Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the uh planning commission uh Campbell's planning commission uh meeting of Tuesday, May 27th, 2025. Let's by way of introductions, my name is Matt Comar and I'm the chair of the planning commission. I'd like to call to order the meeting uh of the May 27th. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Majuski uh present. Commissioner Scissor. Yeah. Mr. Ostroski, present. Commissioner Bucker, present. Mr. Gray, here. Vice Chair Fields, present. Chair Kamar, present. Thank you. Uh on to minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes? Are there any I have a corrections. I have a couple things. Commissioner Scissor. Yes. On the uh design and development standards somewhere. Uh do you have a page? Uh page it's page three of five on the minutes. It's three of the five of the minutes. I see. It says design discussions. Uh The session centered on setbacks, roof types, and architectural compatibility staff. Some commissioners favored allow flat roofs prompted debate. Some commissioners favored allowing them for design flexibility. Others preferred uniform gable roof standards. Uh I thought the thing that we got from that whole thing about the standards was that there was a consensus of not of of having all the city's

single family homes conform to the same standard and not specifically separating out Santomas and Campbell Village as having special consideration. I I I was under the impression we had a consensus that that everybody would follow the same standard. I don't think that's reflected in the minutes. I do recall that. Um yeah, that's right. You're correct. Okay. I was hoping that that could be reflected in the minutes. So on page three or five, which uh you know where on the page exactly can you Well, that would be the design and development standards I think right at the very bottom. Design development standards. Okay. Um, and then the only thing I had was on the tree removal exceptions. Uh, it says other suggestions included adding following branches as a reason. But I I would, you know, my take on that. I brought that up that I was like, well, specifically with regards to it being a safety hazard, I think should be mentioned. Yeah, you have following branches but right so adding the word you know um hazardous hazardous situation yeah as a as as a safety safety I think would be the specific once the staff can think of other things that's all I have okay staff uh did you find that or I found the first part um the second part regarding hazardous can you please um page four of five it's the Four or five. The beginning of four or five. It's under control. I'll put four or five. Yeah. All right. And then where you would like to add the word hazardous is safety hazards. You know, safety hazard. A safety hazard for reason for

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, those two changes are good. I'll move approval of the minutes of May 13th with those two changes. Okay. And we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Second. Perfect. Motion a second. Any discussion? None. All those in favor? I I. All those against. Passes unanimous. We doing the roll call or you want to go to roll call? Let's do roll call. Yeah. Commissioner says, hi. Commissioner Majuski. Hi. Mr. Mr. Binder. Hi. Mr. Clay. Hi. Vice Fields. Hi. Chair Concord. Hi. Thank you, sir. Okay. Um, are there any communications or agenda modifications? Uh, Chair Cam Car, no agenda changes. Uh, we did have an email coming late tracking it down on the housing policy item. If that wasn't forwarded, we'll see if we can forward it to the commissioners. After that, no changes. Thank you. Will that be discussed in a later item? Uh yeah, that's uh item number four, the housing policy item. Thank you. Okay. Um next is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the planning commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that state law prohibits the commission from acting on non-aggenda item. However, the chair may refer matters to staff for followup. Are there any oral

communications? Seeing none in house. Any anybody online? None. Okay. Moving on to public hearings. Uh so um public hearing to consider the application of United Sign Systems Michelle Richmond to allow an approximately 97 square foot 36 inch tall wall sign reading Dollar Tree on property located at 148 North Santomas Aakino Road. Um, and this is, uh, let's see, plan L number 2025-30. Uh, I guess Tracy's not here. So, thank you. So, Tracy's TAM. It's the last application that she prepared SAP report. I'll be doing the presentation for her. Thank you. So this is an application for a signed permit for the Dollar Tree store located at 148 North Santo Mosino Road. So this is a large shopping center at the corner of Santaas and Campbell Avenue. It is governed by a rather aged master sign plan adopted in 2004 that lays out the perimeters for signage throughout the entire shopping center. Uh per that master sign plan and the city's local sign ordinance any sign greater than 50 square feet requires planning commission approval. And so the proposed sign is at 97 square ft. Uh similarly the lettering height at 36 in exceeds the maximum 30 in that's identified by by the master sign plan which indicates that additional height is negotiable with the city which staff took to mean that would could be considered by the planning commission as part of this application and here you have the

illustration of the dollar tree signs standard channel letters. So in terms of the analysis, the finding for approval for a sign permit for a sign larger than three square feet requires the applicant to demonstrate that the additional sign area is necessary due to visibility issues uh due to issues of distance or obstructions. As noted in the staff report, given the distance of this tenant space from both Santa Mos road and avenue, staff does believe that the additional sign area and height are warranted to ensure suitable visibility. Uh therefore the staff recommendation is for the commission to adopt a resolution approving the sign permit to allow that should be a 97 square foot 36 inch tall wall sign reading dollar. With that I'll take any questions you may have. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Um thank you. Just in terms of not just this shopping center but say similar ones like I was thinking there's a dollar store over Camp Plaza. I was trying to see how big that one was. Is this consistent with that that kind of, you know, size of store kind of shopping center uh that it would be this big? I mean, it looks to me like it's fine and I'm familiar with that shop and it is a quite a distance from the two streets. So, it does give it more visibility, but I want to know if it was kind of consistent with other ones that we've done in shopping centers similar. It's not It's not oversized. It's not. It's fairly comparable and really the only reason the planning commission has seen it is because the master sign plan didn't have a built-in allowance for larger signs like Hamilton Plaza. That sign plan allows signs I believe up to 100 square feet to be approved by staff. So all the different sign plans have their own rules and some are a little more conservative than others like this example.

Thank you. Thank you. Um okay. Yeah. Do you know what the side uh off hand what the size of the current sound is? I do not know. Uh and just one other question if it's proper to ask and I think it is. I so I know that that center is one of our housing opportunity sites that we and at one point the owner owner representative was having some preliminary discussions with staff about a possible housing project or redeveloping part of that center. This this sort of implies a new lease since they're moving to a new site. Do I take it that there's no action in terms of a I mean not an immediate time frame due to a number of economic issues but we are still having for the site in the future. All right. Thank you. Um question. Uh maybe this is more commentary, but are there any plans to update the master site sign plan so that if we wanted to have it 100 feet across the whole, you know, city for anything outside of plan like just so this wouldn't come up again, something kind of benign. I mean the fact that the site is you know identified for potential redevelopment hopefully in the near term future than not it's unlikely that property owner would want to go through a process to drop and propose and seek approval of a new master sign plan and that would something that they would have to list it on their own. Now the city could update its own local sign requirements but that's a much longer more complicated long range planning effort. Okay. That's not a priority at the moment. No makes sense. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And I have a question. Um, this sign, I'm sure it has lights in it, but it's not like the LED, you know. No, the city.

No, the city does prohibit signs. We do. Yeah, there are many out there. Those are all individuals other than reader board signs which display text like in a movie theater, but those aren't intended to flash. So if I noticed watching sign, do I report to code enforcement? Yes. Okay. Okay. Unless there's any other questions, is there a motion? Um, public comment. I'm sorry. Public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Bman, did you Uh, no. I I after the public comment. Public comment. Okay. Uh, is there a is there a public is there anyone for public comment regarding this item? Hearing none. Uh, online. Not. Okay. So, close the public hearing and this item. Okay. Uh, any discussions, please? No, I think it's fine. You know, uh it like commissioners says, it is pretty far from Campbell Avenue, especially back there. And I noticed with the new location, the new sign will actually be lower than the current sign is. And I was just going to point out by the way, just FYI, and I I didn't expect it to be. So, I read the applicant's letter, the applicant's uh architect, whoever wrote it, but it was really a pretty good letter. is really in depth and really explains the importance of these sign of sign ordinance sign issues all really are a big deal anyway no problem with this thanks okay thank you and if there's no more discussion is there oh yes yeah the the com I I found myself thinking like maybe we should talk about the the scale of the sign should be scaled so like the width of the frontage and stuff like that but given that I don't remember the last

time we had a sign request and this Truly, it's odd for saying to be set over 200 feet back from the street like seems like a oneoff or I don't think achieve anything. So, sounds good to me. Okay. Thank you. Now, is there any motion? There's no one. Yeah, sure. I'll move that the Gamble Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a sign permit ELN 2025-30 to allow approximately 97 square foot 36 inch tall wall sign reading rating Dollar Tree confining the project category exempt under section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. This is a sign at 148 North Santosino Road. I'll second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Uh roll call, please. Commissioner Scissor. Hi, Commissioner Majuski. Hi, Commissioner Ostroski. Hi, Commissioner Puffander. Hi, Commissioner Craig. Hi, Fields. Hi, Merkart. Hi. Okay, so this motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. Next item, uh, 20226 and 2030, capital improvement plan, CIP, uh, public hearing to consider the city of Campbell's 2026 2030 capital improvement plan for citywide projects for consistency with Campbell 2040 general plan. File number 2025. Staff is recommending project redeem exempt. Understo call. Daniel, you're right. Thank you again. So, this is the uh planning commission's annual review of the city's capital improvement plan. In this case, the 2026 2020 CIP. So, each year the city prepares a rolling five-year capital improvement plan that's used to project future

capital needs. As required by state law, the planning commission acting as the city's planning agency must review the CIP for consistency with the general plan. Then just as a reminder, the the budget or merit of individual projects are outside the scope of commissions review. So this is really just focus on general plan consistency. those notes in your staff report. Steph has gone through an exercise of looking at new projects added to the CIP, not previous ones, identifying them by name, the summary that is included in the summary sheet, and the identified general plan, policy, action or strategy uh that the project is found to be consistent with. Uh here we have the list of the new CIP projects on the current CIP list. And then based on the recommendation in the staff report, staff does recommend that the commission adopt the resolution finding the CIP consistent with the 2040 camp plan. And we do have public works and finance department staff here in attendance. Should you have any questions for them? Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. Any questions from members of the commission? I have a question about what we can question. Uh could you just be well first of all I want to say there's 13 new capital projects right and some of these are just carryovers to the fifth year am I correct about half of them are are are are then uh the funding period goes into 2030 and then the other ones I assume are new that haven't been on here before for instance it looks like the pool, which is has been a lot of talk about pool for a long time, but that actually hasn't been on the CIP in the past, and

this is a brand new project that's been added. Uh, for that, I'll defer to our finance public work staff. Good evening. Amy Olay public works interim public works director. Um so to answer the question on the poll that is a new line item new project that we've entered into the CIP. Um and the way we show it is we would start um the first allocation FY26 um using park fees. So this is a multi-million dollar project and um so we have multiple years of funding and in the out years we're also looking at um maybe like debt service to to complete the entire project. I have a follow up on that. How long will the pool remain closed during that process? Um that's something that's to be determined. I can't tell you the exact timeline right now a rough estimate like if you can if you can elaborate on the scope of the project and what well the entire pool will be redone. So um back about nine years ago, eight or nine years ago, there was a study done about the pool and what some of the improvements that need to um take place. And over the past um eight years, we've been having to fix different parts of the pool and even the locker rooms. They're just not to the um function that we would like it to be. Especially the pool is a um it's um a facility that is used by our residents for various

purposes for recreational purposes and other types of programming. Um, and so improvements were identified and we just haven't had the funding to move it forward, but as I said, you know, we've been putting maintenance money towards fixing and it's really gotten to the point where we really need to replace it. So we're public works we're working with recreation to um you know develop the improvement plan how that will be and um so that's why I can't really answer how long but it will be extensive period of time. So, so the the it says fiscal year 20 2 uh 2026 2027. That's not necessarily a reflection of it's going to be during those two years that it's going to be done and completed. No. Yeah. It it probably will take longer than that, but it's going to have those two years of funding to start with. So, it could be later in 26 that part of the construction would start. And then we're also looking at redoing the um the locker rooms as well. Okay. And I'm kind of dumb about the finance stuff. So, does this imply that the $12 million is going to be paid out in those two year in those two years or is or is there going to be loans that are going to then be spread out and that's a different line item somewhere? I'll turn it over to Nor. Good evening, Norvong finance director. To answer your question, um part of the funding source for the pool replacement, the lock room replacement will be debt and that debt will be spread across potentially 20 to 30 years. It just depends on the bond issuance that we we do issue in fiscal year 27. Um so that's still to be determined, but to answer

