Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. By way of introduction, my name is Matt Comar and I'm the chair of the planning commission. I'd like to call to order the meeting of October 28, 2025. Uh, can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Suz here. Commissioner Majuski present. Commissioner Ali here. Commissioner Bucklander present. Commissioner Kina present. Vice Fields present. Chair Kamar

present. Thank you. Um, so we're all present. Next is the minutes. Has anyone had a chance to review the minutes? And are there any corrections? Seeing none, can I have a motion? Uh, it's September 23rd. I got that one on. Uh, that would be the move to approve the minutes of September 23rd. Yes. 2025. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ro, please. Commissioner Scissor. Commissioner Majuski. Hi. Commissioner Ali. Hi. Commissioner Buckbinder. Hi. Commissioner Pino. Hi. Basher Fields.

Hi. Chair Canor I Okay, that uh those minutes are approved. Next is communication and agenda modifications. Director Eastwood here camcar commissioners. Uh nothing too new, just two notes. Uh one relaying the conversation we had. We'll need to take a photo this evening. And looks like we'll pause between items uh three and four. You're not too tired late in the evening. And then two, when we get to item uh five, which is study session, uh staff might have some recommendations on just some structure on how we go through that. It's a study session, a little different. Other than that, no news.

Wonderful.

Okay, thank you for that. Um next is um oral requests. This is a point in our meeting where the any member of the public may address this commission on an item that is not on the agenda. You may speak up to five minutes, but the planning commission may not take any actions today. Any action today. The chair, however, can refer the matter to staff for research and possibly place it on the agenda for future meetings. Would anyone like in the chamber or online to speak? Seeing none, are there any online? No. Okay. Thank you. Let's close this with the gavo. Okay. At this point, we start our public hearings. Um so item number one is uh 655 Creekide Wayside Architectural Review Permit. I will have to recuse myself from hearing this item. As the chair as the applicant on this uh on this item is a um is a client of the firm that I work for. So just out of abundance of a caution uh I will leave the chamber and you know ask vice chair to conduct the meeting and I'll come back after it's finished. Thank you.

Would you like me to [clears throat] disclosures. Yeah. Yeah. And that's I might have a lot of great cone of silence. [laughter]

Can't forget that. Um, Vice Chair Fields, we're going to discuss item 2655 Creek Side Way. Uh, why don't we start with any disclosures uh commissioners have? Do you want to start on this side?

Yes. Um, on the uh Effy's item, I uh dove by and actually into the parking lot. And I also drove by uh the adjacent neighborhood and actually talked to an a homeowner that's on the north side of Effy's property and we we just I had I actually asked him about whether or not he had any uh noise concerns in the past and and also if he got notified, which he did. So, um I'm just disclosing that. Um, I drove by the Marriott location. I drive by the EPS almost daily.

And there's My question is there was a 300 or 500 foot rule from my house. Is it 300 feet or 500? 500. It's 5 500 feet. How do I know if I don't think it's within 500 feet? But I don't That's it. It's not like the staff figures out or anything. Well, we do actually. As part of our noticing procedure, we actually have 500 foot buffers around their personal properties that gets flagged when we prepare notices. So, I'm outside then, I guess. Okay. Do we still give notes? Do we still give the commissioners the map of their own house with 500 ft?

We do. Yeah. So, three things. One is you should have your own maps. If you don't have one, we'll give one to you. Uh, two is staff tries to pre-screen, but it's not foolproof. And then three, in the end, I would just check yourself. Yeah. Great. uh does this end any disclosures? I've driven by Effy's numerous times and I have driven by this uh Marriott numerous times. In fact, I drove by it today so I am aware of the problem. Michigan is 7 miles from Miami has been on my commute. I commuted by it a lot and I've I've gone to I guess I got to disclose that. I've been outed. Yeah, I've gone to the restaurant. I I may

uh thank you for the disclosures. Uh so we've talked about the item which is to consider the application to allow alterations to the Cor Marriott Hotel. This came before SIRC about a month ago. I can give the report um with the other commissioners. Uh and we will open with the staff presentations with Daniel Fama.

Thank you. Good evening. This is a public hearing to consider a signed architect review permit for the courtyard Marriott property located at 655 Creekide Way. This is an approximately 1.2 acre property on Creekide at the northbound highway 17 offramp. It is zoned plan development and within the general commercial general plan land use district. It is abed by the 8 by office building to the west and the Hamilton light rail station to the north. Uh the site is constructed with a hotel that was approved pursuant to a 2007 uh plan development permit that is classified under the zoning ordinance as a legacy permit. So the city no longer issues plan development permits. So these permits are very limited to the extent to which they can be modified. So any subsequent changes to these buildings generally does require new entitlements and that is what is being saw today. is a sign architecture review permit which would serve to supersede that prior legacy permit. So specifically the applicant's proposal would allow for reconstruction of the existing partic from a hipper roof to a flat roof design. And so on the left you have the existing photograph and then a artist renditioning a rendering rather of how the hotel would look with the new flat roof coverings. Then a new contemporary color scheme to modernize the look and feel of the hotel. And then again as noted this permit would supersede the existing legacy PD permit moving forward. So based on affirmative determination of the required findings for approval of the sign architecture review permit as does recommend that the plan commission adopt the resisolation by granting approval and superseding the prior plan development permit. With that I'll take any questions the commission may have. Thank you. I'll start at this end with

I don't I don't have any questions. I think I understand why it's brought to us and I appreciate uh service. Yes, I have a question. Um are the colors still in discussion or are they finalized? Uh they are within scope of review. So uh if the commission is disagreeable to the color scheme that's something that you can comment on now or later uh as part of your discussion. Great. We also do have the architect team online questions. Okay. Thank you.

Uh so the housing adjacent to the property if any of the residents there wrote a complaint or had an opinion one way or the other would would that be in the package? Yeah. So any correspondence that we receive is provided in the package. If it's received uh later after publication, we'll provide that as a desk item ahead of this meeting. And so there were none, I can assume since I did this. Correct. Thank you.

You don't have any I don't have any questions at this time. Yeah, actually I I I'm kind of missed the fact they were changing the color, but um could you just point out the major looks like on the on the right side they're making it darker. Are there any or whatever that backside is? Is there anything else that they're changing of significance? I mean the whole color scheme is changing. It had kind of a more mid early 2000s kind of earth color scheme and so this is more flat whitish gray color scheme. Okay, I have no question other questions.

Uh I don't have any questions uh at this point. We will open the public hearing. Uh the applicant can present if they want to uh with up to five minutes otherwise we can move to questions. Would the like to come up to the podium and speak or are they on the line the online? Yeah, I'm this is Joe Maton. I am the architect, the designer. Um I stand behind what how Daniel presented it. It is as simple as it sounds. Um, notwithstanding any comments on, you know, tweaking any various colors, um, I do believe Andy Simpson representing the ownership group is also online.

That's correct. Yes, I'm here. U, we can move to questions unless either of you would like to share anything up front. Uh, nothing from my side. I have nothing to add either. Maybe just to briefly cover SARKC uh and what happened in that meeting. Do you want to share or

Yeah, we mostly asked about the color scheme I think was the main discussion and then um we had talked about um I think the backside was a little could use a light little bit lightening up. Um but we noted that there were a lot of there's a lot of greenery on the backside. It's pretty much all trees between the hotel and the um offramp. the freeway offramp for 17 right there. Um, and then we talked about the I'm going to forget the term, but it's like the port port of kosher, so something along those lines. Um, we discussed that a lot and they were just trying to bring it into the modern day essentially and the brand. Yeah, my main takeaway from that was basically all the changes that we discussed are like part of Marriott Courtyard's brand and they showed us a bunch of examples of other places and that's why they moved the port to share to that concept too and they showed us some of the material that wasn't in the initial packet that is in the planning commission packet

that we all got to look at. Uh let's open up to commissioner questions. Let's start this side. Commissioner Zisser. Um I I don't have any Sorry. Oh, is this discussion at this point? Yes. One moment. You open up for public comments. I did. Um Oh, you came back to discuss deliberate, but you also still need to have public hearing for public comments. Don't Are we do questions to the applicant first or public? Oh, yes, you can do that first. Yes. Sorry. That's I thought we were doing this questions for the There's questions for the I have no questions. All right. No questions. No question. I have some questions. There we go.

Um, so full disclosure, I am an architect. Um, and I have a question. When you make the big move to uh remove the hip roofs on the portico, what was a consideration to leave the hip roof over the dining area? What was there opportunity? I'm just curious. Did you look at making that a flat roof as well?

Um, we considered it. Uh this again is Joe Maton, the architect. Um the the difficulty is the renovations interior of the space uh will be complete. It's a you'd be two stories up over with a glass coupoopa. It's not over the dining area. It's actually over the entry to the hotel. Uh disruption of service just seemed uh more pain than it would be worth. I find that most people don't look up. So, painting it back to a neutral color, uh, we figured it would it would drop back enough that it wouldn't be offensive. Um, for for how small it is and again how high it is. For most guests, this view pulled way back is from the street. Um, once you start to approach, the porc sort of commands your view and you really can't see that in your entry sequence into the hotel.

Okay. Um, and then on the the color scheme, I know in the documentation it um references the buildings in the neighborhood across the street there. They look like they were built in the 80s, a strip window, tiltup glass buildings, and then you've got the parking structure and then the uh 8 by8 building. also is uh you know I saw in the packet there was the urban color scheme for Marriott Courtyard Hotels. I thought that was rather appealing. Is there an opportunity to perhaps make the uh especially on the vertical section the the right side that more it goes from horizontal to vertical to maybe change a color scheme there to maybe match that urban look. Daniel, do you have access to that packet at this time?

[clears throat] And it's always a challenge when you go from a horizontal design party to then you go to a vertical and what's the transition. Um

yeah and so we we treated that piece as a hinge which is why we allowed sort of a let's bring an accent color too. I think there's always an opportunity um process or procedure-wise if we make a change to that color at this point. We need to go back through Marriott to get their approval um which will take us probably more than a month and then probably have to come back to you for an additional approval of a new color. It it seems like a lot for a paint color uh choice. Yeah. My my question is is just you know what's the opportunity and you explained it.

Um I understand the time crunch. I mean we're all aware of schedules etc. The question as a matter of you know was there a thought for that? Were there other iterations of a design that maybe kind of played with that a little bit more prior to

So in the in the image on screen at this time that is the current courtyard gen 4 or gen I guess it's called 6.5. Um, was there a color on this page or was it the previous image from 2005 that you're referencing where we mentioned the the more urban locations started to become uh well, it's it's the image on this this page just the way the darker color is is playing with the architecture more. So, I guess there's a little bit more delineation on this one than on the one in at uh 655 Creekide. So, that that was my point is that, you know, this this image, this brown and beige color, I think is it's it helps the architecture so to speak. It enhances it.

So, I understand that, you know, the color is going to take another month to get approved. I was just wondering what other considerations were giving to not make that verticality so prominent the hinge. Yeah, understood. Um actually my initial proposal we didn't have that as a a secondary color. That was a comment back from Marriott looking for one. Um, and initially they were looking for us possibly to clad that in a woodlook uh material um similar to the underside of our pork cache which is a wood look. Mhm.

Um so the that's why we stayed in that brown family um sort of and I like the warmth that it brings the contrast with a a dark gray and a light gray uh scheme. Um, I'd be willing to tweak that color, but I'm not certain we can change how the color is used on this. The, as you said, the architecture of the building has its own ins and outs. The the, let's call it paperclip, L-shaped framed element of the current, you know, courtyard is difficult for us to manifest without trying to remake the building. And my concern was to just try and paint something like that to look like that would look contrived or otherwise not in keeping with the building itself. If that makes any sense.

Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. All right. Thank you. That's all I had. Good questions. Yeah. Oh, just I wanted to thank the applicant for the um illustrations of the various generations of how the branding has evolved over the years like getting an idea of what you're doing here and how these things get refreshed. I had no idea about this. So, that was fascinating. Thank you for including that. Oh, you're welcome. All right. Go ahead. All right. This is still only again Ius myself and thought we were on a different agenda. Uh I just have a couple of questions. The

All right. Uh the first question I have is during this process, should it be approved, do you anticipate closing any portion of the street creekide during during this effort? I should not. I mean, the scope of construction is going to be fairly narrow. That's what I I figured. I just thought I'd ask it. Um, second question was, "Some of the pictures in the package here are unusable. Is that because they're they were old from the original permit or whatnot?" And I tell you the page number, but they're not numbered any. So, it's like you're referring to the original drawings. I I I can't tell. Yes, those ones.

Yeah. So, those are the plans from uh 2006 that the city council approved for the hotel. So unfortunately back in that era we would just literally scan the plants in black and white. So these are the best drawings we have on record unfortunately. So they're incorporated just kind of as a reference document. Okay. I figured I just thought I I'm learning a little as we go through this.

Uh next question is this if I understand right it's a flat it's going to a flat roof. Correct. Correct. And so to the applicant, it's like, was there a business need for that or was this just an aesthetic choice to go to flat or cheaper to build? By far the cheapest thing was to leave it as it was, but Marat wouldn't let us get away with that. So, um, what we have done is sort of preserved most of the porcel in order to extend our license. I understand. Okay. Thank you. And the last question is room for solar panels on that new flat roof

potentially. I don't know that this has enough exposure. The parking garage even in the photos uh shown here tend to shade it most of I would say the prime hours of the day and then the building itself shades at the rest. Okay. If there were a solar panel opportunity, I think it'd be on top of the main roof. I I understand. Thank you for those answers.

No other questions. Uh we will open it up to members of the public who would like to speak. You can come to the podium. You have up to two minutes to address the commission. We have anybody online? Great. All right. With that, I will close the public hearing and we will move to discussion going back and forth. Commissioner Brooklander.

