-family) zoning district.
1. The R-1 zoning district is intended to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the district and to encourage a suitable environment for domestic home life.
2. The R-1 zoning district is intended to provide for detached single-family homes on larger parcels (ranging from six thousand to sixteen thousand square foot parcels). The R -1 zoning district is consistent with the low-density residential land use designations of the General Plan.
3. The San Tomas area neighborhood plan land use policies are incorporated herein by reference. The San Tomas area neighborhood plan policies shall only apply to properties within the boundaries of the San Tomas area. The map outlining the boundaries of the San Tomas area is maintained at the community development department. In the case of conflict between the San Tomas area neighborhood plan policies and other requirements contained in this chapter, the policies of the San Tomas area neighborhood plan shall prevail.
4. The Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan land use policies are incorporated herein by reference. The Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan policies shall only apply to properties within the boundaries of the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan area. The map outlining the boundaries of the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan area is maintained at the community development department. In the case of conflict between the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan and other requirements contained in this chapter, the policies of the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan shall prevail.
B. Permitted uses in R-1 (Single-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;
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)
3. Family child day care homes, small;
4. Garage/yard sales, private;
5. Groundwater recharge facilities;
6. Hobby car restoration;
7. Home occupations;
8. Junior accessory dwelling units;
9. Manufactured housing (subject to architectural requirements within the parameters of State Law);
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-1 (Single-family) zoning district. The following uses are permitted with a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 21.46 (Conditional Use Permits):
1. Family child day care homes, large;
2. Government offices and facilities (local, state, or federal);
3. Public utility structures and service facilities;
4. Residential care homes, large;
5. Residential recreational facilities, private;
6. Satellite television or personal internet broadband dishes/antenna (greater than three feet in diameter);
7. Schools - K-12, private;
8. Tennis courts, private;
9. Wireless telecommunications facilities.
D. Prohibited uses in R-1 (Single-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;
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;
Created: 2022-12-01 08:35:59 [EST]
(Supp. No. 37)