your question, it would be it will be spread over a number of years, most likely 20 to 30 years. And do the voters need to approve that bond? Excuse me. Do the voters need to approve the bond? No, it would just need council approval. I I have sort of a similar question on that of like we did this is mostly for my own edification. Measure O was for the library and the police. That was $50 million. This is $12 million. Does the city have a threshold at which they'd like to extend it to the voters or like what is like I I am supportive of a replacement to the pool. I'm just curious of like how this wound up on here. Did this already get approved by council or like just knowing a little bit more about the process. This project has not yet been approved by council. um we will be taken to council on June 3rd as part of our budget introduction meeting and ultimately will be approved by council uh June 17th, Tuesday, June 17th. Um beyond that, there is a process by which council will still need to approve the the bond issuance which is a process that will go to council very likely in February 27. Um so there's a iterative process to kind of get to that point. So, do you know how much of the 12 million will be from park fees and how much of it will be from for for a debt for a loan for a bond? Good question. Off the top of my head, I believe about $9 million will be um bond issuance and $3 million will be park fees. Of that $3 million, $2 million would be park fees in fisc 26 and then the additional $1 million in fiscal 27. Okay. So, the qu back to the question in terms of the threshold. So, if you're going to do a bond for 9 million and it's only a council approval, is is that because it's under some threshold that allows that? Um, it

would not be a tax increase to our residents. I see. And so, it would be an operational expense, just a debt thing. Correct. While you're there, just I let me ask the same question just slightly different. Maybe you can't answer it this way, but but since so much of this is going to be bond finance and since the report said that we're like 35 years behind on the pool remodel rebuild, do you know why it's taken so long or why we're doing it at this particular time over the course of those 30 plus years? This is a fairly large expenditure. Um, and it required a number of years of funding from park fees from park fees. We wanted to get to a certain level of park fees. Correct. Go ahead. But in the meantime, of course, the cost of the project, correct? And now we're at a point where although we have a good chunk of park fees, as Amy mentioned, there's been year-over-year maintenance that's been required. And so at some point we weigh the cost benefit of maintenance versus just replacing the pool alto together. Yeah. I guess my thought is just, you know, our track, our community center running track is so well. I love I love driving by there. It's always used and the city's been so proactive on keeping up with that. But for some reason, the pool, which is also really used a lot, the city has not been. And I I just don't know why. Seems like there was a lapse there. But that's not a question. So I should have saved that. But any other questions? I have a commission. Um so um we're doing transit signal priority about when do we expect that to come online? Sorry, can you repeat that? When do we expect the transit signal priority uh improvements to come online?

Uh we are still working with VTA on this. This will be uh funded through BTA's um there's a grant program that they're providing us and so it'll probably take at least a year to implement because we're looking at different cabinets, different systems. So this will take some time to implement and right now it's hard to say a date because we haven't signed the funding agreement yet. Fair. Um, oh, while you're still here, I say this every year, uh, noticing that we have like a lot of money for street uh, improvements and not much for bike stuff. And given that we're doing the multimodal plan this year, um, are we locking ourselves into a particular carcentric mode of whatever street improvements we're doing? Because like presumably in two years and change when or roughly two years when we have multimotal plan, we have, you know, whatever street improvements we plan on doing to have our our bike network. Um are we going to be able to use the street repaving like to piggyback improvements on street repaving for example? Are we prohibiting that by making this particular plan or does that this allow for that? Oh, no. This will help actually with um with transit. So, that's one of the modes that we also transit riders. Um specifically the annual street maintenance budget. Are you for the annual street maintenance budget? Um we do use that opportunity to see if we can restripe the streets and provide bicycle facilities. Just similarly with the Hamilton sand resurfacing project that we will be bringing to council for approval. We are not just paving the corridor but we're also providing green buffer bike lanes. So if if we have a like once we have the city plan like that street maintenance

budget could be used to imple in part to that depending on how far we can go right if it's just if it's um on the streets we can certainly if it's striping we can do that but if we're looking at more extensive improvements then the majority of the funding has to go towards pavement if we're using the street maintenance. Okay. But it's not prohibited from painting bike lanes like like bike lanes. No, I wouldn't. Okay. And lastly, um I think you know that's that's the main thing I wanted to know about. Amy, I have a question. Um uh so uh this signal priority is it for you said transit, you mean buses or light rack? It's for buses. So this is working with VTA. We would uh change out our controller cabinets and put new firmware so that the buses can talk to each other so it's more efficient. the the buses can talk to the signal and get the green. Yes. Um and and what about um the the light rail? How about light rail? Light light rail. Um do they get priority as well or No, not part of this project. Okay. This is on for the buses. Buses only. Yes. Yes. Okay. Question. Um actually Commissioner Majiski. Yeah. First second. So for the traffic calming improvements, do we have certain projects identified already like certain neighborhoods already identified that need that or is it kind of just an anticipation of what and like based on past projects or how does that work? It's an anticipation. It's a program that we have in place where residents come to the city and ask for certain their streets to be considered for traffic calming. So we have a whole traffic calming policy that needs to be followed you know starting with um the residents um with a petition and the city would go out and evaluate what sort

of traffic calming measures and then we take um speed data and traffic volume before we can move forward. So, there's a whole policy that we have set up and this 50,000 is just to help so that if any of those streets qualify for traffic calming, then we have the funding to provide. You know, they could be um the few that we've done, they're they're more like speed humps or speed radar signs. We don't have we don't have certain places we've identified already that this is going. Not yet. No. No. I'm sure. Yeah. for the annual street maintenance line item. Um what is the process by which the the street locations are identified for maintenance? Um we go through an extensive um evaluation of the entire city's pavement network. We use a uh a software that is through Metropolitan Transportation Commission. It's called Street Saver. And every other year we do a a thorough survey of all our streets um with help from MTC's um u consultants and through that a determination is made on the condition of the entire network. So then the streets are measured through an um a rating called pavement condition index and from there we determine um which streets would be would be the right time for us to repave them. And for the past years, what we've done is we've come up with um with the five-year program, we would set aside three years allocation towards one arterial because it's just so much money, right, to address an arterial um street and then the other two years in the five-year program, we work on residential collector streets. And then what about potholes and things

like that that are probably too small to be prioritized in your overall process? Well, those are addressed through our maintenance. So, we have a maintenance street budget for those. These are more of the larger capital improvements and then can res do do residents uh submit y requests for those? Is that Yep. Okay. Can I ask one more question? So, um, there's a line item farther down. I don't know if I'm off not allowed not supposed to ask this, but there's one about the Hamilton Avenue Highway 17 southbound off ramp. That's $3 million. That's a carryover. Okay. So, it's my impression that that's only going to ever happen if we get some kind of CALR approval and monies. I I you know, we've been talking about that offramp for years, right? And then putting in I guess an extra lane or something or another left turn lane. I don't know what exactly. But it has this thing just been on here for a long time with the $3 million and just putting another year ahead or what's the deal? Well, we have you're correct. We've had this project program in our budget for quite some time and it's really a matter of resources. Um well, can we do that alone or do we have to have a CALR approval because it's part of the freeway system? Right. We do have to work with CALR because it is part of the CALR system. Uh we do have measure B money to to um for part of the construction and we do have some developer funds that will help us also to get this project started. We are looking at ways of starting that as

soon as we can get the resources pulled together. Um I do recognize this project has been in the books for some time. Um, but right now I think the timing is good too because we have the Hamilton 17 bicycle pedestrian overcrossing feasibility study that we're working on and it's that same vicinity and we once we have a couple alternatives we will bring those to Calrans and at the same time we can start some conversations about how we have this offramp project in the books as well. Thank you. Okay. Um I think those are all the questions. Thank you very much. Uh so um staff any any other information or that's it. I guess I guess we don't we don't uh we will make a recommendation right that's that is what you're asking us to do. Entertain a motion to adopt the resolution recommending approval to the state house. Got it. Okay. So, unless there's any other questions, I'm looking for a motion. It can be a public hearing. Technically, public hearing. Okay. That's right. Is there anybody here that wants to address the commission on this item? Seeing none, anybody online? No. Okay. So, no public hearing. Um uh so, um we did our discussion motion and action. Is there any motion? Any discussion? Well, okay. Was there any discussion? No discussion either. I'll make a motion. Resolution of the planning commission terming that the city of Campbell 2026 2030 capital improvement plan is

consistent with the Campbell 2040 general plan. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second motion and a second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Scissor. Commissioner Majuski. Hi. Mr. Ostroski. Hi. Mr. Buckfinder. Hi. Commissioner Craig. Hi. Vice Fields. Hi. Chair Kamar. Hi. Thank you. So that item passes unanimously as well. Next is our study session. Thank recess. I brought special snack. I vote for three minute. Yes. Let's Let's get it. Two minute three minute recess. Thank you.

We are back. So, um, so the next item is a study session, housing policies and programs. study session to discuss options for new housing policies and programs to support housing and affordable housing development in Campbell. Director Director Rob Beastwood is the presenter. That's me. You got it. Good afternoon, Chair Camcar. Commissioners, thanks for staying with us. Uh, give me one second to share my screen. I'm not used to presenting. Sure. I'm pushing the right buttons here. Okay, almost there. Okay. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, so I have interruption. You know me. Uh I'm going to lean I'm gonna introduce the item. Uh we do have online in Zoom. Can't see

them but hopefully can hear them. Uh senior planner Steven Rose, our housing manager Elisa and uh if we get into technical details, I'm going to lean on them heavily. Uh generally the item tonight is is meant to be um a learning opportunity for for Campbell. uh if we want to think about new policies and actions we could take uh about a third of the way through our housing elements to see if there's more the city would entertain or look at to stimulate housing production. So uh let me go through the item. My suggestion on the format uh deferring to you chair camcar is to go ahead and present uh there's four buckets of areas. What I could do is go through each one, maybe stop after each one, see if there's questions from the commission at the end if you want to open up for public comment and then we have speakers here and then you can come back and deliberate, provide feedback items. Sounds good. Uh so this starts with uh the status of Campbell's uh housing element six cycle housing elements. The commissioner remember you were heavily involved back in 2022 23 in advising the council on shaping the housing element. Uh the housing element is intended to to show how we do plans, policies and programs to support housing affordable housing and more importantly um produce enough housing through planning for and permitting to meet the city's assigned arena. Uh the city's assigned rena which is the amount of housing uh that's designated for the city to build is over the sixth cycle up to 2031 2977 units. Uh the commission might remember uh this city planned for a lot more upwards of five to 6,000 and you might remember uh this was a key pivoting point for the city. Uh we planned for a lot lot of highdensity housing. So we have housing designations of transit oriented development, highdensity housing, commercial corridor, all between 25 and 75 units

per acre. Uh that being said, over the last two years, uh due to a couple factors which I'll I'll go into pretty fast, uh the amount of housing production has not been on track to meet our arena. Uh to date over the roughly two years, we've permitted 270 units. uh glad glad to announce uh of that we have 86 below mark rate which is which is not a small amount but if you take that that pace and that cadence of how we're producing housing over the first third of the housing element cycle and project that going forward with no changes current housing market current programs uh we are projected to underhit our arena target. So if all is being equal the cadence is the same we would produce about roughly 687 700 units that is is pretty far below our roughly 3,000 reena and then in the below market rate category as you see on the right the low very low and moderate those would also underperform under this current pace uh I'd say despite all the actions the city has taken so far housing production both market and low market hasn't met our targets. So what's causing this? Um we've done a lot of stakeholder outreach engagement, talked to market experts, talked to developers, talked to affordable housing developers, gone to conferences, uh just try to unpack what are we doing right, what are we doing wrong and uh you know the two big things that came back are things that most of advised that are just outside of Campbell's um Valley Wick or control. So number one is and this was interesting. It was almost right after our housing element was adopted, the market turned, was starting to turn. It turned to a lot more. So, the combination of higher interest rates, if you want to borrow money, it costs a lot more to to pay on that debt. Uh, number one, higher interest rates. Two, construction costs. If you're doing

higher density development, the supply chain and the costs of the construction materials to build that are much higher. At the same end, the the rental market, which is typically high density, has softened a bit. Um, so you put those three things together and and most developers who do stack flats or high density say it's just not going to pencil today. It costs too much to build, it costs too much to finance, and you can't get enough return on. I'd say more recently with the current federal administration, there's even some more questions on the tariffs, how that affects that, and there might be some more questions on the construction market with the federal immigration policies that could affect that. Uh on the other hand, uh affordable housing is is key to meeting our arena. Those are very hard to produce because it requires a subsidy and usually a financing stack of grants and tax credits and funds outside of your normal housing financing. Uh there has been a a severe drop in the amount of affordable housing uh funding available in the last year or two at federal, state, and regional level. uh about 10 10 years ago, I'm trying to remember, to up until recently, the the county actually had measure A. You might have recognized it was roughly a billion dollars in funds. That money has run out. Uh was able to to finance one of Campbell's affordable housing projects. But in combination with that running out, severe decline, as you know, in federal funding and a decline in state funding, uh the ability to put money into these projects has declined. At the same time, the city doesn't really have a robust uh housing trust fund. It's in our plans to grow that. Uh you'll remember the city adopted commercial linkage fees, inclusionary housing, and move fees and some other sources. And over time, we are projected to grow it, but this time we don't have sufficient funds, but we could go to affordable housing developer and say here's 30% of the financing. All those factors together uh