Um, I don't have particularly strong opinions about this. It looked like a nice hotel before. It looks like a nice hotel now. I know that we're here to give feedback and so forth, but um, I don't think there's a need to do that unless something egregious is happening here, which it's clearly not. I have no other comments. I think it's uh I understand the application. So, if we were to approve this, would there be a mechanism that would allow us to approve any changes to the color that Marriott might require so the applicant doesn't have to return?

I mean, yes. me. You could you could in a motion to approve provide allowance to the director to allow additional changes to the color scheme that it determines to be generally consistent with the building design. So be a delegation. Yes. Okay. I I I'm in favor of such a thing if we can agree to that.

I don't understand what you're asking. So, so there's a reference that after we give it an approval that they then have to go to Marriott as a franchising requirement to get Marriott's approval and then shoot Marriott twist the knob on the color. Then they've got to come back here to make sure we're still okay and I'm trying to eliminate that if we think it's okay. I'm assuming we're approving based on the application with the cover schemes and everything. Right. Correct. The the comment from the ownership was that if the commission wanted to compel a change of color beyond what's being proposed here, then they would have to go back to Marion, but what's being proposed here has already been approved by Marriott. Oh, I I misunderstood that. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm uh in favor. I like that they're kind of bringing it into the modern era. Um comments. Yeah, I'm in favor of two. And my take is that unless there were something, as Adam called it, egregious, um I I I you know, the rest is kind of subjective and and I'm willing to defer to Marriott's and their and their architecture uh design scheme um uh to update their design. So, I I see no problem at all. [snorts] also in favor uh appreciated that the uh folks on the call really thoughtfully explained both at SARKC and here why choices they made uh and u looking [snorts] forward to the hotel being renovated and a little bit fresher looking in that part of town. Uh do we have a motion on this item?

I make a motion to uh take a vote and approve this project. We have a second. Do you have to say the particular words? Motions are that straightforward or I make a mo a motion to take a vote on this project 655 Creekide Way.

So gener Okay. So generally what we do is we read the the agenda item. Um, so it would be a motion to adopt a resolution approving a site and architectural review permit for 655 Creek Sideway and then have the plan number. That would be sufficient. Yeah. Okay. I make a motion to adopt a resolution approving a site and architectural view permit at 655 Creekide Way PLN number 2025-112. I second.

Wait, can we get a roll call vote? Commissioner Scissor. Hi. Commissioner Majuski. Hi. Commissioner Ali. Hi. Bucker. Hi. Commissioner Nolino. Hi. Fields. Hi. Coruce. Great. This motion passes. Thank you, the applicant. And we can go retrieve card. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.

You're worthy. We Nice. It's still okay. Item number three, that's the 331 West Hosiendo Avenue conditional use permit. a public hearing to consider the request of Hamid Shirani to legalize dancing um and live entertainment limited to karaoke, live bands and disc jockey performances conducted in association with an existing restaurant and bar DBA fees with nonconforming on-site alcohol sale and to allow ongoing late night business hours 12:30 closing on Wednesday and Thursdays 1:30 a.m. closing on Fridays and Saturdays on property located at 331 West Hienda. Application under consideration is the conditional use permit file number PLN2025-111.

Um uh I guess our project planner is Daniel Fo. Take it over again. Thank you. So this application is a conditional use permit for property located at 331 West Hosianda Avenue. This is the location of the Effy's restaurant and bar. This is a 3/4 acre site located on Hosianda one block west of Winchester Boulevard within the city's general plan zoning district and general plan land use district. The border single family residences to the north, the gas station to the east and the percolation ponds uh to the apologies to the east the west

west. But [gasps] uh just a little background on the application. So this building has been a restaurant since its original approval in 1967. Originally actually as a tiki bar um very mid-century. It is a non-conforming use due to the alcohol sales lacking conditional use permit and that's simply because in 1967 the city did not require conditional use permit for alcohol sales. Additionally, the late night hours are also non-conforming though that was amortized out in 2003. And so in 2001, the city council adopted an ordinance requiring that any business with late night hours. And those are defined as any activity occurring after 11 pm or earlier than 6 a.m. come in for conditional use permits. So practically speaking, these types of situations really only arise in changes of ownership or applications like this where they're kind of revealed through a related request. And so the particular FE's restaurant bar opened in 1988. So that's been a fairly long-standing restaurant. So in 2019, the city initiated a code enforcement case when police department staff found that there was live entertainment being advertised on the restaurant's website and that the city didn't have any record of a conditional use permit for the live entertainment, nor did the police department have a live entertainment permit. And so at that time, the city determined that live entertainment was not grandfathered. Uh there had been some discussion with the business owner at the time whether or not they had a legal right to continuing live entertainment even without a conditional use permit. However, we did research research our records and found that the zoning code in effect in 1985 already required conditional use permit. And since the restaurant opened in 1988, that would of course meant that they needed a conditional use permit, thereby meaning the live entertainment has effectively been unpermitted since 1988. And this actually came up in the 90s and

was resolved for a period. I'm trying to interrupt. Uh I I may have misheard you. I thought you said the city requires conditions permit since 1998. Sorry, 1985. 1985 predating the establishment of that.

And so from day one, they had needed a conditional use permit. They just never had one. And so as part of our effort to deal with the backlog backlog of code enforcement cases that resulted from the CO 19 pandemic, the city issued an updated code enforcement letter. However, the business had actually changed ownership since 2019. So a new owner got this letter under the assumption that live entertainment was actually legal. So he was a bit surprised to find out that it wasn't. So now he's here to resolve the issue. And so so specifically then the conditioner use permit would then allow for live entertainment as it historically has been conducted. So that's primarily karaoke but they are also requesting allowance for live band and DJ performances. That would be until 11 o'clock on Sunday through Thursday and midnight Wednesday through Saturday. Additionally, they would also allow for late night hours uh with the following public hours. Basically 11 Sunday through Thursday, 12:30 Wednesday through Thursday. Apologies for that. And then 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. And then the condition permit application would also formalize formally recognize the existing non-conforming alcohol service which would be embedded into the conditions of approval. And so based on the affirmative determinations of the required findings for a conditional use permit site is uh adequate to accommodate the use and its traffic. It's consistent with the general plan and zoning code. It's compatible with existing future uses. It's not detrimental to public health and safety. And as discussed further in your staff report, these determinations are based on feedback from the police department as well as imposition of a variety of conditions of approval that regulate the operational aspects of the use to ensure that this does principally operate as a restaurant or the bar is ancillary component and that this is not a nightclub for instance. And there are mechanisms to allow the city to pull

back and revoke the allowance for live entertainment or late night hours should there be a public nuisance. And additionally, subsequent to plan commission action, should the condition on use permit be approved, uh the business owner would also need to separately obtain a live entertainment permit from the police department who has their own process as well. And with that, I will take any questions uh to commission. Thank you. Okay. Uh I guess we have a Q&A. If you have any questions for staff, let me know. Uh we can start from this side. Yeah. So just on the I just on the thing about getting a live entertainment permit from the police, they wait until that gets approved here before they apply.

They do. So they do serve different purposes. The the conditional use permit is a land use permit that runs with the land. So it continues to live on even as business that changes hands and ownerships. The live entertainment permit is personal to the business operator. It really functions more as a background check for the that particular individual. Okay. So, by kind of necessity does need to follow after commission action. Thank you. Okay. I got nothing else. Okay. Anybody else?

Yeah. I had a question. Um, so the code enforcement um you mentioned the backlog were um do you know if any of those came from like public reports of like issues of noise or anything like that or was it just that they were a non-conforming? In this particular case, it was simply initiated by the police department staff. No citizen complaints and we haven't received any feedback on this out. Good.

So, so Daniel, um, you'll ask me a little bit. So, when when the 1967 opening of the building and when there was no uh use permit required, At some point, like many of these buildings, the city council adopted a requirement to come and get a conditional use permit. Is that correct? For live for for lay night hours only. Okay. And when when did that requirement come in? And that went into effect in 200.

2003. So whether the existing fees was grandfathered in or not, it wouldn't matter because this 2003 requirement would mean you had to come get one only for that limited component in terms of the hours of operation. The uh the bar component, the alcohol service, that's distinct and separate from the late night activities and there's a little more nuance on how that interfaces with state law. Okay. And so what part of this application exceeds that nuanced part of the grandfather?

So what this is principally addressing is the live entertainment aspect. So that's been apparently kind of an ongoing activity that's never really been permitted by the city that's now kind of been brought to light. So now that I'm peeling, I'm starting to see. So live entertainment would not have been grandfathered in from 1967.

Correct. because there's no it could have been if there was a clear record that it was ongoing since that time but there isn't. So basically the the applicant indicates that based on their testimonials that they believe that live entertainment began when fees was established in 1988. Um that's really a mood point because the 1985 zoning code says that you needed a conditional use permit for live entertainment.

Okay. But that's the part that I that's exactly the fork where you lost me because if he could establish all this from 1967 still would have had to come in after 1985. If no, if the if the 1967 approval and the approvals from back then were very sparse on details, but if it was very specific that the city was approving dancing and live entertainment and that was a very clearly articulated part of what was being approved, then that would continue to this day. So, it seems to me that neither the city nor the applicant can prove one thing one way or the other, but yet the burden of proof is falling on the applicant. And I'm starting to get chafed a little bit about that.

Well, yes. I mean, the burden of approval does fall on the applicant here, but again, to the extent that it's really immaterial because there's no evidence in the record that we approve live entertainment and really the 1967 approval is really just for a building. Yeah, I see. It wasn't even a conditional use permit. Um, it just goes back such a long time that the alcohol was issued without a conditional use permit. Yeah, I understand. Okay, I I think I learned a lot. Thanks. Good questions. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Bookbinder, did you have any questions for staff?

Um, just to make sure I understand this, nothing is actually changing. This is just legitimizing what they've been doing in one way or another since the 80s. Largely, yes. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Am I allowed to comment on his bubble? Uh uh this is question for the applicant. This is the well this is the question period afterwards then you know but for now we just question commissioner Aquina nothing for me thank you chair no question sorry previous acting

uh so I just want to make a clarification the difference between a nightclub versus non nightclub is serving food if they serve food with the activity then they categorize the restaurant and then

it's really more about what the primary purpose and activity of the business is. So here I mean this is not necessarily a binary but empty gray area but here it's principally a restaurant and bar. So where you're going to dine and drink and where there's entertainment that's a part of that experience versus the opposite where it's a place that people principally go to dance and listen to live entertainment and where there may be food.

So I so I understand that my u you know I guess confusion if you will if you could make clarification for is the time of the day also makes a difference. So let's say before 10 people go out to eat but then after 10 not too many people want to go have dinner you know and so how would the time coming to this you know can they be a full restaurant and the kitchen open full menu before certain time and after that um does the kitchen stay does the kitchen have to stay open or the kitchen sort of you know closed

it's a good question. So just in terms of just getting back into what makes it a nightclub versus a restaurant. So for instance, you can really tell on the floor plan. There are chairs, tables throughout the space. You don't have a very large designated dance floor, for instance. So a lot of the use of a space is dictated by this design. Now, if this were downtown, there are much more specific limitations or requirements dealing with the relationship between food and alcohol. uh here outside of downtown that doesn't really exist. So this permit is not as restrictive as a new permit that would be issued in downtown. And so in that regard it would require food until 10:00. So after that is really correct. It's more about having you know alcohol in the state.

So they don't have to have the kitchen open after 10. Correct. Now, if that's a concern, that's certainly within your review scope to require that the kitchen simply not close the entire time they're in operation. But, but I thought there was something in here and I can't find it that that after the dinner hour, there's still a a requirement for having some food available. That is true. There are more limited men. I'm limited. So, that could be something that can be just basically microwave. Yeah, I understand. But I I'm pretty sure it was in here, right? It is. It's a It's a condition of approval under food services.

Perfect. [clears throat and laughter] Okay, that answers my question. Um, so we move on to the next item that's uh I'm going to open the public hearing and uh hear from the applicant if they wish to make a presentation. Okay. So, public hearing. Welcome. Welcome. if you could uh identify yourself and you have five minutes.

Uh hi everyone, my name is Fatame and I'm the daughter of Amit, the owner of Ephes. I wanted to start by thanking everyone for being here and a special thank you to Benil, our planner, for all his help and I would love to share a bit about our background. Uh we moved here from Iran about six years ago and about a year ago we took a bigger step and bought fees And uh we fell in love with fees because of how community oriented it is and um it feels like a family. Everybody knows each other at FE and they have been coming there for uh decades. Um, one thing that stood out to us um was how karaoke has been part of uh the restaurant for many years and um it has been long enough that it has won best karaoke in Campbell multiple times

and uh it's amazing how personal memories are tied to it. Uh, one customer told me that um they remember karaoke started when uh their son graduated from high school. Another person said that uh they remember um it has started when their father passed away. And another person said they used to come here for karaoke nights with their um spouse who is no longer with us. Um and karaoke nights are a cherished memory of their time together. Uh so for our customer karaoke is much more than just singing. It's a piece of their life stories. And um I want to be absolutely clear that um for 30 years we have had no issues, no uh u complaints and a very peaceful environment. And um um so we we want to assure you that we continue having the same peaceful environment and we are not changing anything. We are not expanding. We are not adding any stage and uh there is no dancing nothing is going to change. We just uh we just making it official and fully compliant with the city's regulation. Thank you for your time.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. If you could give me a minute. Does anyone have any questions for our applicant? Oh, okay. Oh, yes. No, no. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any any other members of the public that wish to address us?

Anyone? Anybody online? No. Okay. So, um there's no public. So there's no you could you could use the microphone again if if you wish to address anything. No. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to close the public hearing and then go back to staff. Um so do you have any comments based on what you heard? Nope. No. No further. No further question. Okay. So back now to commission. Any discussions or any comments based on what you've heard?

Yeah. I I'll uh Yeah. To me, this is just, you know, officially making it compliant, and I see no problems. My in initially reading the agenda, my only concern when I looked at it was that there was a a neighborhood that was right adjacent to it on the north side, just really over the fence. And so, my concern was whether or not [clears throat] there's a noise problem. But since there's not been complaints and and then I noticed that the um the the music was going to be in the bar which is on the south side of the building. So it's you know farther away from uh the neighborhood. So and uh so I I don't see a problem with this at all. And um I'm glad it's a popular place. I'm not a karaoke guy, but you never know.

You never know. [laughter] That's all I have. There's always a chance. Okay, thank you for that. Um, Commissioner, yes. Um, yeah, my main concerns were similar to Commissioner Zisters that there was going to be any disruption, but um, like I said, I drive by there every day and it never seems out of control or anything like that. I didn't know that there was karaoke going on there, but people it's always very popular. Um, so I have no no issue. Very nice. Uh, yeah. Thank you. Um, to the applicant, I'd like to let you know that I've known Effy's since 1988. Nice.

And I have in my family some of the same memories you talk of. And I know we've got a lot to do, but I think you should hear that my dad would go there and uh with my mom. Then my mom went into a coma. So my dad would go there and get takeout so he could spend more time in the hospital with her and still eat. and EES at no charge would make a meal for my mother and put it in the bag and my dad would end up giving it to the nurse that took care of my mom. But there's one of those memories that I want you to have because this is what you are now a steward of. Um, now I'll put myself together and tell you I'm also old enough to remember Gilbert Zaps and the Bodega and their their place got a little out of hand. And so I would like to propose that I have no problem with unilaterally permitting dancing, but maybe the staff has an opinion about cover charges. hasn't been discussed at all. But a good answer to the out of hand of the bookga was to not allow cover charges because then they couldn't generate the money to get the and I'm talking like the doobie. I mean huge bands where there thousands of people milling around in the streets the parking lot and so as soon as they cut the the cover charge ability from the from the bodega then they couldn't get the bands prop kind of went away. So, I think you guys on are a little wiser than me on this kind of thing, but I I put that out there as as it and with that, that's pretty much all I've got to say on this.

Okay. Well, thank you for that moving story. Um I do want to check on something um with um council. Do we have the ability to make that kind of distinction like you can't you can't charge cover charge because I'm afraid I mean like we actually it is actually standard condition for most of our conditional use permits for that exact reason that that they cannot use otherwise it does really encourage more nightclub activity.

Okay thank you for that booker any question or any comments? The only comment I have is that I'm glad that staff is getting things in order. It sounds like this has been a difficult process for everybody involved and we're finally getting every getting all everyone's ducks [clears throat] in a row. So staff and thank the applicant for their patience. That's all I'm saying. Commissioner,

I I want to thank the applicant um for maintaining I think a Campbell treasure really. It's uh it's been there a long time and it's a great place to be with friends and family and eat. So, thank you very much for maintaining this this business. Supportive proposal. I have not been to Effy's but this these stories make me want to go. So glad you're part of the community. Thanks so much.

And I'd like to echo the same uh sentiment. We uh at Campo we like to think of ourselves as a small city and so uh businesses like fees are a treasure for us you know and the memories that they have and really glad that it's in good hands who understands the history and hopefully will continue it forward and I have no issues with everything either. So, um, if we can, no more comments. If we can have a motion for this for this item. Uh, I'll make a motion.

Okay. Uh uh resolution of the planning commission uh granting approval of the conditional use permit to legalize dancing and live entertainment limited to karaoke, live bands, and disc jockey performances conducted in association with an existing restaurant and bar uh uh DBAs with non-conforming on-site alcohol sales and to allow ongoing late night business hours. 12:30 a.m. closing on Wednesdays and Thursdays. 1:30 a.m. closing on Fridays and on uh Fridays and Saturdays on property located at 331 West Hienda Avenue, PLN 2025-11.

I don't think we before we second that, do we want to talk at all about permitting that dancy unilaterally? You asked a little about that, but there so we have a motion. It hasn't been seconded yet. Um, but then if it gets seconded, you can also offer a friendly amendment to the motion. Okay. I'll be friendly about it. So, Sam, you get a chance for Is there is there a second? I'll second it. The second motion. Okay. So, and offer a friendly amendment. All right. Go ahead. To include permission for dancing.

Um, has the applicant asked for dancing? Well, I'll add. So, I mean, dancing as an activity is a type of protected speech. People have the right to dance, but the city can prevent spaces for being cleared to create large dancing areas, which is what the condition actually already does. So, it does recognize that people can dance, but that they're not intended to create a large dancing space. So, kind of a incidental dancing, but without creating a dance. And you know, I have personal knowledge of such a thing. And I'm particularly worried about weddings or receptions or whatever you want to call it and allowing that to go on where in fact tables get moved and larger groups of people show up. And I just don't have a problem with that in this instance.

You you do not have a problem with that? No. I'd like to that's why I'm saying let's just say yes before there's a a problem. I see. Uh okay. Does everybody understands the uh the issue or is there is there is there an issue with what with the friendly amendment? So to clarify the friendly amendment would be to allow for areas to be cleared to create to allow for dancing during special events such as weddings. Yeah.

Okay. So we have friendly amendment. Is there a second a question about that? Is that uh something that is is a common occurrence in in places like this where we would have a exception for special events. Is is that is that something that we've seen in other restaurants where you know a venue where you would have this this kind of thing?

I mean most restaurants aren't sufficiently large to really accommodate weddings. So it doesn't really come up that often but I mean there's no reason that the the condition can't be modified to at least recognize the activity that already occurs. Okay. So, we had a motion. We had the friendly amendment motion. Does the maker of the motion agree or will accept the friendly amendment?

Well, you know, I I prefer to the applicants applied for the live entertainment. um uh there was no discussion uh or request for a need to be able to clear for dancing. So my take is that I'm I I want would prefer that we go with um the the standard resolution and just pass it that way. But you know if there's other commissioners that like to Yeah. So so so you I think we're second guessing what we were supposed to be here. So you have to say you accept the friendly amendment or you don't accept the I don't accept.

You do not accept. Now you can also make it unfriendly amendment you know force. Well I mean that's that's the rules of you know that's the rules of order. So well then that would go to a vote. Right. Right. Right. He can make an unfriendly amendment and then we vote on that and if that passes then that becomes the motion. Yeah I understand. All right. So um I actually like your amendment. You know, I think and I'll be very unfriendly about it and say, "Please sir, don't be offended if I because I think you're trying to prevent an issue in the future." Yes. And to me that makes sense. So, um, do you want to make unfriendly amendment? I will I will politely, if possible, make an unfriendly amendment. Okay. Uh, if I could provide just one additional point of clarification.

Sure. So, there is also an additional condition that actually deals with special events. So, I don't think we were considering weddings, but it does allow the applicant to obtain a separate temporary use permit application. Okay. That can allow activity that is different than the normal course of operations even if that activity isn't entirely consistent with the conditions for approval of the conditional use permit. So if there is a need to have weddings or other you know large type of events that are atypical such perhaps like a New Year's Eve party right they could obtain a separate permit for that particular activity that can be reviewed on its own merits.

Got it. And and and would that be a planning commission to have a review or that would be a staff? It would just be an administrative. Okay. In that case that's good. I'm I'm comfortable. Okay. I I withdraw the unfriendly unfriendly has been withdrawn. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. Is there any other discussions or are you ready to vote? Let's go ahead and vote on the original motion. The original motion with the ongoing amendment. Right. The motion as as is. Commissioner Scissor I. Commissioner I. Commissioner Aling. Hi. Commissioner Bwander. Hi. Commissioner Kolina. Hi. Ber Fields. Hi. Chair Karm. Hi.

Congratulations. That motion passes seven to zero. All right, wonderful. Thank you. I guess we come to our picture taking session. Take a break in the meeting. You guys want to take a break first? You want to take a break? Sure. Sure. How about a a five minute break while we do this and then we will continue on with our inclusionary housing. So used to be on the um

I was gonna say I think if you It's a little bit touch and go. you know, and I don't want to take advantage of I think I think basically in I think in e and it's sort of arbitrary, but like either the applicant question time or the staff question time could be asked and then by the time you get to your point, you can make the amendment, but if you jump like I think usually by the time we're doing that part, we sort of Yeah. And then it's just and it's just like tough like procedurally.

So like Oh, no. It's fine. Apologize. No, no, no. Learning me. No, I think it's like I'm just I think it's good you're proposing stuff. I'm just I think in a future occurrence if you ask about it first, then by the time you write the motion, as an attorney, it's like how you evidence. Yeah. There's just a language and spell. People will be more primed to be like, "Oh, right. You ask about see

I don't take offense in offering money. I mean we do take amendments at times. It's not common occurrence. It's usually because there might some controversy. Yeah. uh or where the applicant had requested more than what was my take is it's like they didn't ask for so I'm not going to give them well I was worried

well because what it is I mean um I don't think it's common for restaurant venues. They have a dance a dance. We had another restaurant west. It's it's a prison restaurant. It's a big venue and and when they have a specialy venue, it's it's at Hamilton. Uh it's at Hamilton across from the safe.

It's No, it's it's in there forever. You're talking about the other side of the other side, right? So that there's a Persian restaurant. Um, so they sometimes have big effects. They get they get a special that's I didn't know. I didn't I mean again apolog Oh yeah. So, is it us? It's It's the commissioner.

It's for the commissioner dinner. probably. Well, we usually just stand up. Yeah, I guess. I'll take it. [laughter] Yeah, let's put Missing Adam.

Yeah. I'm waiting for [laughter]

this. Uh, no. We don't want any advertising codes in there. All right, last chance everyone. Photoshop. [laughter] That looks great.

Thank you. Thank you. [laughter]

I watch online sometimes these videos of these council meetings commission. like really hostile people get out of control. [clears throat] It's like amazing. Well, you can always [laughter]

There was a big thing on commission is back. Thank you

commissioners. Back to um back to session if you will public hearing. So the next item is inclusionary housing/overlay districts and density bonus ordinances. Um public hearing to consider recommendation of one an ordinance amending chapter 21.24 24 inclusionary housing ordinance and chapter 21.14 overlay combining districts to facilitate housing development and clarifying clarify related uh regulatory requirements and two an ordinance amending chapter 21.20 20 density bonuses and other housing incentives to implement Assembly Bill 1287 and establish a local density bonus incentive to encourage the production of smallcale affordable by design housing units in furtherance of 22 uh 2023-2031 housing elements. This is file number PLN 2025-135. Uh we have Daniel Farmer and Stephan Rose as our as our senior plans.

Totally mixed it up. Uh I'm going to jump in Robbie Eastwood community director. Uh we actually originally planned our housing manager to present Eloisea Maria Garcia. Unfortunately, she's under the weather. She's online if we need her support. I see. Okay. Bridging our housing and planning divisions. I decided to step in and give you a nice high level presentation, but excellent. As soon as you get technical in any way whatsoever, we have our two senior planners to help you out. Perfect.

So, there's two parts uh to what's before you tonight. Uh part one, uh most commissioners um except for two new commissioners will remember we had a study session several months back uh in May with some ideas on new housing policies. It's a tough housing market right now and we want to recognize housing production wasn't meeting uh the goals we set out for ourselves and under the state laws and we had some ideas on new housing policy. So, it's falling back on that. I'll talk more about that and part two tailor well with this. We do have a housing element uh policy program that looks at um trying to provide uh affordable by design small units and projects incentives for that. And so we decided now is the right time especially with some projects uh coming along and to pair with other housing policies to bring that forward for your evaluation and recommendation of the council. So part one uh for commissioners who were back here uh in May and for our commissioners to educate you our new commissioners we had a big study session back in May um recognizing that uh we have a very robust and ambitious housing element trying to produce a lot of housing in Campbell puts a lot of eggs in the highdensity housing basket uh that market is struggling he might readily [clears throat] right now we do get in Campbell a lot of town homes smaller scale development because that pencils but not a lot of the higher density development in addition addition, affordable housing development is struggling because of the lack of state and federal funds. Recognizing all that, I think we brought to you about seven or eight ideas just for new programs that could help affordable housing in this market or help higher density housing and even help the missing middle market that actually is somewhat working. Uh you had given substantial feedback. We provided that to the council on August 19th and [clears throat] uh coming out of that uh they picked about four or five of those programs and told staff to go forward and what you'll see in the first part is is that um so let's just go into that the the the four programs uh that they recommend

we go for at this point uh first two have to do with affordable housing affordable housing projects uh we have two entitled in Campbell are finding really hard to pencil to get the funding from the state regional local any funding source to make these work just want to give them more time right now you get three years and it's really hard for them to financing. So, a simple measure was just to extend the approvals out five years. And so, that's the first action before you tonight. The second one, we've heard from affordable housing developers, given the financing is so thin, uh we do have a requirement in some parts of the city that you actually have to do ground flooror retail and purposes to preserve some sales stack space, have pedestrianoriented buildings that are much more amendable to walk around than sort of a blank wall or something. affordable housing. Uh developers find that really really hard to finance um and it it just makes it harder to pencil and for them to get financing. Uh we presented the option of waving those ground floor commercial requirements in areas in the city except for the downtown where it really is should be in staff's preference mandated that we do have some ground floor retail. Council agreed. And that's the second item for you today is is just the wave ground for commercial requirements for affordable housing. Uh third uh item for you today is a bit of more of a paradigm shift. Uh under our inclusionary housing ordinance today, uh we did some modifications a year ago under the ordinance that's in effect as of this month. Uh if you're 10 or more units, um you have to provide an inclusionary unit uh on site and we round up and there's options to fee out some fractions. uh if you're a five or six unit project because if you take 15% times five or six that's less than a whole unit you can just provide fees to