lead to projects that just can't move forward. So, as a case example, uh Campbell has two 100% affordable housing projects that have been approved and they're sitting there and cannot build because they don't have the financing. So, one is the VTA Winchester site which actually did get county measure A funds and the other is a charities housing project up on Hamilton next to the Wesley Manor. And both those projects are approved, ready to move forward, but this time there's just not enough finance to make them go forward. So, uh, staff, uh, in doing research, talking to developers, stakeholders, uh, just trying to find out what what could we do in these market conditions that maybe could spurn more housing development has come up with four buckets of of potential actions and ideas we could look at. So, I'll go through each one and pause after each bucket and for council question, I'm sorry, for plan commission questions. So uh number one is uh more support for affordable housing projects. Uh one of the first things is as projects are being approved but they can't pencil and develop uh one immediate thought is just give them more time uh to allow them to get financing. Uh today our affordable housing projects if you qualify in our affordable housing overlay zone most do uh can get a three-year entitlement. Our planning period uh staff's proposal is in this current challenging market to extend that to five years to give them more time. Uh with each of these, I wouldn't be my duty to say there are some trade-offs with all this. Usually by extending those entitlements, there's an off chance that new codes could come into play that wouldn't affect a project. We're not aware of anything dramatic uh that the city's planning or otherwise. But again, when you instead extend entitlements, these projects some sometimes aren't um reflective of new codes or policies that the city adopts or other other

codes. A second way to help affordable housing projects is again look at what's another way perhaps provide subsidies. So, as I mentioned before, the city doesn't have enough money in its housing trust fund to really subsidize an affordable housing project. Uh the plan commission might remember our first step was well if we can't provide monies maybe we can give you a break on your fees. So as part of the uh affordable housing overlay zone that was adopted last year uh a qualifying affordable housing project can get a 50% reduction in its park fees. Um so if you look at the example shown below uh if a if a example project I know Stephen Rose is online he can provide more more information you need it. example 100 unit project was to pay two million in uh park fees under the current affordable housing overlay zone. You could reduce that and they would only pay one. Uh staff is recommending this very tough climate while we don't have money to support a project for at least the next two years uh that the city consider waving all uh park fees for affordable housing projects. So that would provide for this case study up to a $2 million subsidy which would help the bottom line affordable affordable housing projects. It would be our proposal after two years reassess how much money do we have in our trust fund the state of the market. We could end that program or continue it based on circumstances. Uh number three in the bucket of supporting affordable housing projects. Uh so for an affordable housing project to qualify to get a park reduction, it has to meet two requirements the city has. Uh the commission might remember we have the multifamily development and design standards, MFDDDS. Two key principles in those that are the heart of those uh design standards. One is if you're next to single family residential, you have to step back your development so it's not looming over the single family

residential. That's one design component you would have to adhere to. And the other is in key target commercial areas of the city. The city really wanted to preserve groundf flooror retail and a lot of thought went into not across the city requiring that but in key corridors like Winchester and Hamilton. Uh we do have at least one case study where uh the affordable housing project at VTA Winchester is really struggling to meet that ground floor retail requirement. I think because they have to satisfy on-site bus parking and and a lot of requirements. Uh we have also observed that in in several other cities including San Jose typically they they wave groundf flooror commercial retail requirements and we have heard from affordable housing developers it's typically very hard to finance their project if they have to do ground flooror retail. Uh because of all those factors uh we are recommending the city consider waving at least for a two-year period not the adjacency standards but the ground floor retail requirement on 100% affordable projects. And there's not many of these projects that come along, but to help their bottom line because it's so difficult to meet those uh that'd be something that would support those projects. So with that, I'm going to stop uh there. Again, there are three potential actions in this bucket to remind the commission. One is extend the entitlement period. One is to reduce park fees or wave them completely for 100% affordable. And one is to wave the ground floor commercial requirements. And so if there's questions at this time, I'm open to it and so is our senior planner now. Okay. Um and let's start questions. Commissioner Astroski. Um yeah, thank you for that overview. So um if we were going to extend the the duration from the application date from I think three years to five years you said. How is that impacted or and then if we also extend you know reduce some

of these other requirements for a period of two years how do those two reconcile? Oh probably don't. Uh so one is just the entitlement. So the plan approval period would be extended longer give them more time to b pull a building permit. That's one bucket. The other two buckets of the reduction park fees and the commercial uh was intended just I just consider them separately for a two-year period knowing we're in this difficult market at least for two years um to consider ways to help this project. So I don't think there was thought there's an approval. Yeah. So let's say they apply for the building permit then they have now five years to execute. Right. Right. But then if we uh you know reduce the ground floor retail requirement and we say it's for two years. Is it for two years or does that get extended to five years based on how they're and if I could maybe hop in here and help clarify most of these housing development projects we have applying for the city are entering through what's called an SB330 pre-application process which is both locking in the development standards and the fees at the time of application submitt. So, say a 100% housing affordable housing development project were to come in during a period of time, say this two two-year window in which the city has suspended its its fees for 100% affordable housing projects for the park fees and suspended its requirement through round floor commercial. They could continue to proceed with that entitlement, get approval. Then that approval itself would be granted for a three-year period by which point they would then then need to pull building permits and then come forward with their building permit in a timely manner. So they they the policies they can work together that you look at them

independently but there are mechanisms in place that would allow for develop and take advantage. Okay. Rob, can you recap that because it was really hard to hear? Yeah, Stephen, just so you know, it's a bit difficult to hear you. Yeah, I I'll switch my headset and see if that improves the situation. Thank you. I think Stephen was walking through the process that happens to actually get an extension or to to how long it what you have to do to pull a building permit within that period. I mean I guess to just trying to unpack your question a bit more is is the question why aren't the two programs reconciled in terms of two years versus five years? Well no it's more like um if we extend if we kind of reduce the burden by by eliminating ground floor retail for years. What does that really mean in the context of putting a development proposal and building it? When does that start? Can can everyone hear me better now? I've switched my headset. That is better. Stephen, go ahead. Okay. So, I I'll I'll try again. Um the answer I was trying to provide earlier is many of these housing development projects particularly the 100% affordable housing developers are savvy enough to apply for what's called an SB330 pre-application. So this is this is a the mechanism by which they can lock in the development standards as well as fees at the time of application submittal. So, for all intents and purposes, the developer comes in during a period, this 2-year window in which the city has suspended its park fees and its ground floor uh commercial requirements, then they are subject to that all the way up until their entitlement. Once they're entitled, they would have a three-year window in which they could be pull say their building permit. That would be an example of how the the policies could work uh together, but we could also look at them as independent actions. Okay. So, in essence, we're basically so

we're saying that we would be waving these requirements for potentially up to five years or what like seven or eight if we choose to extend that that period that they have to pull a permit. Well, you'd be waving it for the two-year window, but for that window, any development permit that came in would be subject to those rules at that period of time for three years for three additional years. The three years is post is is but at which point in time they need to get their their permit, their building permit. It's a vesting concept. So, they go to the planning commission of the council for their entitlements. they'd have up to three years to uh pull their per permits or take other action to vest their entitlement. So, so once once they're vested, you know, let's say they pull their permit, is there a completion date for the project or Yeah, generally it's governed by building code. Uh my current understanding of it is they so they need to go show continued progress on their building permits. I believe it is one year that they have to continue showing meaningful progress, continuing to schedule inspections, continuing the work. At some point in time, the city if if they're not meaningfully moving forward, then that might be an issue for the city where we might consider uh taking action to compel completion, but generally not. So long as they're continuing to move forward, you could be working on a project for an extended period of time. So this is just to secure the building permit five years. So I guess I can help answer the question. So I guess the idea is we have a tough market right now for affordable housing if either a current project approved or a new project comes in the next two years. We're hoping so that doing the park reduction will help their financing stack and the waving of the commercial

would help them pencil. speak up. The waving of the commercial requirements and the and the reduction of park fees would help them finance the project. That's the direct intent of those two actions. And then separately, just because the getting reduction park fees alone is not going to help pencil an affordable housing project. These these folks have to run around and get tax credits, federal funding, private funding. So the whole idea is the three to five years that might provide some funding but the three to five years just gives them more time to develop that financial stack to build the project before they pull the building. So right now what would happen I'll give you an example uh like the VTA Winchester project is approved. It has a three-year approval window. If they don't have the financing to build it that that will expire and they'd have to go back through the process in three years. When you say they, you mean county or VTA or the developer? It's the affordable housing developer. The developers but but is there an option if if they come upon the thing there if there's example the Winchester VTA so whenever the deadline is I don't know when that is but do the does the city provide an option for them to come back and us to extend it now? They came to us and said we need another couple years. Is there a mechanism presently? Sure. It's a good question. Yes. In short, in short, yes, there is a mechanism by which the administratively the director can grant a one-year entitle one-year extension of the approval for periods of time greater than that. They need to go to the decision-making body. So, they need to come back to the the planning commission if for planning commission action for a period of time, say two two additional years. Okay? that would remain that would arguably remain on the table. Okay. So, so if there is a mechanism, it seems like Yeah. The problem I got with

the five years is that we're going to be out of the we're almost gonna be out of the cycle if it goes, you know, we're going to be so far out. We're we're already whatever it is, we got five five and a half years to the end of the cycle. Okay. So I if there's a mechanism already and where we can extend it I I'm not seeing the the need personally to to extend it to five years and I do see a downside to the five be years being a long time. I understand it's harder for them. I wish somebody would fix that problem or the state would provide funds but the fact is that if we already have mechanism we extend it. I'm not sure. The other two things, the park fees, the waiver, the the commercial. I'm good with that personally. Is there a question in there? Is Well, I don't know. We were really This is a study session, so I don't know if we're just doing the same kind of process that we would do in a regular I would. Yes. So, so if you have a question, you know, um we're going to get together to the discussion section. Okay. So, I asked the question and I got the answer. Okay. Thank you. Any other question? Is the parks fee the largest fee that we put on new housing development? Yes. Why do we fund our parks by taxing new housing instead of by taxing everybody? Just as a broad question like we don't really fund anything else by doing that as I understand it. Well, there's been a philosophical question there. Uh but I guess I guess the straightforward question is there are many impact these cities have and the philosophy and nexus is that as you build new development those new residences or users come into the city and have new demands on services and the nexus is as you build more housing those

folks need parks you leverage impact fees to pay for the new parks they and it's also I understand politically a lot easier to tax developers as opposed to tax people who live and vote here. Um, I guess on a broad sense where I'm coming from on here is I remember when we were talking about our policies and programs, it was kind of a worry that we overshoot maybe or if we overshot and we built too much housing and clearly that is not where we are. So like I I kind of wrangle the idea that we're calling this a subsidy like we tax new housing to get parks. Like in some cases we tax new housing to get new housing. That's what inclusionary zoning is. If we're not getting enough, like if if we're looking for ideas to make this better, we should stop taxing new housing and find a different way to fund our parks. Not saying we shouldn't fund our parks, but like we have me districts for a reason. We have bonds for a reason. Like if this is a a significant this doesn't just affect affordable housing developers, this affects everybody. And I remember when we were talking about extending the Yeah. Can you make it into a question, please? So, we're in the question. Can we can we change this from just having questions now to having discussion? Question. So, how about Can we do both though? I think we want to get all the information out on the table. Sorry. I'll come back to my speech later. My only advice is you might want to before you deliberate, you might want to open a public hearing before you find feedback. Typically, you want to open the public hearing, get feedback, stakeholders. Two more seconds. Uh, I'm going to let two more commissioners go and then I'm going to open public. Yeah, just grab and then I'm just curious. Uh, and you mentioned San Jose and I know they've done a lot in trying to boost what what everybody is, the whole state, what our planning commission is doing, every planning commission in the state and every planning department and every city

council is doing. Uh, have other cities eliminated park fees? You know, uh, I know I know cities that that do. Yeah. Okay. I exactly yeah practice has been done for camp for the city of Campbell eliminating the park fees would have what effect on the parks generally do you have any sense of that that's that's a big question I couldn't give a direct answer I guess I'll say two things one is of course um you would see less money come in so that case projects of 100 units it would be $2 million less now the argument the other way is these projects can't finance So, if they don't get some sort of subsidy and actually go forward, the money would never come in to start with. Well, actually, they're not they're not getting the financing. I could talk here from now until next Wednesday uh with questions about that. And I just wish I knew the development process more. Uh and this I think I'm going to get to a question. This is my my quick big screen. Maybe it is. I hope it's hope it's not. So, so we have all government have we have been working giving all kinds of uh incentives and and breaks on fees to try to enable developers to make their what the BAA BAE urban economics told us a year ago was an 18% profit marriage. I don't know if that's meant or gross, but we're we are we government we are doing all we can to make sure that developers make their 18%. But then they go to the uh yeah then they go to the lender and they cannot get the financing. So my question is have we have cities do do cities in general do they talk to the