fee out. Uh for the seven to nine under our ordinance 789 units um the ordinance today requires you to to build a unit because 7* 15% equals one. Uh we've gotten a lot of feedback from people in sort of the smallcale market uh the missing metal uh doing town homes or um maybe cottage courts or something that that small 7 to9 spectrum. It's still really hard to make projects pencil when you have to build an affordable unit that size. Recognizing that uh staff recommended uh commission did did concur back in May and the council did concur also to go ahead and alleviate the requirement to have a unit for seven, eight and nine unit projects allow them to bonus on that. Uh it helps us build up our inclus our housing trust. We are trying to build funds and at some point we hope to help underwrite and support affordable housing. Um the the trade-off is you don't get a unit right away when the project develops but because of this market we had recommended that all projects five to nine and provide a feed in fee into our program instead of a unit. Council agreed and the fourth item before you is the fifth fifth item that went before plankish council was to standardize accessory dwelling units. Uh this came from staff. Uh there must be two to three new laws every year that tinker and twist and modify uh ADUs and I think staff recognizes it's all intended to help ADU production which the the city is far in support of. Problem is a lot of these laws don't speak to each other and half the time the community is confused and the staff's confused on the different categories of ADUs. uh staff came up with a brilliant idea just to standardize into small and large, make it really easy for the public to understand the standards and flatten them. Uh staff's working on that now. That's senior planner Dan Oama. It'll

come to you in a separate ordinance. Takes a little bit more work, but the first three items on the screen are before you tonight. Uh and I guess I just went through all these. So extend from three to five years. ground floor commercial space as exempted for affordable housing projects. Uh 5 to9 units with paid a new fee. On the last item, we are proposing that be a fiveyear term limited period. It tailors with u the current housing element housing. If the housing market turns in five years uh and it makes more sense to require those units, we can come back. Uh the last item uh gets a little more dense, a little more technical. I'm going do my best just to walk through it at a high level. Uh we do have two senior planners here who understand more the depths of how this works. The idea of this in the housing element was if you build a small unit oftent times they're affordable by design. So uh someone can much more readily afford a studio to rent or onebedroom. And if the only thing we're producing is two and threebedroom units we don't have access to those. They're they're larger and they wouldn't rent for more or sell for more. So this program in its concept was to incentivize developers to just build smaller units in general and they should be more affordable by design. Um how staff is proposing this uh it was contemplated in the housing element perhaps as if you build small units as you calculate your density you would be penalized by going up. So if you built like a unit of 500 square feet, it would be counted as half density versus a whole unit. So you could put more of these into a building uh without having the density go higher. Uh staff has crafted a different program that we think is a bit more effective. It has more carrots in it. And the idea is it's a local density unit density bonus program.

And and with that uh if you provide a small unit which in this definition is under 625 ft you get a density bonus unit at a 1:1 ratio and there's no some would say penalty by having that additional unit be subject to an inclusionary deep restriction part. So, it's recognizing that smaller units by nature are more affordable by design. And if developers put those in their projects under this program, you'll get an additional unit to to pencil into your project. A one plus to articulate that I'll just walk through some criterion tables. But again, feel free to to ask questions with more details on this. Uh the minimum density for these types of projects would be 45 units or more. This is targeted for the high density projects which we're trying to make pencil in in Campbell. Uh the average unit size, this is all required under Campbell's ordinance, wouldn't be larger than 1,250 square feet. It's intended to not have large string penthouse spaces over bouncing that. The average unit size in general in these projects meets that meets that requirement. uh in general they have to comply uh with our inclusionary housing ordinance in general and th this is uh a little interesting uh under state density bonus law and this can get tricky really fast in state density bonus law you can use a waiver or concession to wave a condition or right the fourth uh point here is that you wouldn't use state density bonus law to alleviate the the inherent requirements of the program so it's if you agree to these parameters ers, you would you would adhere to them. You wouldn't separately use some part of state law to to wave your safe out of them. So, you're sort of accepting of all these requirements. And this is something we already do today under the the city's affordable housing overlays. It's not a new tool in simple terms to walk through this and

and I encourage the commission to ask more questions. Uh three scenarios on the screen. uh project walks in uh with 100 let's call it overall units. If uh so on the one on the left if if out of those 100 units 25 those are those are the small units by affordable by design they would get a bonus of 25 additional so they could go up to 125 units. It's a one to one ratio to have more units allowed in your project. The same equivalent if they had 50 small units out of the 100 they could get 50 more units. So again, allows more units to get put into the project, helps it pencil better. And the same if somebody came in with a total 100% small units, uh they could go up to 200. So again, it's just a it's a density bonus program that allows them to go up. Uh last but not least, uh there's a number of new state laws that have to do with density bonus. Uh the new term uh the states rolled out is called double density bonus. It allows uh developers to stack density bonuses. The last part of this ordinance just incorporates that state law into our ordinances as part of this package. Uh with that, uh I'll close up my presentation. Uh assuming there's a recommendation from plan commission night, we move forward on council on November 18th. Again, recognizing our housing managers online. We have our two senior planners here to answer technical questions. Nothing more for me. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to start the questioning with myself um as a clarification. So when you get a uh that one to one and when you get when you build smaller units let's say 400 square foot units then they would not have to be deed restricted anymore. They are de facto affordable. Right.

That's true. So I I'll open and I'll ask the senior planner to clarify two things. One is the project as a whole the whole let's just say in this instance 150 units um is still subject to the city's 15%ary housing ordinance um so you as a whole um in any project over 10 units you'd have to have 15% of the units on site. There's no requirement um that the bonus units have to be de have to be deed restricted. Um so in this instance um those those bonus units by themselves so so if I understand the answer to to my question is that yes they have to be did restricted because of the city ordinance.

No so the the additional bonus units are not subject to any additional affordability requirements but I understood that but the project is still subject to that 15%. And so that 15% is based on the original number without the bonus unit. It's just that the the 15% needs to be spread out proportionally throughout the entire project. Right. So Matt, I just I was unclear about what you were thinking in terms of the question. So the question facto

well when I say the facto I mean by its existence being small, it's affordable and it's being built. So why um put additional burden on the developer to also did restrict it? If it's already affordable, it's affordable. It is what we want it to be. Why put additional restriction on it that will uh that would make the project not pencil out? Yeah, that's so that's what I'm getting. If affordability is defined by the state, right, there's a definition of what affordability is. If somebody builds a a complex with six a 600 600 square foot onebedroom

they and it's not one of the 15%. They can they can rent it for whatever they can get and it doesn't necessarily mean that it fits into the affordability category especially if it's a low debt if it's a low affordable right

number. So it can't just be de facto. Well, the the the issue I have is we have used this 15% system for a long time now and the result is not many units gets built because of those deed restriction everything and the question is if you try something over and over and over and you don't get the results you want maybe you should try something different and see yeah maybe that was the issue maybe did restriction was the issue If our goal is to get affordable units and somebody's willing to build smaller units that are in reality affordable, well, we reached what we wanted. Why do we have to?

Well, are you suggesting that we get rid of the 15%. No, what I'm saying is what I'm saying is that I would Okay. Okay. But I'm just asking. Yeah. Yeah. But but what I was trying to get at is that if they do build smaller units then why uh um why put additional restriction on them to be did restrict may maybe we shouldn't do that because they already built the smaller units. Maybe they built 500 square foot or 400 square foot or SRO or what if they already built it which is what our goal is to make happen you know maybe we shouldn't make them it could be

well let me try to explain it further. So the the idea here again the four bolt by design. So these units are smaller. So they're going to be lower cost in the general market. But now we still do need to have deed restricted units to actually hit our arena obligation. So that is still a requirement that we are obligated to deal with. Can can you just pause on that because I think that's the answer to your question is that we don't get accounting credit at the state if we don't be restricted. Right. Is that is that fact?

Correct. And just to reiterate, we're not imposing any additional affordability requirements on this bonus program. These additional units, 101, these are free and clear. They're not coming with any additional requirements. If anything, collectively, it's actually diluting the inclusionary requirement if somebody really maximizes the program. So for instance, if you have 100 units, 15 of those would need to be affordable. Well, if you say 100, all 100 are going to be small units. Now I can build a 200 unit project but still with only 15 affordable units that effectively reduces your 15% obligation to 7.5% cut in half.

Right. I understand your math perfectly makes perfect sense. The problem I have with it is I think we are not confusing but we are mixing the definition of affordable versus deed restricted. The goal is to be affordable. We're trying to do it by using the deed restriction method. The problem is it hasn't been working. We haven't produced the number of units we want. And when you talk to developers, a lot of them say, "Hey, did restricted not so not such a, you know, desirable project." You know, that's what I'm trying to

just a matter of process. Sorry, Chair Cam Carter, are you in the question category at this point? Uh, well, the the the question I guess you you answer my question. The the question was, do the let's say a 100 unit project, the 15 that they have to make affordable, you know, forget about the bonus, do they have to be restricted and and and you're saying based on what you have in front of us, you like to say, and just to clarify that those are pre-existing rules. There's not nothing before you today that makes that worse or goes from goes beyond 15%.

I think I think what's in front of us makes that better. I I agree. I'm just trying to just make sure we are um we're identifying something that maybe can make make it even you know better to be able to produce those units which is the goal. Maybe maybe I can I'm going to plead your case a little more so I can learn. You got to form it in a question though. We're in a question. Can we just do the questions for now and then we can get back to discussion.

Right. So my so my question is when an a typical average developer proposes to use a matrix to take advantage of this new way of doing business and they get their 15% down to 7 and a half%. Is the cost to construct those 7 and a half% still subsidized by the remaining units? Well, yes. I mean, you have more units in aggregate, so you would spread that cost across a large. So, it's still a loss leader. And I think that's why you're like, look, no one does this because they can't afford the loss leader. Is is that is that the Well, people just not doing it enough,

right? Well, that's I think that's what the whole problem is. But the ratio is a lot. It's not like one to one. It's like one to 10. 10 people won't do it. One developer. Yeah. We've been we've been improving developments with uh below market rate units for years now. It's not enough. The problem is Okay, we should just stay in question. Yes, let's stay in question. So, so I asked my question. Um let's start. Uh Commissioner Bookbinder, are you um would you like to start off the questioning or you want to wait? We can start from the other side. Can I start from the other side? I I have questions. Yes. Wonderful.

Okay. Um, can you tell me the difference between an SRO and a studio apartment? A single room occupancy unit is a more specialized type of housing unit. Doesn't necessarily need its own bathroom or its own kitchen. And the tenency period is not a minimum 30 days. It can be rented out for like two weeks at a time. It's it's really kind of not something we see a lot. Okay. And and my next question is is like do we know developers who really want to build SRO's? No, the the ISRO thing is in there simply because we agreed to incorporate it with HCD as part of the housing element. Practically speaking, this is targeting studios and onebs.

Okay. Okay. Um so um on the uh the question of of uh not requiring mixed use outside of downtown, first of all, I couldn't find where you define downtown. Is it down is downtown more than just between the tracks and Winchester or is it beyond the tracks? It's [clears throat] a great question which is why we're referencing a an exhibit. Yeah, but I couldn't find the exhibit. It's located within the general plan. So, it's our special policy area that that pertains to the limits of the downtown development plan. Okay. We could pull we could pull it up on screen,

but if you could just tell me like is it is it all the way to the overpass or or it it stops well short of the overpass because it pretty much stops at the the tracks.

Okay. Okay. All right. Um, so, so the question I had about that is, and I I actually, last time we talked about that, I agreed that this was this good idea, but I'm wondering if um, you've thought about, you know, this would be every every place else other than downtown. whether or not there are places where we might be kicking ourselves in 10 years because we allowed a a building to be built without the mixed use. And I'm just thinking about the major commercial areas on the corridors, say the Kirkwood Plaza area, uh the um Santomas Expressway area, um certain parts of Baskam or Winchester where in effect if we don't do it and put up a building, put up a residential building and it doesn't have mixed use, then maybe we'll be regretting it a few dollars down the line because we're also talking about walkability. uh village, you know, pedestrian stuff in the long term. So, I I'm just wondering if anybody had talked about well, maybe there are certain places where we might want to be on the downtown still um somehow require some or all mixed use uh lots. That's just what I'm asking. It just kind of came to mind.

I know there's a question there, Commissioner Zester, try. So I'm just asking if you guys have thought about whether or not there might be other places where we might put want not to quick disclosure if it's not none of the commission this is only 100% affordable projects which which are a rarity if we only only 100% affordable standard market rate projects even 50% affordable would all be subject to cloud for retail I guess I didn't catch that okay which I didn't that answers my question that's good um and then just in terms of the downtown. So, this is the general plan map. So, this purple area, that's the downtown for purposes of this.

Okay. Yeah, I I get that. Um, okay. So, the other thing, the only other thing was, and I know I brought it up before, we talked about the three-year versus fiveyear. So, and and uh so tell me um in a formal question um versus giving him five years, which puts us kind of out to almost the end of the cycle. My concern is that there's there's like uh okay, they're going to take the extra two years and they're not going to push us hard. So um and I had asked this before and I don't remember the answer but if we stick with three years there's still an option for extension right and and so my question is does a three-year plus extension make it harder versus just giving a fiveyear is or cost is there cost involved

even under the fiveyear they could still apply for an extension that was the question but The question was in terms of if sticking with threeyear there there's an extension. So it's like somebody uses up their three years they can still get an extension that gets them out to four or five years. They could but there is a cost and time involved in making that occur. Okay. So there is some downside to limiting it to three years in terms of cost and time and reapplying and

corre correct and there could be a basis of denial of that extension request. Should we span general plan housing element cycles and we were to substantively change the condition the conditions in which the original entitlement was initially granted might be something in the future u we might not grant. Okay. And and and we're saying that if we do the five years, it it's there's a cut off at 2030 anyway, right? There's a there was that cut off. Is that tied to the 5-year thing? It it's not tied to the 2030. That's a separate provision of our fees. Okay, that's all. Okay, thank you for those questions. Um, Commissioner Majuski, any questions? No questions. No questions. Thank you. Any more questions?

Yes. I have two questions. esteemed staff. First question is, can can you briefly discuss any duty we might have to preserve the quality of life in the community where these properties are going to be and what does that look like when compared to the requirements the state are imposing on us that we're trying to comply? That's a pretty open question. Let make sure I heard it right. What is the duty of the city to preserve the quality of life in for us? The planning commission. Oh, planning commission. Quality of life in housing projects, affordable housing projects.

Well, just in general as if we say yes to this and it results in a deterioration in a quality of life. Is that something we're concerned with? Does that factor into our decision in any way? I Yeah, broad question, broad answer. Uh, I'd say broadly, you know, your your charter is to implement the we have adopted general plan. principles and things that guide your decision- making. What's for your ordinances that have to comply with your general plan?

If I ask the second question, maybe it'll help you with the first. So my my example is a second question is you know you know hallelujah we get a 100 unit you know a guy really goes for it and then I think about how many of those units are going to come with cars and where are all those cars going to park and drive and how do I think about that now it is not our mandate to allow people to park their cars easily for free on a public street that they don't own and it is certainly not our mandate to prevent people from having homes in order so that they can do that. So that means we have requirements for parking. So to avoid a debate on cars which the item before you today doesn't speak to parking. Uh I

that's why I asked uh savior powder which means we do actually item following this which talks about parking standards and if the council would like to I'm sorry the county mission like to deliberate that's a great item to deliberate on on both minimum maximum parking standards. But I'd say in general the item before your day isn't really a parking item. I mean there's not how would I separate one from the other when I know I know it's coming. My advice would be to save your questions for the next I mean this is really noticed as an item where we're deliberating. I withdraw my my unfriendly question and also there are state there are state laws that that sort of circumvent our control.

Yeah. I I I struggle with this a lot. Okay. Um uh Commissioner Bookbinder, do you have any questions? Um I have I have some notes and some comments but I think the main thing I just want to make sure I understand is um these are mostly minor changes but program HRM is like the most significant thing in that it lower it allows developers who make small units to effectively lower the IC percentage they will be responsible for. Yes, that is a result of it.

Okay, I don't have any questions. Thank you for the the excellent summary both here and in the packet. I think I have a good understanding of what we're looking at. Wonderful. Okay, Commissioner Aulena, any questions? Uh, the only question I have is if we implement these programs, has there been a fiscal projection as to when Campbell, the city's housing fund, might be better able to support the developers and the development of these low income and missing middle houses?

Yeah, it's a great question, Commissioner Akalino. We we've done general estimates uh in the I'll go back to the council report. Senior Planner Steven Rose did a initial financial estimate and I'll broadly state what I recommend was findings. The big paradigm shift is allowing the smaller projects 789 to fee out. I think roughly if we anticipated one or two of those projects coming in a year um I'm going to go off into details which I don't remember but I I think you know we could look at over a couple years up to maybe additional million dollars into our half trust fun. Now does the state also uh chip in to communities that do this. It does not. Now, yeah, that would be great.

It was an obvious question, but there is there is one grant program that's been funded and defunded throughout the years that it says if you have money in your affordable housing trust fund, they'll uh they'll match it with a certain amount of money. So, we've been tracking that. Once we get to a point where we have a significant amount, we intend to apply for that match. But that that that goes year to year. Good. Thank you. question.

Uh I'm just sort of curious to what extent do we think these changes could have impacted the kind of projects we're seeing now? Uh or is this more about opening us up to projects we just do not see today because the the sort of makeup of the buildings is so dramatically different. Well, I'll say two things. One, we do have stakeholders here tonight. I know we have two projects on the high density ends and market's really struggling, but from what we know, the developers have given us feedback. They this could help. I know you hear from one tonight.

Uh without getting too far ahead of ourselves, the project I'm asked about constantly. It's the um the Creekide project from the park. Sure. And from our understanding, uh, the developer has done calculations that the the density bonus calculation, the change before you today is going to help them pencil that project, which is which is great news. Uh, we have another developer who's working on the Hickory Pit. I think he's here tonight. He can provide you his own feedback on that, how that helps. But both of these were calculated to uh help these higher density projects. Uh on the missing middle lower end we we do think this might result in more project that seven to nine um where it's hard to pencil. I I truly do think this could help some of these projects do a fee out and start to

Great. Thanks so much. Uh so uh the fee for 7 to9 units do they at what point do they pay that? Because that's another item. Do they pay that uh like after they are able to build some units sell it and it or is that building building permanents at that point? They have to pay that in full. We did there was uh you know there was an option we presented to the council and and several developers pushed on that to delay that to occupancy. Challenges do come up at occupancy. Uh it's you know inspectors there to sign off. Things are almost done. It's hard to get payment at that point.

Council elected not to go forward with that option but um of the of the matching units. So let's say developer comes in puts 25 of them as um the smaller unit for affordable by design they get 25 bonus. Those 25 bonus can be any size or do they have to be the same affordable by design? They can be any size but the overall project average still needs to be under 1250. Oh yeah. So they can be larger for sure, but just the small units and the other units in combination need to be still under 10,000 combined for us to be 1250.

Was your book just in terms of um the justification for these fees and so on is that they'll produce affordable housing. So, how many units would we have to how many regular units would have to be feed out in order for us to produce one unit of extra housing? Like what is this buying us? I think let me rephrase the question. You don't mean this phrase correctly.

How many how much money is needed to for the city to provide a subsidy to produce one affordable housing unit? Is that your question? Well, that that's we're we're adding all these these taxes and fees in order to fill up the city's housing fund. How many like how much do we get out of that? How much does it take for us to produce one unit? How many effective units does it take for that to happen?

Got it. uh give a broad answer and a faint recollection of a more narrow answer which have to fact check later. I'd say generally for the city to be comfortable at a point where it could help subsidize an affordable housing project to happen, we would need probably at least a million to several million dollars in our affordable housing trust fund. Normal these projects when they come in, they they're affordable housing. They're they're nonprofits. They have a stack of different funding sources from tax credits to federal funds to state funds and local funds. And usually the city's not providing the entire stack, but to to to fill gaps and to help that stack, you know, pencil usually at least one over a million dollars to help that project move forward.

But that's for an entire project with many units in it. Yeah. And there's many types of projects and we'd be some portion of it. So, it sort of obscured exactly what our marginal contribution is. Every project's a little different. That being said, uh I know if folks on the plan commission remember measure A, this was the affordable housing bond that was adopted by the county several years ago. They did calculations they were required to under an audit to to out of that billion dollars in affordable housing, what was the cost per unit? Uh I could find in that number. I I thought I had it in my mind. I don't. If if the commission's interested, there's a there's a general calculation of the amount of money per affordable unit produced.

So, I remember following that and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that number was somewhere in like 800,000 dollar per unit and it's like still shockingly there. Yeah. It's like, you know, I mean, hopefully I'm wrong, but I remember it was like No wonder they don't do it. It exactly. It was such a large number that like that doesn't make sense, you know. But anyway, um okay, any other questions? No ask for questions. Okay. Uh what do we do next? Do we um Oh, yes. Thank you.

Um is there a member of the public that like to speak to us regarding this item? Yes, we have John Pringle. Okay. And then if the gentleman can speak afterwards. Got it. Go ahead, John.

Thank you. I'm John Pringle representing the ownership Barbano uh Earbano who owns the uh Gamble and Baskin site and came to the planning commission for a a preview of our project some months ago. Uh I'm I'm definitely uh want to voice my support. Um I know that's shocking to the planning department of uh the change to uh code 2120 which is uh the affordable by design option. It it does make uh our project uh uh more affordable to build. It was infeasible up until this point. We're running our numbers again. We do have a uh uh design issue. We have to redesign the project to more small units, but the ability to uh match that one for one with larger apartments, I think is going to uh make it viable. Uh we're still working through all the fees associated with developing Earin Campbell which is not inexpensive park fees and uh other issues but I do want to say this is a significant step in the right direction. Thank you. I do have a question for you. Um so um would would the developer then build higher would accommodate the

We'll build more more. How? Well, what what we'll probably do is we came in with a two-phase project, okay? Which included a potential future hotel site and apartments. We'll probably now go for a single larger project uh with more units, less complexity. We have underground parking. We have a lot of parking. Uh, and to your your comment about what's going to happen, what's going to happen is we're going to benefit anybody that lives near the works in the Pruneard that owns a restaurant in nearby grocery in downtown, but you're not going to see the automobiles because we're going to have more than enough parking. Can I get an amen?

It's a It's a total positive. And so, okay. So, what about the height of the project? You know, we're still uh complying with the 75 foot height limit. Okay. And we're building the key the key is to build wood frame type type three construction. So it's wood frame on concrete. Right. There you go. Pull it down.

Right. And so that is how to manage that's the only way to manage cost because high-rise is not feasible and that would be in that 850,000 to 900,000 a unit. Our project will still be you know 650,000 a unit minimum. Previous to this was your you didn't you didn't go up to 75 ft, right? No, we did. Oh, previous we we did, but what's killing us was the uh uh uh the the affordable uh component for the whole project was a killer with uh the very low rents

which were massive discount and it was roughly a $13 million reduction in value. that just made the building uh not pencil not pencil. Can I ask a question please? So um just I just it's interesting it's clear to clarify. So you're you're talking if I recall you were on 180 200 units. Yes. And and then there was going to be the second phase with the hotel. So you're talking about maybe putting another building where the hotel

was about 240. Uh my architect is working today on this since this is fairly new program that uh uh Daniel and Rob uh shared with me last week. Uh we we we might be looking at 270 280 units for the total thing. Yes. Okay. So going from 180 or 200 to 270

270 and a singular project build at once. It's a larger capitalization. Right now, it's going to be uh closer to a $200 million project, and there's a lot of money to raise, but the financial markets are coming back for large apartment buildings right now. And so, everything the how long the entitlement lasts, no wars, no craziness, all this is what a developer has to worry about so we don't get stranded. And uh so would it be all seven story? It'll be uh yeah, we've got some setbacks and other roof designs and I mean I'm not I'm not complaining about

but it's 75 ft. So you would be putting the same uh garage configuration, one underground under under the adjustments, one underground, one overground. Yes. Okay. Yes, sir. Wonderful. Any other question, John? Um, so the affordable units, um, are they going to be interspersed with the non-affordable units or are they going to be segregated or how are you manipulating this design?

Uh, they're going, you know, there's they're going to be spread around the property. Your your ordinance requires that and that's fairly typical. uh unless I think we have the option of uh of uh replacing it with a all those affordable units on another project if we chose to build uh somewhere else. Would we have that? I thought I saw that ability somewhere but they'll be spread in the project. Okay. [cough] Amongst all types of units. All right. Thank you. Okay. One more question. One more question. Yes, sir.

You don't have to answer this. Start with that. But if we approve this as it is, what would be the next thing you'd like to see us do after this that would help you the most? Uh adjust uh park fees. That I mean the fee structure. I've got to come to grips with it. think I've underestimated it and I I'm going to need the city's help in calculating what these fees are, but uh I think the park fees are 20 24,000 a unit, 23,000 a unit. Does that sound right? And not adjusted by this change. So if they take advantage of the full 200, they're paying a park fee for 200, right?

Right. Have to pay a park fee for the whole the whole Bailey Wick. That's $5.6 6 million or so. So the park fee I would assume is based on the fact that every fee payer has an estimated amount of park users in the establishment. And yet if you're applying it to these single room or studio apartments, you'd think that estimate would be significantly lower of park unit per unit because there's just fewer people in

Well, that that's a very good comment. That's why the city I hate Yeah, I hate this word. It's an ugly word. San Jose, the city of San Jose allows reductions in part fees and credit to your your apartment project if you're putting in common area amenities.

So, they give you they give you a credit because we're putting in we're putting in meeting areas, swimming pool, patio areas, sometimes putting greens and and other things. And it's really not a burden on a park, particularly if these fees are going to capitalize. In San Jose's case, the last thing they need is another park to maintain. And and these funds are often designated for acquisition of parks and uh some cities did a large project in Pleasanton. Pleasanton really didn't want any more parks and they flat out were willing to negotiate that issue. Uh they just want some maintenance money to be transferred.

Wonderful. Thank you. Last night I checked our fees in Campbell as high as they are, they're much reasonable compared to Certino. Certino was over 100,000 per unit. Certino rents are quite a bit higher, too. Yeah. Well, I know it's a big but not five times as it probably has more single family homes.

Yeah. Thank you. Um any other um public speakers? Yes, please. Hi. Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Jeremy Louie. Uh, I represent Presley Holmes and we're working diligently with staff to, uh, propose to you shortly a project located at, uh, Campbell Avenue and and Dylan. Um, I'm here to express my support for the, uh, local density bonus for smaller scale for rule by design units. Um there are three reasons that compel me to vocalize the support here. Um first, the policy helps incentivize the gap in the demand for housing. We we all recognize that there's a spectrum. Everything from expensive single family homes to accessible, attainable, affordable carbon units are important and everything in the middle. Smaller units at the 600 square foot level are we wouldn't build it otherwise. were not for this type of incentive. Um, second, Rob had voices already. There have been a few projects recently that have underbuilt the density. That's totally fine. That's that's perfectly fine. We're thinking that this policy would help balance uh some of that density that would not have been built. And then lastly, really I think the most importantly, we view this additional incremental density as a creative to the downtown core. It would strengthen the pedestrian connection between the Prunyard and downtown. It would mean more wallets for the shops, for our restaurants, for our bars. So, we look forward to presenting our project hopefully in the next few weeks. And we uh like to like you to support policy H1F. Thank you.