actual lenders to try to go from that angle to see how we can get this actually actually get these housing projects made? Yeah, I will say that we haven't done a deep dive with numbers. It's a good suggestion. Uh we talked to economists who work in the market on sale lenders. Uh I would differentiate market rate developers and affordable housing developers. That was my other question. Yeah. Uh, in terms of nonprofit housing developers, is their profit margin? I I know they have to have a profit margin, but I imagine it's substantially less than for-profit developers. Is that true or no? Well, by by nature, they're nonprofit. They have to make enough money to pay their staff. They're not in the business of making But it's got to be less, right? I don't know. Yeah. Eloisea might be able to chime in. Exact. Yeah. Probably a little bit more. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, yeah, you know, that's it. Thank you. Um, how did we do relative to other cities in terms of the number of units built and projected compared to the expectation? Good question. The best I can give you is an anecdotal answer. I haven't pulled all cities uh to my and actually I was talking with our attorney about this earlier. I think all cities are struggling. Um and you know we actually did look at the biggest city in this county San Jose folks kind of a and even they uh based on the reports I've seen have not seen any high density projects come in the last two years. A lot of what you're seeing if you look north on Basum a lot of that stuff was entitled and permitted prior to the downturn. Uh but I know they've taken some more action similar to what has been proposed here to try and incentivize for high density development. Uh the only exception I've heard of is Santa Cruz for some reason was doing a lot of housing development. I don't know much about that market but say within this county based on talking

to my peers u most of all cities are struggling with the exception of and I'll talk to it cities that more double down on the low density housing. So if you look down at like Morgan Hill and some of those areas where they really plan for town homes out high density, that's penciling. So I think they're doing a little better. That's good input. Thank you. Okay. Um before I open it to public uh hearing, um you know, I just want to let you know that not all cities charge the same parking fees like Certino's park fees is are you guys sitting down? 108,000 per new unit. I mean it's like really drastically different because it's so difficult to find um space there you know so I have clients who just Anyway and commissioner chair camcar do you want me to finish the presentation first before you open the public hearing or uh actually let me pull the let me pull the commission because that's a great question um uh does what do you guys what do you guys think I think I think it'd be good to hear from the public now on this section rather than move forward on all the topics as a yeah as a respect to the public. So is there anybody in public that would like to address us? Okay, please go ahead. You go and then wonderful. Hi there. My name is John. Okay, perfect. My name is John Pringle and I appeared before you uh in October representing the owners of a mixed use site at Basum and uh Campbell Avenue and we were proposing a uh

200 uh plus unit project in two phases and uh first of all we I wanted to mention I don't think they need accolades, but your staff has been uh very open, great communication and uh real professional. I appreciate that. So, a lot of good things have come up here and I I want to commend uh uh uh you for in the packet there's a citation of a there's an article a a summary of exactly what is wrong with the production of housing in California called streamlining. Um and it's in the back. It's a it's a wonderful piece. I encourage you to read it and it perfectly describes the predicament that market rate developers like myself, I do entitlement but I'm also a developer uh face today. And um in in the uh to kind of bottom line it we we have two two or three things going on simultaneously. We're encouraged to build more density, but we're penalized by the requirement to deliver below market rate housing, which is a subsidy to those residents, which adds costs and make our projects infeasible. So to give you an example on the preliminary underwriting of our project, the uh below market rate requirement uh initially presented to me by staff is a $12 million reduction in value simply by taking the number of below market rate units, taking the difference between the rent we can the maximum rent we can

charge them and today's market which I'm basing it on other class A new projects right down the street and that at a capitalization rate in the market today is $12 million. Then I add park fees in Gamble of $4 a.5 million. So now I'm at a $17 million reduction in value. I'm giving you accurate numbers. Our project will cost 130 million to build. I priced it completely twice. I have a bid for 135 million. I'm running out of time if you allow me to go. Okay. And and the project therefore is not is not feasible. Something has to give. It's a great site. can't. And what we are trying to achieve is simply a global 6% return on our money. I'd love to make 18%. We're not even close. We're hoping that the project is worth more than the debt when we finish it. In $130 million project, you have to go raise $50 million of equity. So, to Mr. uh Eastwood's point is projects take time now and we have all of these other issues to deal with. But what I would encourage this group and and Rob is not to a summary yet. We need a density bonus would help but we need to build with wood frame. This is a large project, right? I'm talking large projects. You can't build them out of concrete. Concrete's 30% more. So, and and concrete construction in Campbell is not feasible now, and I don't think it will be in seven years. So, you'll never get units built uh on market rate during

this reena cycle out of concrete in Campbell. I just don't see it happening. How many stories are you thinking? It's it's five five floors over two levels of parking. Yes. So, and that's the limit, right? because you talked I I can build a 75 ft. So, but but when you're saying about using concrete that that means you go higher with concrete. Is that correct? You go higher with concrete. But I we don't want but it's not that we don't want higher but but I don't need to go higher. I can build more density. I have I just completed in in 2022 190 unit an acre project. That's again five stories with a 60ft height limit. So I'm glad if I I'll take my 75 ft limit, but please give me more density. That helps, but it doesn't help if I have to take this below market rate program as structured is kills the deal. And that's all I'm saying. And I'm no different than any other big developer that's going to look at what the ask is. You would rather pay an enly rather than deal with Well, I'd rather pay an enly, right? San Jose, the enlou fee I paid was $120,000 for each below market rate unit that went in a bucket. They gave it to affordable housing developer. I understand we don't have that here. I would say there's a combination. The very very low units kill us. The moderate units today, there's very low, low, and moderate, right? The moderate units today are very close to market rent. So, what's the point of a moderate unit? Well, they'll forever be under HUD's rent increase guidelines. So, in a way, you're putting those under a rent control, which today is really okay because I can get the project probably

built. But I'm suggesting to you that my threshold, I'm not penciling out close to a 6% return on cost. Uh, I'm in the low fives and I have $17 million of value gone from park fees, which by the way, San Jose has targeted 25 large projects to eliminate park fees, including I'm not including downtown San Jose, which has eliminated park fees and eliminated below market rate housing requirements as long as you build 12 stories or more. So, and San Jose has also targeted 20 projects for reducing the BMR requirements. So, to make your arena numbers, something's got to give because right now your own analysis is saying you're going to be 2,000 units short. and uh uh by 2031 and you know I'm in the market rate business and our rents have gone down by the way and are still down 20 we're down 20%. Uh at one point uh so the market when you put units in the market it calms the market down and it's a supply demand issue. So there's my com question please. So on on the fact that you say you want more density, but but you you don't you don't need you're not talking about going higher. You're talking about getting more density by having less low market rate units. Is that what you're saying? Putting in I'll I will shrink some of the units we have. I'll have a little less open space plans and I I mean I have to look at our architecture, you know. So, so we don't have density doesn't solve my problem on its own, but but we would approve uh smaller units. I mean, it's not like we wouldn't give you more density on smaller units, right? But you're also saying the open space area if two is an issue. Is it really an

issue? Well, yeah. I want we want this, you know, our ownership wants to own this project for 20 years and they intend to uh I'll lead the effort to seek out capital that agrees to a long-term hold. It's going to be a family project with a partner that agrees to own it for years and years, which is a nice thing, by the way. And there are a few developers in Bay Area that do that. Long-term families you've heard of. And um so we'll look at higher density, but I need relief from this ownorous below market rate requirement. Giving me more units with more below market rate requirement doesn't help our fundamental problem today. But the market is turning. And your comment about the cycle is a very interesting one because we have started an upcycle and all we have to worry about now is tariffs in Japan, a trade war with all of our suppliers, Canada shutting off our lumber and you know all this stuff. So you you have to get to a basic return. It's it's a crazy time to be in this business and that's why so many large developers are not building. Okay, got another question. So this is a little later in the the discussion, but uh so if I understood you correctly, the the fundamental problem is the the chunk that the below market rate mandates take out of your um the value. So even if you have more units, it still takes a chunk out of that. That's just that that's the key thing. If um counting smaller units as half units for density purposes, is that is that something that's useful to market rate development? It is, but you know the the the whole world is doesn't want to live in a 500 foot apartment and I have those in San

Jose in that 190 unit density per acre project which is 130 units on 2/3 of an acre. And the average unit size is is under 700 square feet. Our unit size here is closer to 800. And we're planning for a studio, one bedroomedroom, one bath, two bedroomedroom, two baths, and I think we've popped in some threebedrooms. So, a a diverse unit mix. Plus, I'm putting in more parking here because we think people in Campbell want parking and don't want to see cars everywhere in downtown San Jose. You know, there's no parking requirement anymore. Well, I disagree with that. I think people are going to use, they're going to commute, they're going to keep vehicles. Uh I don't know who's going to outlaw them. Somebody will try to but but we need to park people and put them under underground and you know this location across from Prunard you can't have a better location. Okay. For apartments. Um is are there any other question? Yeah I got another question. Yeah. So the 17 million that is like this big number right. It's like 180 unit complex right? Is that what Yeah. it with our maximum density and bonuses we get to I think uh Rob and Daniel felt we could get to 203 or 205 units and then how many are below market rate is it 15 or 20%. Well it's are you taking uh density bonus now it looks like we have we would have 25 because we're doing it in phases we would have approximately 25 units uh using the density bonus uh I believe that's right Rob using the density bonus uh program as designed

now and there were 17 of those were very low okay and that those those are the ones that are discounted up to 2300 a month below market rate so I guess my question is is there some middle ground it's like yes, we can we can't give up the we can't have you give up the 17 million to pay out 17 million, but it's like if there was a middle ground where the the below market rates were less, the density was more and that you could end up only being eight or 10 million instead of 17 million. Right? I think there is a middle ground and I would propose that you uh allow developers to propose a middle ground and uh we do it under a development agreement and uh you know I need time to raise 50 million. I'm a little bit worried about getting an entitlement. By the way, we already spent a million dollars. Get an entitlement and have it expire in two years given this current administration. I'm not trustful of of the horizon. However, my owners are trustful that, you know, they want to own this project long term, but maybe an office building is better thing. I I'm an apartment guy and I think this is a great house. Okay. I have a question too and it's regarding so we always use units per acre as our you know measure of density. I'm wondering if instead of units per acre we should consider switching to bedrooms per acre. So because you build a five five bedroomedroom house, you still have one kitchen and you know um several back which are the most expensive part of

building a house versus uh studios one bedrooms or two bedrooms which still have that kitchen or kitchenette. um is is that a possibility where it would allow you to I I don't think so that in our in our own language it's really units per acre and we you know put in more it cost you in a way more because I mean our our cost right now is six $640,000 a unit to build this this unit quite a bit more than single family homes that's problem with multifamily housing today it costs so much and of course that that includes the 4 five million of park fees and it it includes interest costs and you know it's all in that's what it costs. So I I think the perunit method is the way to do it. Now there's, you know, staff has talked to me about the opportunity to uh build the smaller units and frankly I got to get there to look at that consider. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Just a followup. Um thank you for helping us understand all of this from your perspective. It's very helpful. Um and I was also doing the math on the it's like around a thousand square feet to build kind of based on what you said. Pardon me. It's It sounds like it's around $1,000 per square foot to build. Yeah, a little bit under that. It's It's coming out to Well, remember you're we're building two levels of below grade. So, that cost is being added into the apartments. So, we're we're around uh uh uh with the units about, let's see, averaging about 770 costing 640,000 a unit. What's that? 8 $900 a foot. $900 a foot. Yeah, it's significantly more than single family homes. That's very useful to know. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank

you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh Jim. Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Sullivan. Uh members of the commission, it's good to see all of you. Welcome. Um so I want to start out by saying uh that Rob and his team at the planning uh department I think did a a tremendous job reaching out to developers both market rate and nonprofit and um really and it wasn't just lip service. It was you know give us your ideas, right? We're trying to tackle a problem uh that we're seeing. I was here for all of the RENA, you know, meetings that you guys went through and and congrats to you guys and your city council for being one of the first cities getting your thing approved. And I can tell you, I do developments in a bunch of cities. This is happening throughout the Bay Area, right? So, I see town home developments going forward, you know, duets, obviously, single family detached homes. I see just a complete stoppage of doing like podiums or Texas wraps things like I mean things that when you're in the 60 unit per acre range it's just and as John you know rightly pointed out it just kind of doesn't pencil out. So a couple of things that I and by the way I am bringing two projects forward two additional projects besides the Lwellen and the Virginia Avenue. So, um going to put another 111 projects here into the city of Campbell sometime soon. Uh the deferment of fees, um right now, uh the park fee, as I think Commissioner Bookbinder had had pointed out, was one of the largest fees that the city

charges, right? So, for town homes, $22,000 a unit was a change. And I think unless it was a misprint, it said those fees are due at final map recordation. Stephen Rose, uh uh correct me if I'm wrong. And that in my opinion isn't fair, right? It really should be done at the very earliest, a building permit, right? As you pull a building permit, you pay a fee. But really, theoretically, it should be at certificate of occupancy. Nobody's living there. you're not creating the need for park space until a family kind of moves in there, right? And that helps the bottom line particularly if you have a 100 unitit project. Um the other thing that I wanted to offer was uh and and I was the big person behind this uh Rob's mention of the city trust fund, right? So measure A is gone. Uh they were playing with coming coming up with another one and then they said time's not right. not going to do it. State funding is down, federal funding, forget about for the next, you know, three and a half years. And so the city, what can the city do to collect funds to help out the nonprofit builders to create more affordable housing units? And in my opinion, so you guys are changing something and when the new affordable housing ordinance comes into play from now on, anything I think up to 049. So if you if you're 7.49 49 units are are required. You would pay a 0.49 fee which could be several hundred thousand of dollars. What you the mistake that the city made was they said if it's 0.5 or higher we're just going to you know go up. Again I don't think that that's fair. I would like to see any decimal point is money that comes in to the

city's pocket right as an enloo fee. It's not even an enli it's because you're still providing the seven units, right? If it's like like let's just say 7.9, right? Okay. The city will say you have to go to eight. I'm saying keep it seven and then that 0.9 pay that in a fee. You write the city a check for $700,000 in the case of a town home. The city has that in their pocket. But what I'd really like to see, and you could do this with a development agreement, by the way, is for the city, every developer, in my opinion, is going to want to do at least 10% affordable housing because they get density bonus law. You remember all the waiverss and the concessions and things like that. That's a really good thing for developers nowadays to have. So developers want to provide 10%. if they could fee out of the rest, they probably would. And that could be like I'm just going to take the PY project, right? So there's 16 affordable units that are going to be built. If we only had to do, you know, 10 and we feed out of six, we would write the city a check. I mean, PY would have written the city a check for $4 million in my opinion, still providing 10% of the units on site, but now the city has $4 million that I don't know if that swings, you know, the deal for the VTA units, you know, to be uh constructed, but being creative, right? and and with the state and the feds kind of out of the picture and other cities have done this. I know that the city of Fremont collected a lot of fees early on and finally went out to the nonprofit builders and said what do you guys need to build you know your your projects and they had you know three 400 units built in Fremont over a you know four or five

year period all affordable. So with that um but I I do and I will say also that Campbell even though the numbers kind of look bleak I think that you are doing somebody had asked a question where are we relative to other cities the only city that I know that on a percentage basis is doing better is maybe militas and I'm doing some projects there right now but you guys are doing way better than Campbell on a percentage b or not you're doing way better than San Jose on a percentage basis they're not even close to 10% of the arena obligations and you guys are a little bit out with that. If there's any questions that you guys have, be happy to answer. Okay. Any questions for Jim? All right. Yes, Jim. As long as you're there. So, and and this comes up a little bit later, but the idea of pooling pooling in fees, bunch of different projects. Did I Did you look at that? Does that sound pretty feasible to you at all? But uh Well, when you when you're saying I think pooling I don't have the info right here. they uh look like just collecting from other develop you know other developments throughout the city. Yeah. I mean just the the so that so that 100% affordable project could be funded with this. Yeah. I I I mean you know there I I think that the thing that's keeping those people and now I'm not talking about the market rate you know the the what John was was dealing with. I'm talking about the 100% affordable projects right they need a boost. the city has the ability not even to I don't think that Fremont gifted the f the funds to a nonprofit builder. I mean, it was set up as a I don't know 30 year or 40year loan type situation, but it's just to get the project, you know, out of the ground, you know, and and built. And so, you know, um and then the other thing, uh there was something else. Uh oh, with regard to park fees,

uh I know that we kind of talked about that deferring that. Um but the the affordable housing, I just look at the two projects that had been recently approved and two other ones that I'm going to be coming forward with. It's a total of over 250 units, right? So 15% of that right is 25 + 12 you know 37 affordable units right saying if you did 25 units which would be 10% and then allowed a fee mechanism you know you guys raised your fees it's going to be close for town homes it's going to be close to you know a million bucks you know difference in revenue between a you know a moderate unit or certainly a low unit and a market rate unit. And I just think, you know, I mean, if if if you had a check for $10 million, you could help out a lot more than 12 homeowners. Okay. Absolutely. You can build a 100% affordable for much better rate than um part affordable part market rate, you know. So, yeah, it would be Yeah. And your part fees, you know, understand John's point. I mean, part fees do add up a lot, but relative I mean, Mr. chair, you you brought up yourself, you know, Certino's part fees, right? Campbell's Campbell's fees are are reasonable within kind of the South Bay market. Got it. Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Um, so staff, maybe we can continue on with the presentation. Propose I'll go ahead and uh pure discretion, I can continue. I know we've broached in probably all the topics. It makes sense just to go through the presentation and we'll just come back on your thoughts and

deliberations. Okay. All right. Moving on. The second bucket. Uh I think this was uh alluded to by one of our public speakers. Uh so while generally the narrative has been high density housing is very hard to pencil due to some market factors and in some instances need to use density bonus. Uh we do see potentially some opportunities in select areas on the commercial corridors where at 60 dwelling units per acre for all the requirements it's hard for these projects to pencil. If there was an upzoning to 75 units per acre, uh that actually could make some of these projects pens. Uh Mr. Pringle speaks to one project close to the pruner. I know we do have a number of areas on Hamilton and Baskam that are zoned at 60 units per acre and these were high density areas not really next to single family residential but if we are able to look at those target areas do some upzoning that actually helps these project p projects pencil that could be something we look at so tonight I'm not not bringing any specific sites to you but I think the concept of of knowing if there is a market for high density if the density is just a little bit higher staff would do more research and come back to the plan commission council of recommendations. Very good. I'll go ahead and move on to the next one. So, this is missing middle and uh as a pretext to this and alluded by your public speakers. So, this is actually penciling at this point. Uh high density is not uh we are seeing a number of applications uh Mr. Svin referred to a lot of town hall applications and we are getting a fair amount of interest in what we were calling the SB 684 projects. So these are new laws that allow you develop up to 10 units on small lots. Right now it's in multifamily districts that's expanding out to certain single family areas. Uh

we are seeing a lot of interest in that area. Uh I went recently to a ULI housing the bay conference where they get all the houses together up in San Francisco and had a lot of discussion on what's penciling what's not and I'll say there were a fair number of speakers that said for the next few years it's going to be really hard to do big projects but a lot of uh folks are saying this is the market that you could look into and develop. So these are the small up to 10 unit projects sort of micro development. Uh so the the next three suggestions are sort of what are things we can do to sort of tap into that market help it if it's opening up. Uh so the first one would be and the plan commission will remember this our inclusionary housing ordinance. It's graduated. Uh we expanded from 10 down to five units. You're required to have inclusionary requirements for the smallest projects five and six units today. You can just pay a fee uh under the ordinance that's adopted. If you're over six units, seven to nine, because the 15% rounds to one, you are required to to provide one inclusionary unit. Uh given and as alluded to by the speaker, we're still growing our housing trust fund and to put more monies in that fund and to help this market where it is a bit harder to finance these small projects. Uh staff is proposing considering extending that in ly five, six all the way up to nine units. So any project under 10 units rather than providing one unit on site will instead provide fees. This would be more of opening more fees coming into our housing trust fun. And what would the fee be? Uh the I'm going to look to Stephen and answer that question. The exact number is what you're asking. Yeah. Like how is it calculated? What's the number it uh it's well it's calculated based on the percentage the 15% affordable requirements um off the I don't have that number in my hand but based on that obligation there's a there's a inloo fiat component but it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars right

we're talking like 220 to 250 per unit or not or yeah rather than me giving you the wrong answer I'm gonna ask senior planner Steven Rose if he can weigh okay Yeah. So, when we established our new housing in Loufey program, it was b it's there's a formula, but the best way to imagine it's $60 per square foot um that that they'd be providing for multiplied against the total project area. So, it's not intuitive to imagine it like the unit that you're not providing it, but based on the total aggregate area of floor area that you are providing, that's what the basis is and how it's calculated. per square foot, right? So, it's it's it's a little bit more challenging to tell you on a per unit basis what it' be because it depends on the overarching size of the project and how what their average unit sizes are. Give us an example, you know, let's use a So, so if you're going to build like nine units at 1,000 square feet per unit, you'd be paying 540,000. Yeah. I think when when we had adopt when we established the fee the example that we had provided was an 89 unit project built with a 1,000 foot average unit size. In that particular case the project would be paying $140,000 fee. Wait, wait, no. That's No, no, that doesn't exist. You said Well, I'm sorry. That's for the fractional obligation. So, so you have to do the whole formula. Sorry, I I skipped a few steps there. So for 0.35 of a unit they would be paying a fractional amount of of the obligation. So but Stephen what would the total fee be for that example if the whole thing was in ly what would it be? Well you well you'd multiply in that particular case an 89 unit project was would be required to provide 14

inclusionary units. So at 14 inclusionary units, let me just bust out a calculator here real quick. So 14 inclusionary units at a thousand I probably want to get back to you guys. I probably want to get back to the commission to answer this question more specifically. What is it? But hold on, Stephen. Is it is it $60 per square foot on the entire project or is it just for the 14 14 units? Well, if they're feeing out, it depends on what they're feing out. If they're feeing out a fractional obligation, it' be based on Well, let's all 14 units. Yeah. So in this particular CA in that case you'd be $60 which would be the rate multiplied by 14 divided by 14 multiplied by the overall project square footage of the project at large would equal their obligation. Okay. So it's multiplied by the square footage of the entire project. Correct. So what's 5.34 million? Yeah, that sounds about right because for my for my little 9- unit project it was 540,000. Yeah. So in unit to answer commissioner sister's question in unit is when you pay money instead of providing the No, I know what the I didn't know what the rate. Well, the rate is $60. I didn't understand that they actually pay based on the entire project. Then that is what they're saying. Yeah. That seems like a penalty for building more units. Is that the normal file that's used? I guess if I can help. So the 15% inclusionary is a pretty standard

requirement across many jurisdictions. That 15% doesn't go to 20 if you build a bigger project. It's basically based on your unit count that you're proposing. But is is the is the fact of paying the inloo rate on the entire project kind of a standard way that is done versus just figuring out an IMLU rate for per units that are being not being built. Well, the only I'll say to start is if I reflect back to when we had this discussion last year in the nexus study and we looked trying to look at every jurisdiction and how they calculated in lofies was no golden rule. Uh so I mean we did deep dive research and we had PA advise us this is the methodology. Yeah. So so if so the reason you know since they're going with the entire they're using 60 if they were going to go with 14 they would have probably used 600 you know. So I understand it bigger. Yeah. At the end of the day 15%. Can I just So Rob, just a real general question that I had. Inloo in talking to uh affordable housing advocates. Have you found them to be in favor of Inloo fees in general or do they would they rather see the developers actually the projects? I you know I I'm a new development director on affordable housing developer but I I'd say I represent affordable housing industry the more money the city has in its trust fund that it can subsidize an affordable housing project. Oh okay. So the trade-offs are this with inclusionary housing ordinance where you build them on site. Uh the win is they're they're built right away. There's no delay. They're there. Um I mean they're harder to manage. We have a below market rate unit program and they're dispersed and that's good for not concentrating affordable requirements. So they're immediate dispersed management is is higher. We

have to have an administrator manage all these dispersed units. On the other hand, if you pay fees, um it it does help us take and leverage and get economies of scale. And typically you get more units in the end, but there's a delay building 100% affordable projects. I guess looking at it from the perspective of the public comments that we heard if if you're going to build a unit like we heard um going to cost 8 $900 square foot. So it'll end up being like an 8 to $900,000 unit versus if you're going to pay the inloo fee. It sounds like it's about $380,000 per unit that you would end up paying. So, it's like substantially less and you're not basically investing in a below market rent unit and going forward with that negative ROI. Just to check your your math there, $60 comparing $900 a square foot for construction cost and $60 a square foot for in fees. Would that be like for a thousand square foot? Well, no, it's not $60 per square foot for the like 14 units in that last example. It's $60 per square foot for the entire the the at market and below market rent square footage that's built. Maybe uh Stephen said he could come back with some numbers. I think the table format that it would cost differently in each case. Yeah, maybe having the table format like break down the cost structure of a five unit versus a seven to nine that we could look at. you're making a couple units way like way less profitable versus adding a fee to all the units in the development. At the end of the day, if you are doing different units, your efficiency comes down. If you're doing same thing over and over and over again, your efficiency