Can I ask a question? Yes. Yes. Go ahead. [clears throat]

Um I I've seen a preliminary application for you're going to a higher density and slightly higher uh to replace the old one that you were going to put in there. Um would this change your development for the Campbell uh development or or is this just for like future consideration kind of stuff? uh it would change the project that we are that we are seeking to propose that we are proposing now. Uh if this were not to go through it would be a 90 unit project with larger slightly more expensive units that will go through it will be a project on the order of 120 units 118 specifically that are that we think would be more attainable and a better fit for for Campbell residents.

Okay. Thank you. Excellent. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh is are there any other public speakers on this item? No. Is anybody online? No. Okay. So, going to close the public hearing. Back to staff. Any any comments based on what you heard? Thank you. Um uh so commission and discussion I think we had some discussions already. Do you want to start from that side? Any comments?

Yes. Um so first off um all these programs are an improvement on the status quo especially H1M. I think it's an excellent idea. Um I especially I appreciate that the status program is targeted to help uh projects that were struggling um move forward and with great density which is what we've been hoping for. At the same time, um, at the earlier meeting, I was very disappointed to see that city council made what seemed, with the exception of the new programation round, which is significant, very around the edges, minor tweaks to existing programs, right? We are not off, we're not projected to be off by 10%. We're projected to be off by a factor of four. So just to to say this lobby is I think I didn't express this um clearly enough maybe last time we did this. The reason why we are not one major reason why we are not getting enough housing is because the policy we have followed is one in which we attempt to capture whatever surplus is produced by uh development. development can be tremendously profitable. And the idea is that we should capture the majority of the surplus and leave the developers enough so that they have projects just pencil and the rest of it is cut aside for parks, affordable housing, other things that we like. The problem is that things change and when things change a little bit, the projects don't pencil and we get nothing. And beyond that, even though we've made these projects pencil, we don't have any idea what the dog that doesn't bark is here. what projects nobody even proposed because we do so much taxing of new housing to pay for new housing and things like we don't have a school's fee even though new people use schools. We don't have a libraries fee even though people use libraries. We don't have a police fee or a fire department fee like for all of

our other public services. We tax everybody and if our taxes aren't enough to pay for it like with the library or the police department, we get a ballot measure which I know is a big lift and we get we got measure O and that's why we have next library. Very excited to take my kid to it building. We don't tax housing make that happen. The only reason I think we do that is because the people who don't live there can't complain about it. But the fact that they're not here is really coming back to bite us. the fact that rents are unaffordable, the tents, all that stuff, all the downsides of the housing crisis, which I think our response to this, which we really have a chance to take a hard look at what we're doing, our response has not met the scale of the problem. That if we were really serious about this, we would abolish our parks fee. If we really need to pay for more parks, we would we would tax ourselves for this. We would instute a parcel tax or a sales tax or issue bonds or something like that. If we're really serious about this, we would significantly reduce or remove our inclusionary housing ordinance because it is a very impressive way of reducing the total amount of housing that gets built. Now, you could have incentives to get people to produce subsidized housing. That's what the state density bonus law already does. To the extent that we have these, we add a significant cost to building new housing and especially the five to 10 unit. We say we want missing middle housing, but I think for a marginal like improvement in some fund that may or may not produce some housing down the road, we are significantly impeding midsize projects. I think it was a terrible mistake to add inclusionary zoning fees to five to nine unit projects. If we are really serious about this and we really wanted to have an inclusionary zoning program, we would tax single family homes and not tax multif family homes. Nobody does that because it's politically difficult. The only reason we do inclusionary zone like

this is it's politically palatable to charge to put taxes on people who don't live here yet. It is politically good. It is economically a bad idea. Back to what we're actually talking about. I support what we have on the table. I wish we were doing more. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. So, so I just I just want to be clear. Um, so you're advocating for, you know, getting rid of our affordable housing um, ordinance and, you know, if if if you were king of California, this is what you would advocate, right?

I would pay for it in a different way. I think it's very reasonable to have subsidized housing. I wouldn't pay for it by taxing new housing. Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner, do you have any comments?

Um, yeah. I think that uh we're headed in the right direction. I understand Adam's points and think they're they're very well I kind of agree that $24,000 a unit for a park fee seems a little ridiculous. Um, the other thing I'd like to suggest to the developers that are in this audience is um I I do design critiques at my alma mater and I do this like we're doing it for 15 years and most of the projects are housing projects and I would invite you to go to a university and or even write to a professor say I have a project I have a problem and let the students show you what they can do. It doesn't cost you a dime. You see new ideas, new ways of doing things. And also look to other societies uh specifically in Scandinavia. Denmark has got some great great housing uh projects that are just wonderful where they include the parking with the building and you don't even know there's parking there. Um secondly, I think that um there might be ways uh to develop projects within the project the ability for the owner slash renter to build his own house as he see fits and as he sees fit as his family grows. We did a project like this where you build a bathroom in a little kitchen area and then it's wide open. Now, it's great for a young couple that's married. It's like a studio apartment. If they have children, then they can build the walls and the doors, put the doors in, right? Um, it's just an idea I've seen done a lot at these college projects to help those that can't afford it build as they get more income and get get the wherewithal to do it. So that might be another idea to answer these

questions about well how do I build an affordable project where can I save money right the two things you probably need is a bathroom kitchen area everything else you can put up curtains you could put a Murphy bed in etc etc so there's ways I think to alleviate some of the cost and all the cost but that type of thinking might spur more unique solutions to this problem and I'm in I I we're heading in the right direction and and I'm glad we have developers here to talk to talk to their problems because it's it's a real problem. So, thank you.

That was excellent. And just before passing it down, I want to say something about that um developer of Bishop Ranch up in you know came and he he was giving us a talk and he said um I needed to cool down this huge complex. So I went to UC Berkeley with students and say here what do you guys suggest and they came up with this like a pond like a lake idea

using water that goes outside during the night gets cooled bring that pump that water inside and use that cold water to and it he said that tremendously brought down the cost of cooling and it just made the project more affordable you know it's a lot so yeah you're absolutely right Um, Commissioner Scissor, do you?

Yeah. Well, you know, without the respected commissioners, we have four items here we're supposed to comment about. That's that's what we're that's that's what the purpose of this section is. And so, we can go off on better ways to fix this huge problem. Uh, which is not unique to Campbell, by the way. Um, vast majority of municipalities are having the same problem that Campbell's having. We're not doing it necessarily any worse than anybody else. Okay. So, without due respect to Adam, I understand he's frustrated and I am too because our numbers aren't very good. But um this is a a real common problem throughout the state and and and throughout the Bay Area where very few people are even are are you know there San Jose is at 5% to almost three years into the cycle I believe. I I heard a number just the other day they're supposed to be doing I can't remember was 60,000 or 80,000 but they're at 5,000 or something. So, um, so you know, it's a common problem. We can we could sit and talk here about, but that's not what we're here for. We're supposed to look at these things and see if we're agreeable to this. And and the only other com and I'm agreeable to all these things that the staff is recommending. And the only other comment I have is that, you know, we we we we spend too much I think sometimes we spend too much time talking about things that are not that are already in law that we can't change. you know the 15% is the law the the reena requirement is there you know we can't sit here and change our requirement for affordability we have to figure out what we need the best thing we can do to um you know in including this stuff to see if we can

boost that afford you know we have a requirement in arena for various o over 50% of arena is supposed to be affordable and that and there's four different I believe four different levels of affordability. So we we can't just uh pretend like we're not we don't have to do you know affordable uh apartments at at a certain level or that that um or that the the the 625 square foot is by de facto affordable. Well, it's not necessarily because that could be renting that's not going to necessarily be uh rentable at at a very low income. Okay? Unless it's made to be rented at a very low income. You can say, well, 600 square feet is going to be it's going to be affordable housing, but it's not if you're making $20,000 a year and the number is, you know, whatever it is, $500 a month, okay? because that's going to be the requirement for that particular required affordable housing from a legal point of view what the rent's going to be. Okay. So, we have to understand that and that you know talking about you know we we don't you know we got to as far as the park fees stuff that's probably a discussion for another time. I have no idea personally where the park fees go where it it certainly doesn't go to building new parks because there's no place there's no place to build build buy a new park or build a new park in Campbell. There just isn't. Okay. There there is no place for it. Okay. So, I'm assuming it goes for maintenance of parks or putting in new playgrounds or whatever it is. But I don't I don't know that. So, I'm not going to comment on whether the 24,000 a unit and the total number in our I don't know where it goes in our budget and what it's used for. And I'd rather understand that

better before I comment on whether 24,000 a unit is too much. Um and and may I know the council has gone over this and reviewed the whole thing of park fees and come to a decision and I'm assuming that you know that's the decision that's going to be standing until somebody decides to change it. So in any case um the four items extending the intelment period the waving of the ground floor commercial uh allowing inloo fees for project with 59 units and introducing uh the new density bonus. I'm all for it. I'm glad to hear from the the two developers here uh that that put their stamp of approval on it and that it's actually going to make a difference in their projects. So that to me was the important thing to hear. it's actually going to change the nature of their projects, bring them up and actually go forward. I certainly hope Chrisley really is going to go forward because I know that there's at least two or three of us commissioners that are tired of seeing that empty lot. Okay. So, so please, please fill that empty lot. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Um, you want to just

Yeah. Uh, I appreciate the staff. I know this is a lot of work, so first. Um, I very much agree with Commissioner Bookbinder that we have to do more. We're going to be way below our numbers. Um, but we had two developers here telling us this is going to help and we need housing and that's the bottom line. So, I'm in support. Very nice. Concise and

I have nothing to say. Then I Jim Bezos has the highest fence in Los Angeles. It's something like 40 feet out of compliance. And his answer was a checkbook away and every month he writes a check to pay the fine. So that's how he solved his problem when it had no other answer. and Rosa Parks decided she didn't want to sit in the back of the bus one day and there's two examples of single people who found their answers when there could be no answer because they had laws in the way. So, we had a developer stand up and give us a perfectly reasonable answer to what would you do next? And I want to give them some hope that maybe there's people who are a little more hopeful than an individual can make a difference. And somewhere between the university students, the developers, and a government that gets out of the way, maybe like the good Marshall said, we can stop talking about how far we've come and start talking about how close we are. And that's all I've got to say on this.

So So you support what they're doing? Well, I I would I would say yes. I support how far we are, but I would encourage them to get to how close we are. Excellent. Thank you. Question. Uh, I'm supportive of all four of these. I think more in hindsight, I look back at the staff notes which I think accurately captured our discussion on this and we sent a very muddled recommendation to the uh, city council. So, we didn't uniformly agree on.

Well, correct. And that's what I wanted to comment on. Uh I think in hindsight [snorts] like for example we there's a general agreement on deferring or waving park fees. There were varying positions on whether three years should be extended to five years. So to critique ourselves, I think especially maybe even on the next item, we should take roll call votes and really give the city [snorts] council a more distinct opinion than we gave them because I think we felt maybe strongly about the park fees, but I don't know that if they read this report, they would know we felt that strongly. So I think just note to us uh when we're talking about these things that are going to be recommendations to planning, we really need to to force ourselves to get to a sharper recommendation because I think if we just pass on we had varying positions. They're just going to decide what

on their own and we're sort of abdicating some responsibility. So, uh, I'm very supportive of these and I'm just making that note for us, uh, as we get into deliberating, uh, other actions because I think we could have probably sent a more pointed recommendation than than we did.

Okay. Thank you. Um, and as for me, I um, I have to reiterate what I said before. I completely understand uh, Commissioner Zister's argument. The problem I have with it is it hasn't produced our intended consequence. In order to produce our intended goal and intended units, maybe we have to change some things. And so maybe what that 15% of what was in the laws needs to be tweaked to see if it pushes us even further in the right direction we want to go. Um, I am fully in support of the four items you're proposing. Absolutely. I also think we're we're not going far enough. We need to go a little bit farther. So, that's why whoever makes a motion, I hope that they would incorporate in the motion that um we need to be bold. We need to try a few things. What do we have to lose, you know? Um uh anyway, so that's that's where I stand. And with that, unless there's any other uh comments, I'm open for motion.

You want me to do it? Sure. You are pretty good at it. Well, actually that go. Um, I make a motion that city council uh the plan commission make a recommendation the city council adopt an ordinance amending chapter 2124 inclusionary housing ordinance chapter 21114 overly combining districts and to an ordinance amending chapter 2120 density bonuses and other housing incentives as part of GLN 2025135. Okay. Do we want to add anything as far as the park fees

unless there uh should you do a show of hands or you know people can object if they want to object um show hands for how many people would be in favor of um s of requesting the city remove or remove the park fees or or or look at them and understand them see where's going maybe it's a reduction and a complete elimination lower or reduce. I mean lower or eliminate.

So just uh my intention is not to [clears throat] cloud the discussion at all. I just will remind the commission one one of the items before you last time was not a full breadth of the park fees discussion. It was an idea to remove all park fees for full housing projects as a way to subsidize them. Uh just as a fact we'll report back. The council considered that item. They decided not to do that. There was some deliberation on council members. I just want to make sure you had those facts before you before you start to weigh into the part. can uh so

you know this this has already been gone through one time around and the city council has already reviewed it once unless we have something very specific that we would recommend or but you know I personally don't know enough about the park fee issue in terms of uh where the money goes how it impacts the budget if we were to make a recommendation just to throw something out there as a general, you know, you know, I mean, we could say we would like uh the the the city to review the park fee issue again, but I don't see the point of the fact that this just went through. So, if I may, um I agree with you that it is that would not be specific enough. But how about if we say lower or no park fees on affordable units?

Sure. The other thing could be or ones that take advantage of their new incentive plan. You know, what do you call the M? Is there a term of art that you use for using your new found carrots? It's H1M. H1M. Just H1M. So maybe it applies to H the small scale units. Something like that. I mean, maybe there's some word smithing that could say just to throw another carrot into this. Then then there you go. And and by the way, no matter even if the part fee goes into the black hole, we don't understand, we're talking about money that would otherwise never be there anyway. So, we can't be doing any harm.