goes up. That's why a 100% affordable unit can bring those units to the market at a cheaper rate because they're only dealing within one, you know, bureaucracy. Whereas, when you're doing affordable as well as market rate all in one project, uh you're dealing with two different bureaucracies. And and it's not just the money, it's also the time and it's also the the the delay that it gives you. Those are huge to developers. Um anyway, um okay, so we can move on. All right, action two. This one should be a bit more straightforward. So the city does have undergrounding utility requirements. When you come in and build, the obligation is to take utilities on your frontage and and underground them under aesthetic principles of trying to get overhead lines underneath. Um sure, two things with this. Uh number one uh generally it's been my observation a lot of projects come in and demonstrate it's practically and financially very difficult to do this because the lines are often connected beyond the frontage and and deal with PG makes it very difficult. Commission might recognize uh you've seen a lot of requests for variances and waiverss over the years. I can't think of any instance where they actually were denied. When you get to small projects where the frontage is much smaller it gets much more infeasible, impractical and probably impossible. So I think recognizing that uh staff's recommendation is just to go ahead and wave utility underground requirements for the small projects under 10 units recognizing the practical infeasibility of likely doing cool. I see. Yeah. And last but not least, uh you might remember this discussion I believe came up with Daniel's omnibus miscellaneous ordinance. Uh we do have a new state law which I've already alluded to coming in effect which expanded 684 projects to single family neighborhoods. Uh per the state law uh cities can or cannot allow

JDUs and ADUs in these small housing projects. Uh the city currently has an inter ordinance that doesn't allow any ADUs whatsoever. I think that was a conservative approach. We're a bit concerned if you do 10 units on a small lot you add in ADUs JDUs. some practical and feasibility and questions on meeting our zoning standards and masking with that. Uh staff's looked into it more and believe at at minimum a Jedu is very feasible to do. JDUs are built within the four corners of a housing construction. Uh so staff is recommending on the 1123 684 projects uh to allow JDU projects. Again, this could help projects to pencil. We see a lot of projects that come in with a number of units and they just add ADUs on JDUs on top of those because they're more open to market can help those project pens better. Would they count as additional units or no? The JDUs they do not. Okay. So they don't count for RENA for the Reno. They they do to just clarify they do count for the regional housing needs allocation but they do not count against the total number of allowable units the 10. So when jurisdictions choose to allow ADUs they don't count against the 10 total. It's a win-win. is um for the smaller housing projects are the uh can the developer build the units in phases? They could it'd be often I mean these are often smaller lots. Um I mean for example and and Mr. Svin can speak to it with the large town home projects there are phases coming in. be hard to imagine on a small lot how many phases there could be. But that's it's possible for a developer to build it. I mean, I'm just thinking

like the financing and everything else. Yeah. Yeah. I can't think of a technical reason why not. It just seems more like but codewise we do allow for phasing of projects. So they each individual development phase would need to be completed within 12 months of the proceeding phase and they would need to somehow address any affordability obligations of it which might complicate matters in particular as it relates to a smaller project because we can't allow first au to defer all of your affordable requirement to the lighter phases unless of course maybe it's a an afford a density bonus project which is maybe something we'd need to look at at a case by case basis. So you said the second phase has to be completed within a year of the first phase. Yeah. Kind of an interesting section of our code dealing with permit entitlements. We spoke to it earlier where you know the director can grant a 12-month extension. Well, the original entiti when you originally get granted approval of a project, the code allows for phased projects where each fa provided that each phase could be 12 months further out than the last. So you could have a project that's approved with multiple phases and there's no real technical limit in our code where you could have each phase occurring within a 12-month window the last. So you can't you can't say I'm going to do phase one in in your in 2025 and I'll come back and do phase two in 2027. That won't work. But if you were to do phase two in 2026 that that's viable. And and the same would apply to 1123 projects. Yeah. And larger projects. Is that right? And larger projects as well. Well, that might be something to look at because I could imagine that a developer would want some return on an

initial phase before building the second phase um rather than doing that entire investment at once or or being obligated to complete it within 12 months. I would say everything we've heard around the uncertainty these days, it's like the bigger your project, the more you want that uncertainty to come down before you're going to move forward, but you might move forward if you had more flexibility in how you were operating with the phases. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree, you know, and you mentioned the gold world flexibility, you know, um if you provide flexibility, I think more people will take the plunge, you know, and um and come in for applications and because they know they're not going to get timed out, you know, at the end. Um, im imagine if you ran out of money and you had to sell your project, you know, I mean it's it's insane title, but you can't you don't have the money to finish it, you know, or to to actually construct it, you know. So, uh, these things will give a potential developer certainty which is one of the major items you need to have them to take a chance and do business in our city. that commentary. Can we add that to future could? Yeah, I guess my thought was uh almost at the end if you want to go back and we can just go through each slide and any feedback you have and just en capsulate it. U well why don't you finish your presentation and then you know we will. Thank you. All right. I have a lot of opinions. We'll save them at the end. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Last but not least, so this one is a bit speculative uh but we thought in a tough market why not be creative and I'll start off by saying it has some legal logistic practical

challenges. So uh take that with a grain of salt might evaporate in the thin air but the thought is um so there's I mean three ways to inclusionary one is inclusionary housing ordinance build on site 15%. That's one approach. The other approach is fee out you give the money to the city they pull enough money well. So this would be kind of I'll just use my own term a kind of missing middle where um you took two to three projects and their inclusionary housing obligations and you had a site available uh where you had affordable housing developer rather than take the money in and wait to pull enough rather than disperse those you could pull the inclusionary transfer it to a sending site 100% affordable projects and usually they can put in their own financing and get enough economies of scale to end up with more units than otherwise you'd get dispersed. So that's the idea. Uh there are you had a conversation earlier today with our city attorney on challenges with that. There's a couple uh legal questions that come up to doing that and the city would want to make sure that uh from a timing standpoint that the affordable housing project was built commensurate with the market rate. Yeah. So, at this point, this is just a thought process. We wanted to be transparent. Um, you know, we're going to look more into it legally and practically if we could do so. But again, it was given this market economy and how hard it is to stand up affordable housing projects. We might have one or two case studies where a project coming in now is actually reserving land and saying that's available for affordable housing developer. You could get creative with different projects and make this work. Is there something? So instead of in l they could be giving land a portion of the property say here's my um contribution. I mean in effect it's it's one developer would provide land and then three other developers would provide sort of a fee

out directly to that affordable housing developer on right it's the balance between providing on-site providing city and l fees and just trying to make these transactions work. Wow. Can they uh can they trade, you know, for example, is trading units a possibility? Well, that was the idea. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's like a carbon like a carbon credit, but Yeah. It's almost a transfer of development rights in some ways. So, you're talking about pulling the in woo fees. Yeah. Is that what you're talking about? Right. Uh well, so there's an inclusionary obligation with each project, right? 15%. If you had a 100 unit project, they have to have 15 units inclusionary. Taking that obligation and transferring it and sending it to an affordable housing developer, which would basically be a payment instead of the city, it would go to the affordable housing developer. They would use that with their own funds to build. But those pay you're talking about payments, but is that the payments is a different payment schedule or is it going to be the inloo fees that that they would pay? I I don't understand how the transfer works. Yeah. Well, these are some of the things we got to work out. So, the concept is you're transferring your inclusionary obligations. These are like carbon credits a little bit. Yeah. But if you had a willing affordable housing developer and they're looking to not wait for the city to build it trust fund and the timing was right, you're transferring the those obligations to that developer in the form of payments from the market rate so they can they can build the project. Would this be both for rental and for sale projects? I haven't my take is on rental. Yeah, we want the affordable units in the rentals. You know, that would be my take is like apartments affordable units make perfect sense. Below market rate for

sale, you know, it's like I could I could personally rationalize that. Yeah, guy builds a 40 units and there's going to be six units. Okay, just make that all market rate and then transfer the six. But rentals is rental affordable rentals is really important, you know. I think it's like and it's it's like uh you're transferring it from a part a rental place that has partial affordable rentals to a rental place because afford 100% affordable is always rental. We don't build there's nobody's building 100% for sale homes in my estimation. Right. It's they're rentals, right? So, it's like you're just transferring from those rentals over there to a 100% rental and seem less I would be less interested in in in doing the transfer for for rental places. That's that's my commander, you had your hand up or opinions. I have Oh, we are staff's pres staff has finished the presentation. Uh, we have this. Um, do we need to open up the do round of public comment now that we're finished with? Yes. Yes. Um, okay. So, the staff presentation is finished. Yeah. I guess what I I mean it's it's up to you how you want to conduct at this point. Uh, you have some other suggestions in the back. Guess I can go not but I guess was my suggestion at this time if you want if you want to go back to each concept idea and if you want to provide feedback on that I think we like to do that but I wanted to open it to public you know and see what their input is in regards to what they've heard so we can

be educated a little bit more so is there more speaking yes should I go first you go first all right thank you uh thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, four quick things. I'm going to take less than two minutes. The building in phases is a great approach and I think that you hit it on the head. One of the and I've done 80 dwelling units per acre like a Texas wrap in Militus, 389 units. The problem with that is you're building the entire building before you get any, you know, money. Crazy. Single family homes, town homes, you're selling as you go along, right? So the finances are completely different. There is uh create creatively you can do phased occupancy in even high density building sometimes with a with a great city and Campbell's certainly a great city. Um, something that John talked about before and I will say that that Campbell is not in accord with other cities in the South Bay is your forale housing requires a mix of moderate and low. The low really hurts on forale housing. Moderate is not too bad. All the cities do moderate on for sale. on the rental housing. Most cities do low and Campbell does low and very low. And as John had me mentioned, the very low is a killer. I understand why Rob and and the city is doing it that way because you guys have arena obligations of all of those categories and and the lower ones are harder to get to. Um really quickly uh on the a good way to look at like the the total cost if you're going to do an inloo fee. So seven units essentially 15% of seven is like 1.05. So basically seven units is where you're

required to do one unit. Yes. So if it's 2,000 square feet for all seven of those units, right? That's 14,000 square ft time $60. It's $840,000 for a moderate in Luffy for that one unit. And and I would pay for the one the 05 still remains right. Yeah. If it's 7,000 square ft time 60, that's $420,000 for one unit. 1,000 square feet. But your math was right on for the 800 or 900 square feet like about 340 grand. The last thing I want to say is a transfer of obligation I think is great. The problem that I see is when developers are going forward, it's a timing issue, right? A developer doesn't want to write a $10 million check when they're still a year and a half away from building. And then when they're ready to write that check, okay, we have it. Is somebody else ready to receive it? That's why I was saying I think it works best to build up that city's trust fund, you know, to have some sort of mechanism. That's all. Thank you very much, Mr. Pringle. Okay. Uh well, first u Rob's point about this uh transfer obligation. I have seen it in action. Uh I entitled and uh financed a 350 unit in Pleasanton. We had an obligation of 45 affordable units. um BMR units. I w we were offered I was working for a president of a family company major operator uh based in Los Angeles but we were we were offered by a firm who actually succeeded

in putting together the aggregation of units uh 50,000 a door we will take you pay us $50,000 a door is a little less than that. We'll take your 40 units of affordable or be bull market rate units and we're going to combine that with a couple other developers. One of which is one of the wealthiest developers here in the Bay Area. But well, no, one is uh based in Irvine, California. Had two major projects in Santa CL County. But anyway, it worked. I didn't do it because in our development agreement with the city, which was a good thing, the city said if that developer doesn't carry it off in there was four or five years, you have an obligation, it'll be a recorded obligation to put the 40 units into your current project from your stock. So, we decided to pay the $80,000 uh inlue fee per per affordable unit. That worked out to, you know, 80,000 times 45 units. We chose to pay that instead of paying this developer whatever it was 45,000 unit. But that deal did get together and did get done. I'm saying and I heard that particular developer that does that has done four or five of these. that was a a very large multif family developer based in Sacramento works in Northern Southern California. But it does happen and I I wouldn't say no to ever thinking about that. Uh number two, the only other thing is I want to reiterate that in the the very low low moderate changing the