Well, I don't understand how you could make a recommendation on a change in park fees without actually understanding the implication of reducing park fees for the city. I mean, don't we need some data? Don't you don't want to make you don't want to you want to make a decision about park fees without data as to the implications for for how it affects the city's physical they'll just it's okay they know better

two you know part of what this is used for currently they're getting a new bathroom at John Morgan it's costing upwards of $1 million that's coming from housing that's where that housing money is going to it's for capital expenditures on our existing parks uh second we can wait until we get our next APR and suddenly realize again that we're way behind on our production. We should do something and we can go through this again when it comes up next year as it will. Um I if we want to make a a specific recommendation say we should recommend that bonus units from the small scale program don't have park visa. Say that again.

That bonus units from the small scale unit program don't have part visa. So you If you're getting like 40 bonus units from this, you don't pay park fees on the 40 extra units.

What's I I feel like we should make a uh attempt to understand what city council's specific objections are on this to try and craft our recommendation because I just feel like we're going to fire something back without really knowing what their issue is. So like my if I was to propose something potentially given the depth of this topic, this could be a good subcommittee activity [snorts] for us. Maybe if we're exploring new subcommittees would be to have a couple commissioners look into what other cities do, talk to developers, talk to city council, and make a more fleshed proposal because I I feel like we're going to make what Rob is referencing is we've been recommending [laughter] this and council's been saying no. So, I don't really think it's a good idea for us to make a recommendation kind of one shot here. I think we should do something [snorts] more thoughtful. Uh, so that's that's what I would recommend.

I'd be happy to work on that. Yeah. Okay. I like that. I the subcommittee subcommittee. So, as said by the future chair, so let's go ahead [laughter] and let's go ahead and uh let's go ahead and clarify the motion. Um it's as written. Okay. So if you don't want to change it motion as written. Is there a second? I second. Okay. We have second. We have motion and a second. In no other discussion, let's go ahead and vote, please. Commissioner Scissor. I. Commissioner Majki. Hi. Commissioner Ali. Hi. Mr. Patter. Hi. Commissioner Kino. Hi. Pastor Fields. Hi. Conor. Hi.

Perfect. And so we will discuss the um subcommittee in the next item coming up or next. Thank you. Um so we are done with that item. We now start our study session on the transit oriented communities policy. Study session on metropolitan transportation commission transit oriented policy. And I guess

yeah, I'll just the presenter here is your planner Stephen Rose. I'll just acknowledge A, it's doing it a little later in the evening. Uh, not that you don't have all the energy that you started with. Uh, B, it's a very dense and heavy topic. C, it is a study session. No hard decisions tonight. Uh, Steve and I just talked about two approaches to this. One would, uh, be staff go through the entire presentation and we can come back and you can deliberate. Um, and there's settings if you want to be more measured. There's, if you read the, you know, when you read the report, there's there's bites, there's bites of the apple. If you want, we can stop at certain points and and ask you for feedback. That takes more time, but it's a bit more deliberate and pausing. So, just check.

Would there be a harm if we just wanted till next session? Yeah. What's what's the possibility of

we are, and I'll let Stephen speak to this. This you know broadly this is a commitment uh we made to MCCA bag to review these policies and accepting their monies. Uh they are provide us a grant to underwrite the Hamilton Avenue precise plan. When we accepted those monies to prepare that plan and is funding it 100%. Uh we agreed to to do a formal review of how we're consistent with these new TOC policies. I'll check in with Stephen if there's a deadline. I just it might be coming up against it. The overarching intent of having it tonight as opposed to later, is that it helps inform the development of the Hamilton Avenue public improvement plan, should the planning commission feel as if some of these policies that are in the TOC policy framework should be incorporated as part of the development of that plan, this serves to inform that direction that needs to go from planning commission to council and then that's going to go to our consultant team which will then incorporate that in our public outreach. We do have scheduled meetings that we have for visioning workshops and development workshops. So it would cause a a delay to the project equivalent to however long we push back the item.

I would say let's go ahead and do it then. Thank you.

All right. Thank you and good evening uh commission. As uh mentioned, this is a study session item, so there's no formal actions or decisions being made, but I'm sure that the city council would definitely appreciate some pointed clear direction from the commission on the topics that are raised in tonight's item. Um the purpose of this item is really to evaluate the city's alignment with MTC's TOC policy, which was adopted in May of 2025. It does fulfill a key uh PDA planning grant commitment which was uh made as part of the Hamilton Avenue public improvement plan. It's really what uh paid the bills for a $400,000 grant. Uh it also uh serves to explore actions that the city may take to improve conform conformance with and competitiveness with future uh grant funding opportunities including OAG 4 which really pays for a lot of public improvements in the community. Uh the intent of tonight's item is for the planning commission to recommend the city council appropriate next steps including supporting a actions to provide better conformance with the TOC policy or taking no further action at this time. So uh as mentioned by Rob the policy framework is rather dense. Uh it was adopted with an intent of promoting sustainable, equitable and transit supportive growth. It does apply to uh areas within one half mile of major uh transit stations and it's tiered by transit type is to say that different stops are treated differently within the framework. Within Campbell, we're considered a tier three uh policy area that's dictated by our light rail stops and applies certain standards like the specific floor ratios, densities that are contained within the standards are all based on that transit type. Now it's not mandated for the city to adopt these standards. It's more of a carrots than a sticks approach. Uh but it does influence again as I mentioned earlier regional funding eligibility. Uh there

are four policy areas uh which break down to 11 standards requirements. The report and even the presentation tonight is really focused on those 11 standards and requirements because it really is what uh their scoring methodology breaks down to on the screen. This is going to be too small to look at right now, but I do break these down uh with individual slides. This is just kind of an overarching view of all the distinct 11 policy areas and those applicable standards and requirements that apply to the city uh for those that tier three transit area. Uh I did also want to mention the report does provide a breakdown of there's a little bit of overlap between new legislation and the TOC policy and scoring criteria. Uh granted that the TOC policy was adopted in May and you know things changed in July uh there some new bills went into effect and then subsequently in October the governor signed in some more. So we are where we are now. Um we have now passed seen the passage of SB79 which is the transit oriented development uh bill. These are the three that I probably would highlight here on the screen. Uh that particular bill increases residential density near transit stations. So again, a lot of the stuff that the TOC policy framework would ask us to reach for is really going to possibly be achieved through conformance with SB79 in that regard. It does also and I we could plan to have an entire separate meeting talking about SB79 and itations for the city. Uh it's not the intention of tonight's item, but I did want to mention that it does allow for the establishment of transit oriented development alternative plan which would allow the city to go about an exercise of reassigning and allocating densities within that transit area. Uh two other bills uh well a series of bills AB894, AB1317 and AB 2097. These all in different ways adjust the city's parking standards by either requiring for or allowing shared and unbundled parking and eliminating uh parking u minimum requirements within one half mile of light rail. Then

finally AB130. Uh this is was mainly a sequel reform bill. a few other things but among the other things it did is a super omnibus of sorts. Uh it does restrict the ability of jurisdictions to adopt local reach codes which which impose new residential building standards which go above and beyond uh those that had predated I think September 30th of this year. Reach codes being the gas and electrification.

It could be reach codes could be anything that goes above and beyond minimum standards that apply to residential buildings as of uh in the building codes. So if you were to impose any additional requirement that is again an extension of what the building code currently requires. Uh so again uh the in addition to the policy framework um the PC now has a scoring framework as well uh that was established in that May May period. Uh they're looking at having an update to the scoring framework uh probably between I'm told as early as the end of this month. I haven't seen it yet like up through spring of 2026. So a lot of the numbers that I'm presenting in this report like the number of points we get in a particular category, how they go about assigning them and the waiting of them, that's really what's subject to change. Uh so really how many points you get for achieving and now and and again the way the scoring framework works today is you are scored across all station areas. you don't get points. If you're in 100% compliance at say the downtown light rail station and you're doing uh more poorly at the Winchester station, it's an averaging is the word. Uh again, up to 100 points are possible. They're weighted differently across policy areas. Again, subject to change. And in the development of both the the policy, the TOC policy and the scoring framework, which which is uh tonight's discussion to some extent, uh Campbell did participate cautioning materially against parking maximums. understand they may hinder feasibility of redevelopment. Uh we had also recommended a per station scoring approach and a phase more phased and flexible compliance. Understand it's going to take cities time to get up to speed with a lot of the policies which have been outlined. And then lastly, we'd encouraged more alignment the state prohousing designation program. A lot of these policies, they're asking you to go further or above and beyond housing policies in particular. there's a great deal of possible overlap, but they're kind of paving their own way and

creating their own standards as opposed to utilizing those which have already been established by the state. Uh so with that, I did want to start the discussion of the 11 kind of policy areas. I I kind of have I'm kind of using uh two per per slide here as best I could to kind of uh power through the discussion because there's a lot of them. Uh the first being average residential densities. So where the city presently has a minimum residential density of about 38 units to the acre around our three transit stops when measured in overall the policy requires 38 to 50 dwelling units an acre. Uh 38 being the minimum which is required to start to score points. Uh so the city does technically comply but it's not scoring the maximum points it could otherwise do in that particular category. in terms of maximum residential density. The city's closer because we're close to about 50 drawing in the acre versus the 75 that's required. But again, this is one of those areas where I don't want to say overcome by events, but SB79 would allow us to get closer or actually we'll we'll hit that number, the 75 units per acre once once we've implemented that particular bill come July next year. Uh on this point, staff is recommending that we re-evaluate densities, including the minimum, via the SB79 TOD alternative plan, which we would like to bring forward sometime in 2026. Uh on the second point, uh and and if you we'd like to stop at each of these points, I know I think I'd been me mentioned earlier. I'm going to just power through all of it. We do have summary slides. I do have two strategic summary slides. Just kind of put them all on the screen. We can kind of go around the horn that way. uh commercial office intensities or floor ratio. The city does not satisfy either of the two requirements. These are really requiring that on a minimum basis. So meaning that if any site were developed within a transit station, they has to build a certain percent certain amount of floor area ratio. So there are projects which might come in under that. They couldn't even necessarily do

additions to their projects. So by establishing a minimum F could establish problems in that regard. Um maximum F the city allows for 1.32 floor area ratio today where closer to where a minimum of 3.0 to 4.0 would be required to hit the the maximum uh scoring in this category. Understanding that our the city's FS have hindered the development to some extent hotels and other projects that have come forward. this is something which we'd like to look at and we might combine the discussion of F with that SB79 um TOD alternative plan in 2026 as well. In regard to housing policies, there's kind of three top topic areas. There's production, protection, and preservation. In terms of production, the city has uh more than achieved its minimums. There's five policies adopted. These are like things like establishing affordable housing overlay zone uh and and some of the policies which will probably the last item is a good example. The small unit policy be probably raise our total from five to six here uh where there's only two required. There's protection policies. Most of these are est uh accomplished through uh consult a contract that we have with project sentinel providing for assistance to renters if there's a complaint they are getting some type of protection. Thus is has to do with preservation is how do we preserve our existing housing stock in a community don't allow it to be converted or lost. So we're not hitting that particular point but we are recommending uh that we explore the adoption of two of the preservation policies which have been outlined in the POC policy framework. The first being the condominium conversion policy and the second being a preventing displacement. This is for like code enforcement actions possibly that it could result in a the eviction of a of a renter. These are two, we've developed two programs about this. Uh we would need to talk about this as part of the fiscal year 2026 2027 work plan so we can figure out where that falls within other priorities the council

might outline for the the housing division and possibly planning as well. In terms of commercial stabilization policies, there's a minimum floor ratio or I'm sorry, that's not that's actually a an error on the slide. Uh there's a requirement that the city establish at least one uh commercial stabilization policy. As of present, the city has z none established where again one is required. Staff is recommending that we do establish a small business advocate office. It's one of their their options among their list. It seems to be the lightest lift for the city to undertake, but it would require the city to update its website and really identify the economic development manager is serving in that particular function. So really it's somebody that somebody could call and get help and get support to help promote economic development [clears throat] and and commercial projects. And I will mention uh online we both have we we're support my my presentation tonight is supported by uh Nate uh who is our uh economic development manager online. We also have I should have mentioned earlier our public works uh uh senior one of our senior engineers Roger Stores. And I believe Eloa if she hasn't logged off yet is also possibly online. Uh just continue with the presentation. Number five is parking standards. I'll try to go a little bit faster. Uh minimum uh there's a no there's no minimum parking required. Uh this is again an area of overlap with AB2097 within these AB2097 areas. The city is not allowed to require parking for really any commercial or residential project in those areas. The TOC policy establishes instead of not requiring a minimum, it's putting a cap. So you can't propose more than a certain number of parking spaces. uh above what their standards would outline. The city does not presently have a cap on parking. If the developer wanted to have a single family home or a a unit provided eight parking spaces, they they certainly could do so as of present. The policy here is would be an entirely new concept or paradigm shift

for the city if we were to establish such a standard. And again, there's there's numbers and ranges that that pertain to the number that that the policy speaks to. For residential, it would be between 0.5 to 7 would be the max within that half mile radius around a transit stop. And in terms of commercial, it would be 1.6 spaces max per thousand square feet up to 2.1 for the maximum or 2.1 to 1.6. 1.6 actually being the where you get the higher score. Again, putting a a lower ceiling on how many parking spaces you can have. Uh now in the staff report we had actually identified there's a table that showed like typical commercial uses that are identified with certain uses and how many parking spaces those uses uh like to see and per it trip generation uh standards. Staff is concerned that a lot of projects and including getting with lenders and banks if you established a parking maximum it might not make the projects feasible for both residential and commercial. In commercial in particular, it might make the city less competitive in attracting high quality commercial businesses relative to surrounding communities if we're the only city that were to say establish such a cap. So, you're not going to see that that Costco, you're not going to see that type of use come in Campbell if they don't have that cap, you know, less than less than a half mile away from the city on the line. Uh in regard to bicycle parking standards, uh the first topic is under minimum residential parking spaces. This is a number of bike parking spaces per unit. Uh this where the city currently requires 0.25 unsecure spaces. These are like if you just have like a a ring outside that you're just attaching your bike to. The TOC policy would require them to be secure. They could be within a bike room inside built into a building or secure bike locker. Uh minimum of one per unit. It's a higher number and a secure parking requirement. There's a concern that we've identified staff.