mix has a a huge effect and the very lows are the killer. Uh the lows and moderates allowing us to change that mix. uh significantly helps. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um anybody online uh for No. So I'm going to close the public hearing of that. Um okay. So now can I can I ask one macro question for staff? uh the arena numbers if we miss them by one unit or a thousand what is the difference to the city and is there any granularity about missing the low income number versus the high income number like I just want to understand like if we're sitting here trying to make these like macro policy decisions is our in is it binary we either need to get 100% or we might as well have missed all of it or is there are there some sort of steps that we could then be shooting for? Well, I know I'll start attorney's office in uh it's not like horseshoes. So, it's not if you're close you cross over. So, generally have to cross over. I I do seem to remember I mean these are like SP35. They're laws where basically your discretionary billies as a city go away. uh without reciting it from memory I think there's one or two buckets where you have to meet low versus your in general but but generally the obligation is you have to it's not if you're close you have to meet yeah it is meeting a minimum number for all excuse me it is meeting a minimum number for all cases yes so we didn't hear that oh yes it is you have to meet the minimum number there's not a

if you're close there's some benefit and It's not only me and the total number, but also for the income levels. That's my understanding. Yes. And so if we miss any of them at all, unless we make every single one of them, the same thing will happen to the city. We don't know what that is. Well, there there's different levels of streamlining that depend on how far you've gotten in various levels. Is that I don't know how to square that with what they just said. I I mean SP35, if I may. SP35 is an example. There there's a test at the midpoint of your planning period, which is the 8-year AENA cycle. And what it pretty much establishes that if you're not hitting 50% of your I I believe you're low and and you're very low income categories, you're just subject to SP35 streamlining. I mean, hitting one less unit than that doesn't change whether or not you're subject to streamlining, if that's the question you're getting at. So, I mean, if you were to say sacrifice one category for another, you'd still be subject to SP35 streamlining because you you have to hit it in both the categories. You don't don't get to say, well, if we do 100% of our low and we do 0% of our very low, we're good. Doesn't work like that. And and not only that, but that such a policy would be kind of likely found contrarian to any number of, you know, fair housing laws, affirmatively f furthering fair housing policies, which is why you you do want to hit your arena in each category. You want to meaningfully be trying to achieve all of the numbers that you're obligated to do so. Got it. Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful. Okay. Commissioner Bookbinder, do you want to start or would you rather? I would love to start. I may come back around as well. But uh so on a macro level um I think um we should really take to heart that what we the things we were worried about happening when we were coming up with these policies like the opposite really happened. Um I really appreciate what

staff has brought to us. I think that we could afford to at least set the parameters of what we're thinking about a little broader. For example, like for example, why not fee out allow feeing out all um BMR requirements and putting them into a housing trust fund. Basically, what is being suggested um the the fourth idea was to you know pull the money and the issue is the timing. if we just allow it sounds like having um developers who want to fee out their inclusionary requirements and BMR developers who don't have a source of funding. It's like one solution split into two problems. It matches up pretty well in a broader sense like I guess we could ask ourselves what could we do to streamline everything possible like we are we are way behind. So we could, for example, reduce our BMR rate. You might think like, well, we need to have lower market rate housing, but they just said everybody's going to do 10% BMR in order to get the state density bonus level, state density bonus, and 15% of a tiny number is less than 10% of a larger number. So, we should at least consider that. Um there's also um I I suggest we should look into what LA did with ED1 where a whole bunch of their moderate income arena. I don't know. They they walked this back pretty quickly, but they did a a variety of streamlining things that allowed uh developers to do BMR projects and because uh moderate income product um moderate income projects are actually close to market rate, market rate developers just built a lot of moderate income projects and then LA tried to walk it back because they didn't actually want it to

work that much, but it did. So, the details of ED1 are are basically you get like 30-day approval on from all the departments on whatever you're trying to do. If you have a BMR project, they they basically streamlined everything, which I think we we streamlined a lot of stuff. I'm not sure how much further we could go in that direction. Um in terms of making easier to make larger uh projects, a lot of cities have done single stair reforms in um this is not saying quickly um because I think this would have to go through a fire department but on buildings over I want to say three stories you need to have two means of eress which means that you have to have uh two separate stairwells. Um this is not the case in a lot of places not the case in most of Europe. For example, case I want to say Seattle or a couple other places. And when you don't require two separate stairwells, you get a lot more usable area and it's not actually more in practice more dangerous with if you have sprinklers and so on for fire. This is something we may actually want to look at. A bunch of places are looking at single stair reforms. There was a bill in the state legislature to look at the state building code for that. Great idea. Um, see what else I have there. But mainly I think we should really take to heart the idea that I think what we've been trying to do broadly has been to I think the way we put it would be to balance the developer benefit from the public benefit and we've made it ideally so that if these projects would pencil then we're fine but when the market changes as it has projects that just pencil absolutely do not happen. So we see is we have all these projects and things don't happen and changing to a perspective of the public benefit is more homes and trying to make as many things pencil as possible by reducing

inclusionary rates outs whatever would make more stuff happen at least in the short term maybe in the longer term I think that's where we should start from um I I so more specifically I think all the specific things that staff proposed are are generally good ideas, especially allowing JD to use on SP123 projects. We really want to applaud staff for um taking the perspective of well people are going to probably tear down their houses and then build an SP123 project and we should make that like straightforward so they don't tear down their house and then hope they get a permit like like definitely the right approach to take there. But just generally I would like to go much further. That's where where I'm at on this. Um, anybody else? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I this was really been a really good discussion. It's such a complex terrible tough thing to grapple with. We've all been doing I really appreciate the two developers and I did look at Adam's uh links. Those uh articles are really really interesting. You know, I browse loosely. I can't read it all, but uh really some semi eyeopening things. I guess I would just say uh in terms of what the staff I think I really commend our staff because I obviously they did their homework and they came up with some good ideas and I and I think they're all good ideas to be honest. The only one that I grappling with uh is the Jedus on the 1123 uh because we're already talking about quite a bit of density in places that maybe never had the density. But on the other hand, you know, this is a generational change. just going to take a while all this stuff happening and we're going into a new era here. Uh density is our destiny kind of a thing. Uh and it can still be a nice you know Campbell in all our cities can still be nice cities and be a nice area. So uh yeah so I would be in favor of all the ideas that they thought. I I like the

idea of the you know the the pooling idea I think would work. I don't want to get we got we got into a lot of detail. We get into some detail work here that I pretty hard to follow. I don't know if we're going to get into it then, but I I the So, one thing in terms of the inloo fees we talk about a lot, you know, we just got to make sure I don't know how we do it, how the city does it, make sure that the inloo fees were charging enough to actually result in the low market rate housing being developed. Uh, and you know, and I know that's a really tough calculation to make, but I think we got to make sure that we're doing that. But we do know and this is in terms of our own nexus study that you know we talked about a year ago used to be a human development you know they they penciled out the projects that work it is the the middle missing middle the town homes five the nine unit type places. So if we know what's working that we should be pushing as much as we can on those areas and I and I kind of think we are with some of these ideas. So I think we're on the right track and I think it'll help uh you know in terms of making our numbers it's going to be hard for everybody in the last cycle and I don't there were less ramifications or not making it the last eightear cycle but I think in this in the state of California I think three cities hit their number in just a couple of the categories. I don't know if any one city actually hit all their cate all their numbers. So, uh, you know, we got to obviously we got to be strong. I don't want to pull back, but but what happens eight years down the road, it's going to be hard for a lot of these cities to come even close to like like Mr. Ser mentioned, be close to coming to what Campbell's doing. So, we're on the right track. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, yeah. Um, this first a couple questions. Um, the park fees. So, the park fees I my question is where do the park

fees go? Does it go into a separate fund or does it go in in or some of it or all of it go into the general fund to to um support the public works maintenance of parks uh and and the increased costs based on inflation. So, so to me it's like a difference of I give up the park fees if if the city can afford to give up the park fees. Okay. But if the park fees are being used to pay for our regular maintenance of parks and if the park fees goes away, there's going to be a deficit in the budget because of that. Or are the park fees for special projects that over and above what we normally do with parks? Can you answer that question? Yeah, I'll start and staff can jump in if I'm missing anything. So, park fees, they're impact fees. So, you have to use them to provide park space or improve park space for new residents. So, it's in a special fund. Uh we're actually required to track the monies in those fund and report out the monies that are used. And if technically they're not used within a certain period, you're obliged to get them back. So the requirement under the Quimby Act to which we collect park fees is there use either buy park land, improve parkland or or do something that makes more parkland available to new residents. Does it have to be within a district where the funds were collected from or not? It is not. I know there's a state bill uh that was proposed or is proposed that might require um actually I think some there's some changes to law around about adjacency to parks and so forth. At this point there's not Because, you know, my my take on that is I don't know of any, you know, we we're we're stuck at at certain amount of green space here. There's no plans for more parks.

Okay. So, um if you if you if the park fees keep us from getting stuff built, okay, we end up with zero park fe more park fees anyway. Okay. So if we get more stuff built and the question is can we live with less art fees, you know, because well there's going to be another thousand people or another 2,000 people in the next 5 to 10 years and it's like the parks can handle that. So, I would as as long as it's not, you know, part of the general park maintenance budget, I I'm good with reducing or deferring andor deferring all or most of the park fees for a while because it seems like to me we could probably live without those. Okay. Um, and we're going to live with we're not going to get them anyway if we can't get stuff built. Um the um I want to take a couple I want to take issue with a couple things. First, you know, and I know it's just it's a moot point now because you know, Rob, you put up a thing saying we were going to try and build 5,000 units. We we were never really in my estimation trying to build 5,000 units. We we made parcels available with an extra buffer. It was like a it's like a 60% buffer because you can't convert all of them and that to get to 3,000 you needed parcels with 5,000 or 6,000. So we we never really were looking to build 5,000. We're looking to build the 2900 units. So it's just my my little thing about that. And the other thing is the middle missing middle. You define the missing middle as small developments. I don't believe the missing middle is because it's got eight or 10 units. You can have an eight or 10 townhouse unit that costs as much as the one that's got a hund of. Okay. And if

it's 1.5 million, it's not missing middle. All right. So, I would rather, you know, to me, missing middle, we don't know. I mean, it'd be built trying to build a um a house that's only going to cost six or $800,000 because the people in moderate income could then afford it. Okay. Uh so that's just my take on that kind of thing in terms of what we're trying to do with the missing middle. So I don't think it has to do with how many units are in the development. Um uh the um the question of uh uh you know reducing you know doing the in fees. I'd be in favor of reducing in uh you know you know combining in fees to build affordable housing. Sure. I mean, my take has always been that we'll never get there with below market rate. The the math just never works. If you're getting 10 or 15 or 20% of of the uh the market rate units, you'll never reach the 45% affordability or 50% affordable of the Reena. Reena is like it's 45 or 50% are affordable. So, you'll never get there with below market rates. So, you have to You build a 100 unit 100% affordable, okay? And you get a 100 units that are affordable. You would have to build three or four or five large market rate, you know, like the Hickory Pit one. You'd have to build four or five of those to get an equivalent for 100 unit all affordable rate. So, we should be focusing on getting more 100% affordable rate

uh developments, okay? Which are going to be mostly apartments. But if we can get two, three or four or five 100 150 units 100% affordable, we're we're much better off focusing on whatever we need to do to to focus on 100% affordable because if if we're going to reduce the BMR and say, okay, we don't you don't need 15%, you only need 10%. So the difference is there's instead of 10 it's eight or six or whatever the number is depending on how big the thing is. These are small numbers. They'll you'll never get there with the BMRs anyway. So we should we should be focusing more and more of our attention on trying to figure out a way to getund 100% affordable developments done. And that's you know whatever we can do to do that. I I think the you know combining you know I mean it sounds like a good idea. It sounds to me though that you'd be lucky to find you know one guy to do it in the next three or four years. But if I can note that like this is I think what you're pointing out is a real problem that like the the idea is okay we need to produce some thousands of units of subsidized housing that the people living in it will not pay for. So the money has to come from somewhere and it's not coming from the state, from the county, definitely not from the feds. Our plan has been well it can come from the other developers but like the other developers aren't able to build anything because it costs too much to do that. So like this is a tough problem. One of the the phrases that keeps on coming up is you know 50% of zero is still zero. So like the at this point in this environment it make it that the only plausible way we have to produce a significant amount of below market rate housing is just to produce a tremendous amount of market rate housing with that 10% that people are going to

provide to get the state the state density bonus. That may be pretty much what we can do. So you're saying build more market rate housing? Yeah, we we just have to figure out a way to make it easier to build more housing and we have more housing stock. I mean it's a supply and demand question. So you have more supply then the prices are going to come down and like we are have been very focused on very low low moderate and what we heard is like it's the very low that is making it super super challenging. I think that what we heard in terms of the arena number is when we get to okay that that that midpoint in the cycle we're going to have to look at it and we're not going to have met the number not meet the low the very low we're not going to meet the low we're not going to meet the the market rate housing at all so I would say at a macro level we need to figure out how to how to allow people to develop more units period and we're kind of constraining ourselves by okay this 15% % and this and this this requirement for very low and and all of that. So I don't want to interrupt you but I'm no seconding what you said. Yeah. So can I ask another question but do we have a me a medium for below market rate there's a minimum that the state requires right that we can't go below and that we boost there's no statewide inclusionary zoning rule. What was that? There is no statewide inclusionary zoning pool. Developers generally go for 10% so they can get all the benefits of state density bonus law which allow them among other things, please correct me if I'm wrong, to bypass a lot of development standards using waiverss and so forth. It's pretty much if you're doing a large project, you're going to set aside 10% to get state density bonus because it's really really beneficial. Okay. Um but they don't generally require that. And just just to take take a step back like the state wants us to tick some boxes, right? But in a broader sense, like the

goal we're trying to get is an affordable, livable city. And the reason why it is so incredibly hard to live here is because we've done a bad job producing housing. If we try and sacrifice getting a lot more housing on the alter, like, well, maybe if we hit these numbers and so forth, I think we're missing the forest for the trees. And like, I I absolutely understand like it's going to be really really challenging to hit our arena numbers. The best I can think of that we can do is to get some combination of maybe the state comes through with uh or the region comes through with an affordable housing bond. Some of the um projects get unstuck and we just have a lot of market rate housing with that 10% in it maybe. But that that's the that's the most optimistic thing I can think of. I'm sorry if I can jump in. Um so you just mentioned a word that I think we need to pay attention more to. You said the regional for transportation the same thing happened. We cannot just regulate things within city of Campbell. We have to look regionally, you know, hard. So if all these little cities combine forces and work with the county and say let's let's give all our um allocation to the county and then we all help or even to the region maybe nine county Bay Area you know would come up with uh enough housing to meet and every city contributes their portion. This way it's they don't have to find um Rena is I mean that was measure A. Well, Reno is is allocating each each cities and each counties within the region within the region. But but when you look at it and go, you know, on my own, I can't do it. I may not have the the the room to do it. Maybe San Jose says I'll do it and I'll take the money. But San Jose is having a problem with with meeting their requirements, too. It's not like just

Campbell. every single city is coming up short and you know to answer um Davis's question about you know almost every city is going to come up short I I can guarantee it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So the hund the 535 municipalities in the state I don't even know if one will meet I mean maybe somebody somewhere in the central valley but they're gonna there's going to be a massive number of municipalities that aren't even going to come close to the rate okay based on where we stand now. So the question is we make our best effort, okay? And then whatever happens, if they streamline everybody, they're going to streamline everybody and we're just and that means that the developers have even more opportunity to get stuff through. But you know, it's just not going to happen. I I I I my son is the guy who runs the accountability HUD. When I ask him what's going to happen, he he strikes the soldiers. He's not going to tell me. Okay. But but it's obviously in this first two or three years, you can see. I mean, we're our number, the 600 and some number is basically the same as we had in the previous cycle when there wasn't any of these laws and there weren't any constraints on us. So, we're barely gonna beat the last cycle unless and and if we if we end up doubling that, if we end up getting to 1,200 or 1500, man, that will be incredible. So, I have some comments on what we could focus on. Yes. Um, actually, uh, you could you could go afterwards. Okay. All right. Um, so I think we heard some very important comments from the public that I want to make sure are captured in terms of our items that

allow us to be more creative and how we can promote more um, development. Um, so I thought the um, the creativity in when the park impact fees are um, collected is a very important one. I think that goes to what I was saying like at at the highest level it goes to what I was saying about phases. you can't collect fees for you can't have an expense when you don't have any income coming in. So, we need to balance that model um for the developers. Um, I'm not in favor of eliminating the park impact fees entirely because I think it's important to have a community that um that has a place to go that is um a gathering place that is outside that families and kids um can go and it's going to be, you know, maintained and clean and it's going to continue to be um updated and all of that. But I also understand that if we if park impact fees are really what's killing these developments, then I'm willing to sacrifice that um so that we get some of these developments. However, I didn't hear that park impact fees were the real killer. What I heard was that it's really the the very low um income units that are the challenge in um moving these projects forward. Um, so you know, one of the other items I think we really need to capture is looking at changing the mix of that very low, low, and moderate, especially because it sounds like the state doesn't have a requirement per se for that. And even if they did, I think we all agree here that we're not going to meet our numbers regardless. So, we do need to take it up a level um and figure out how we build units rather than trying to be so prescriptive about these different categories that right now I think what we're seeing is we're just we're just

too rigid. It's too strict and things are not moving forward. Maggie, Maggie, the arena does have okay percentages. It has Okay. broken down. Sure. But but we're not meeting it. I think that's the we're not meeting any and then um and then the other thing I wanted to capture based on the feedback was um being more flexible in terms of these larger projects and allowing them truly to be built in phases without the rigorous timeline of the next phase needs to be completed within a year. you know, I could see that maybe and my assumption is that, you know, that that has been in the code um and that hasn't really there hasn't been an update to um help enable some of these developments that we want to move forward. Um so those are my comments. Okay, question Corey. Yeah. Um I agree with a lot of everyone's been saying. Um, I guess well I'm I'm very appreciative of our staff of how like that was a really informative presentation. There was some really creative things um presented. I guess my main concerns are the park fees, park impact fees. We do want we don't want to create a city where there people we're just in an urban jungle, but we need housing. So we got to kind of throw away our darlings, I guess. I know kill our darlings to get something done. Um I'm also I do have concerns about concentrating all of our below market rate housing, you know, to certain areas or just like certain buildings or but again we we need housing. So maybe it's not ideal, but if it's not, you know, in our housing advocacy ideal world, everybody can live anywhere they want and everyone

will have all these opportunities to get a unit in a different different house where they choose, but that's just obviously from what our developer said, that's just not the reality. So, you know, we just have to get housing built. Um, I'm really in favor of the Jedus. Um, I've been living in Pler County and Nevada County and there are a lot of houses with JADUs and town homes with J AUS that I've been staying in a lot. Um, and they're great, you know, smaller starter homes for families. They have opportunities where they can make some income and actually or, you know, at least lessen the difficulty of buying a house in California. Even up up there way out in the boonies, it's really hard. Um, yeah. Um, I like the extended timeline to raise funds. Um, yeah, those are my main comments. Oh, I had one more comment that I that I neglected to communicate. So, um, in terms of the T8s, I'm supportive of the J to 80 use. I'm also in supportive of ADUs in addition to JADUS. And I say that because um we already have um in our code basically the um setbacks and height restrictions and lot uh coverage and floor area ratio and all of those things combined limit how much build there can be on a lot. So whether a developer wants to, you know, build the unit or build the unit with an ADU and a J AU, I think that flexibility should be there for how how they want to do that. And it's going to differ based on neighborhood and based on city, based on the particular lot and all of that as to what makes the most sense and also ADUs

count towards Reno. So that's another benefit of London. Good question. probably a good amount of echoing. I like that we're focused on supply. Um, we could sit here and talk about what do people want, but I I think there's been a bunch of comments about sort of where the financial markets are at, and I think it's good that we're sort of pessimistic about a quick recovery and are honest about what is penciling out. And I think kind of focusing at two extremes, either these very small projects that we could build a lot of and fill empty lots or homes that we could replace. And then I'm I'm also very supportive, you know, of these I think specific proposals about staff coming back and be like, "Here's the site, change the requirements here, ground floor, retail, you know, underground utilities, whatever it is for we we don't have that many of these big sites. We're just coming back and saying, hey, we could go curate these four." And that's the difference between right now zero units or hundreds. Those feel like big bang for the buck. So I think probably in a subsequent report those are the two I'm most interested in are like hey for the biggest opportunity sites if we could tweak four things what would unlock them so that they happen and then for this I don't know what we call it's not missing middle. I don't know what we're calling like smaller town homey thing that is that missing middle whatever that is like what are the broad policy changes that we think could unlock those because just doing some supply oriented what's going to give us the biggest bang for our buck I like what commissioner zisser said of like hey we might not hit all these numbers so let's do best effort see how many we can get built

um and uh you know puts points on the board so I think those are the two that I'm particularly excited about. But again, thank you to staff. Appreciate developers coming out, staying late. Uh and uh good discussion. Just by the way, I just wanted to also vote favor of that, you know, get not requiring uh first floor retail that we have in the past because I think if that's a a real deterrent, I can see plenty of places where it it's not necessary. You know, I I I know we want like on the corridors, you know, that it would make sense to extend the the the retail, but there's plenty of places where just a big apartment complex or development can be without the uh retail and it would be fine because there's retail adjacent. And so I'm I'm good with that. Two things I want to throw in. one just want to second what commissioner sister said about um if it turns out that the parks fees are for like capital expenditures um really makes sense to defer or or change the way we fund those like we passed a bond measure to get a new library we could pass a bond measure to get new parks if that's what we really need to do like it's not it's not worth taxing new homes and second um as I understand SP 937 of 2024 delays exaction of fees until certificate of occupancy for any density bonus or under 10 unit project. Um, so we already do like the state already requires requires us to delay like charging fees until certifications. I think any large project is going to use density bonus law. I think I think that covers that. Okay, thank you for that. Um uh I'd like to echo a lot of what my fellow um commissioner's colleagues said here, but uh one of the

items Commissioner Bookwin just brought up is the timing of payment is a big issue. Um so maybe we don't have to forgive the um uh park but we regard you know at the sale of the unit. So once the developer has certainty this unit is going to sell, you know, they're not going to be too unhappy about paying the park fees because the money's coming in, you know, um, and it's already been penciled in. And so uh, to me, it's not just the amount of money, it's the timing of the payment. I wholeheartedly agree that retail doesn't have to be underneath projects. I was a planning commissioner for city of San Jose when these things were going through and the reason they wanted retail because San Jose felt they were the bedroom community of the Silicon Valley and they needed more retail to get more income. That's why they didn't want to give up their you know sites to just housing developer. They would require that. But it backfired big time because many projects would not pencil out or or the retail space sat empty for years, you know, and okay, that's not what we want. Um, as far as um as far as the uh in Luffy, absolutely wholeheartedly. I honestly think if we have a trust fund full of money that and then we work with with the other city cities around us maybe not San Jose because that's the 800 pound gorilla but other smaller cities you know and collectively you know um uh we tackle uh our affordable units with them you know I think that would be much more

successful than individual you'll be trying to meet it. Um and um as far as um adus definitely you know um yes on adus yes on jadus and I think that's basically it. I'm can't think of anything else. Okay. So I hope I hope you have your um recommendations. We'll take it. got two pages of notes and we'll synthesize that together and just for next steps. Uh we will take this to council. I was thinking June 17th that might be a little bit too tight. Uh but somewhere in the June July time frame and we'll encapsulate your notes and recommendations with fantastic and also thank you to the two developers that showed up. We really appreciate your insight and your recommendations. Please read plain plain bagel stream. That was interesting. It is fantastic. That's from Adam. Okay. Is Is this the email that that you're talking about? No, it's not. It came from Yeah, it's at the end. It's at the end of the summarizing our problem in the state of California. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you again, Rob. Can I just complain about something? Okay. So, I was I was going to go back and look up something that was said, you know, with regards to the minute stuff and you guys are like four months behind on posting the videos of the meetings. The last one was posted in January or February on the on the agenda page. So, I don't know who why that gets hung up, but I can see it being a month old, not

getting posted for a month, but you're four it's four months behind and I I think and we always talk about like that's the official that's the official minutes of the meeting and yet you can't get to it. So, if you guys posted on YouTube, what it is posted on YouTube? Are you talking about the minutes? No, I'm talking about on website. I go to the website agenda. on YouTube, but it's not linked from the Camel website, too. YouTube, so that's where I would look. I don't know where to look for it on YouTube. I just YouTube.com City. Okay. But but it it should be on the website. Yeah, I'll take the feedback. I It's our IT staff and clerk, but I understand. I understand. I know it's like you guys. Okay, so thank you. That was item four. Uh next one is new business planning commissioner subcommittee reports. Um due to the lateness of time I will take a deferral to the next one if um okay so I so one one subcommittee report we will defer to the next one. How about uh any other subcommittees? Okay. No reports right now. Thank you. Uh and then report of the community development director. Nothing additional. Nothing. Okay. Thank you so much. So this brings us to our adjournment. We adjourn to the planning commission meeting of June 10th, 2025, 7 p.m. at the city hall council chamber. Thank you. [Music]