Again, AB130 had not passed when the TSC policy was established. And under AB130, this could be seen as a local reach code. Something we need to investigate more whether or not that is even something which we could impose even if we wanted to. Under minimum, again, it's one parking spaces per 2500 square feet uh is what our code currently requires. So we actually have a greater parking requirement, bicycle parking requirement for for commercial uses, but it's not secure. So because of that, it doesn't meet the standard. So again, recommended action staff's recommended we confirm that we can adopt per AB130 for the residential standards if we were to move forward with it. And then commercial, we'd be supportive if we could provide as an alternative credit. We don't want to necessarily reduce our current number of bicycle parking spaces required for commercial. Okay. Uh number seven, uh parking management policies. Uh the city is uh uh it falls short of its requirements on both unbundling and shared parking due to kind of complications in our code. Generally, the policy is requiring the city to explicitly state that we allow these things. We get there in our code, but in a more of a roundabout method than maybe what the TOC policy would generally want. So, we're recommending that on those, we would uh provide more specific language for that. On the shared parking in particular, we do allow shared parking between like use types like all commercial uses can share, all residential uses can share, but we don't allow sharing between commercial and residential except for in limited use case situations where in a mixeduse project, yes, parking spaces may be shared. So this would be a policy change to allow shared parking between all uses, but because they're not necessarily even required to provide parking between 2097, we that's something that we we'd be supportive of. Uh in terms of complimentary parking strategies, it just requires the city to adopt one. We do have a transportation demand management policy. We'd be recommending that. So we already meet

that. So we're not asking for anything more there. Uh kind of same goes for complete streets program. This is actually probably the fastest one on the screen that we have. It simply requires that we have an adopted complete streets policy. We do so we comply and no no further actions recommended by staff. Uh active transportation it requires the city prioritize active transportation projects. This is really something you demonstrate through allocation of funds to this the uh capital improvement uh program of the city. We have demonstrated this and therefore no further actions required. We think we'll score well in that category. In terms of access gap analysis, it requires the city to uh demonstrate that we have four adop we have a minimum of three adopted or planned improvements related to pedestrian and bike activities. Uh in the staff report, we've identified how we've gotten there on this first two categories. We don't really have the same as pertains to bus. We should probably make some arguments about some herb expansions and other projects in the area, but we don't we we'd like to uh in this on this particular point, we're recommending that we monitor future grant funding opportunities like ASIC or as well as ASIC to um support bus stops in the in the city. And at this time, we're not recommending any further action. So, we would not score well on that particular point because we don't have an immediate solution on bus Uh and finally, last but not least is mobility hub planning. This probably the most complicated of the TOC policies to really understand and wrap your head around. Um it really requires that we demonstrate mobility hub planning imple implementation as described in a mobility hub implementation playbook. This kind of outlines a bunch of tools that you can kind of implement to try to promote like last first and last mile access around mobility around our stations. Uh right now we are studying this as part of the Hamilton public improvement plan. So we're going to look

at it for the Hamilton station in particular. We're hoping to take in into account what we learned there and apply it to the other station area. So we kind of have of a an economy of a scale. But as of present we do not score well because it requires us to consider this across all three stations but we're only doing it for the one at the time. So again this is kind of like a deferred action. We are recommending that we look into it, but it's something that would follow the adoption of the Hamilton plan. Okay. So, as promised, uh on the screen here is a summary of all those recommend recommended actions. So, uh really these are the things which really move the needle that would require the city to really take action and do something. everything from uh considering raising our allowable floor area ratio for office uses around transit stations, adopting those two housing policies, establishing a small business advocate office, establishing secure bike parking, etc. If we do all of these things, uh we have anticipated that we'll score between 63 and 81 points, which per the current MTC policy scoring framework will be considered partially compliant. uh we won't be as competitive as somebody who as as another jurisdiction which is fully compliant but will be eligible for some funding as it's outlined. Now should the planning commission wish to go further uh keep in mind that these are not recommended for the reasons which we had identified in the report and the presentation uh on the screen are three policy areas where we could go further uh including uh raising the minimum required density to 50 units per acre uh within our transit stop areas to score the maximum possible points. We're score we're at 38 today. 38 dwelling units the acre. So we're just falling short of that. uh we would need to establish a a maximum residential and or commercial parking standard again for the reason stated staff is concerned about that uh in in causing issues with project feasibility. And lastly, under the policy area 10 um

access gap analysis, we would need to start to allocate direct funds towards uh bus stop improvements and things that directly speak to implementation of that um that that playbook that had been mentioned earlier. So that that's something that we we will get to possibly in the future, but we would rather right now uh wait for future grant funding options to get through that. Uh so with that, I really appreciate you guys' patience. I know that was a lot to get through. It was a long report. I think it's 32 pages or so. Um, and uh, I just did want to reiterate and uh, echoing uh, Commissioner Fields comment earlier that if we wanted to provide uh, pointed feedback and how we would like to go about supporting uh, the actions that have been identified in the staff report to provide for better conformance to TOC policy or where we've identified as appropriate uh, take no further action. That that concludes uh, staff's presentation. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Um, [clears throat] Okay, go ahead. Um, notice I didn't just jump. So, um, if we don't, if we're in partial compliance, I get 60 or 70 points versus getting over 85 or 100, what's the implications? What do we do? Are we losing are we losing grant money? What What is What is it?

Uh, great question. We could I mean they haven't technically finalized their TS the the policy framework the scoring criteria were operating under the their initial draft. So the idea being that depending on where that range falls if you're partially compliant as they've defined it you will be less competitive. So we're let's say we were to propose a project and and submit for grant funding under OAG 4 for it. If there's another jurisdiction, say Sunnyvale or Mountain View or were to apply under that same they had a program in Apollo and they were more compliant, we might not get the funds at all. Have you seen their reports?

I think we're actually among the jurisdictions which is furthest along this TOC policy even analysis which is where I was going. Doesn't sound like it pays to be first.

Well, I'd say there's a lot of layers behind this. I love shre from the a MTCA bag doesn't have local land use control. They're usually they have a lot of influence on the region through their sustainable plans and usually the hooks these are my terms are usually through funding and as as Stephen mentioned traditionally the city has relied upon OAG funding and we have our public works staff online that can speak to it. So it has funded a lot of projects in Campbell. This is a paradigm shift of having a carrot and stick together if you want [snorts] to get the flex going forward. Uh, a lot of cities we we meet with the cities monthly. There's a monthly plane director's meeting. It's come up constantly as a topic. Um, most cities I think are tracking this in general. Campbell uh when we accepted the funds to underwrite our our our Hamilton plan, we committed to this. the timing actually worked out pretty good where we actively are engaging and looking at the standards and providing them feedback the moment but I guess to answer your question commissioner I'm not sure if the other cities have gone as deep as Campbell has the reports back as if we've done the deepest dive I think you know our professional opinion these are designed generally for San Francisco very urbanized areas that have robust mass transit and robust high density and so a lot of these standards are far beyond I mean Campbell's you know trying to go in that direction but we haven't gotten there yet. So the bars are very high. I think that's our opinion of some of these standards and it's very hard for a city that traditionally has been suburban but has transit to try and keep these standards and and chair uh camper I just did want to mention we do have our uh city's traffic engineer online with a hand raised on on Zoom. So I'm not sure if we

want to invite a comment. Sure. I think he could speak to our OAG uh grant funding uh and and use of it and necessity. Is that Matt Jew? Matthew Jew. Correct. Okay, perfect. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. I just wanted to speak on um the mention of what benefit there would be if we were fully compliant. I believe um MTC hasn't finalized its scoring system, but one option is that fully compliant um agencies would be eligible for a set aside amount based on a bell-shaped curve. So those um agencies that score above 85 would be eligible for a specific percentage of the OAG funds whereas the other agencies would not. Does that make sense? It's kind of late for it to make but no thank you for thank you for that explanation. Um I do have a a question a clarifying question for um Stephen. So AB79 SB79 I understand that has been signed by the governor. So is that in effect now or does it go in effect like beginning of the year?

It has a delayed effectiveness of July 1st of 2026. 2026. Got it. And does that give give us also heights flexibility or just density? it increases uh heights as well as densities.

Okay. And then you mentioned our three transit stations, you know, as for the AB2079. Um I know we don't have El Camino going through our street but my understanding is uh uh bus stops that serve 15 minutes you know during rush hour are also um uh are also eligible for this 2079 also um uh included in this high transit serving area. Is that correct? Correct. So, while there is overlap between AB2097 and these these areas we're talking about here tonight, um the AB2097 is more expansive in that it does include those bus stops as well.

Bus stops. You know, in in our city, I don't think we have those. I mean, some of the busier streets would be Hamilton and Winchester, but I don't think they have 15 minutes. I believe that we have identified areas on Baskam Avenue in Hamilton which do qualify, but I we do have a map available on our on our on our website that does show those areas which were currently recognizing. I see. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Miss, are they evaluating our um points, I guess, when they're they're doing a grant review, like when they're applying for each grant, or is it like at a certain time period they're doing these reviews?

It's a great question. They they've actually established a portal by which you can submit and be scored in advance of them subsequently applying for your grant funds. So the idea is they want you to go through a scoring process, make sure that yes, they do agree you have a compliant complete streets policy and it meets their criteria and they give you a check box and it's like effectively a yes and then when you do apply for your OAG say for grant funding or otherwise and say this community's already been predetermined to have a particular score. It's actually rather similar to the city's pro housing designation status with HCD where we've already been designated and then when future grant funings come uh projects come up because we the city has that designation we'll score more competitive things.

Are we going to go uh on the list and take each one? Say no. I have a quick question. Yes. if if you could please hold off on that. Commissioner Eul.

Um, so Stephen, is there any way that, you know, since Campbell's a small town, but neighboring communities go through our town to get to other places, for instance, San Jose, Loscatoos, etc. Is there a way we can combine certain aspects of the transportation to get more points since we kind of we're like in the middle of between San Jose and Loscatos. It's a lot of traffic. There's a lot of traffic between San Jose Campbell to West San Jose. So, is there any way that there's a or is there something in the state laws that allow smaller communities to combine their transportation numbers?

Well, I I would say that these TOC policies, they're kind of clipped to city limit lines. So, that area that we where we need to consider our compliance plays, it really ends at the city limit line. That said, it's probably a good point to be made that should the city want to explore like an economy of scale analysis and partner up with the joining a agencies like San Jose on meeting our mobility hub policies or meeting these other criteria. That could be something which we could explore seeing at where they're at and if we could leverage some of their resources, some of their studies to support our own local analysis. But again, our our own criteria is measured on our own city's local compliance within these transit hubs really clipped at the very

Okay. at the very limit of city city limit. Okay. Thank you. The commission had an idea as well. I thought at some point we were going to go through the different things here so we could ask specific questions and uh and then I are you looking for those 11 items generally? Yeah.

Yeah. It's a lot. So, it's uh if you want to provide broad feedback, great. I know that Commissioner Fields point. There's a balance between being deliberate and uh trying to get your point across to council. I'd say on on this one, just professional observation. I mean, these aren't a couple things. I mean, they aren't these aren't Campbell initiated policies going forward. Um I'll say this, we've talked to to MTC staff. They they seem to be actually doing some modification of the rules as we speak. We don't know how that's going to shake out. So, actually the the goalpost might be changing. Um, we're just trying to get through this at this point to keep the Hamilton plan moving. So, I'd say you're um think more to Commissioner Field's point, I mean, the the stakes and the specificity on the the recommendations here aren't as I think high as if you were looking at a Campbell ordinance, but if you had broad or specific be feedback on each of the points and how you think how far the city could go, I think that's that's what we're looking for. you have

I I just a suggestion for process is maybe if you went through every commissioner to address all their questions you might might end up going faster than both sideways and up. I see. So how does the commission feel? Do we want to go one one item and then quick discussion or do we want to go one commissioner you know discuss the 11 items? just one. Right. Exactly. So, why don't we do that? Any commissioner that has feedback on any of the items, we might So, I wanted to talk about the file, the first one. Okay. Go ahead.

Can you put it can you put that thing up so we can see what it is that uh the question is about F. So I was, you know, as looking about the the commercial far increases, right? That's what you're looking at is feedback on on whether or not we should up those, right? Correct. Item two. Yes. Item two, commercial.

Okay. Well, we can start with one if people want to talk about the average residential densities, too. I mean, we can I I thought we would just go through each one and then whatever commissioners want to ask questions and give feedback on for each item. That would seem to me the most efficient way. I mean, you know, if somebody wants to talk about average residential densities and what um what we would think is the right number, right, is what we're looking at here. Some minimum residential densities. Um I I guess my question to safer on that one is um does does the staff have a recommendation on where we should go with the the the residential densities?

Yeah. So in this particular point, we're not recommending say as again kind of tying this back to the Hamilton plan for a second here. Uh again, the idea being we don't want to tie that to the Hamilton plan specifically because we have this broader effort that's going on. will need to probably we'll need to implement SB79 and because we'll likely have a separate policy discussion about implementation of a TOD alternative plan staff is recommending that we really kind of pa we we wait for that discussion in 2026 at which point in time we'll we'll come back to discuss both the minimum residential density and the maximum residential density. Okay.

Okay. Next item commercial office. Does anybody I guess one did you um before you start deliberate did you just want to open the public hearing see if you can Yes absolutely yes thank you for the reminder did you have okay thank you I'm I'm so sorry as I've been waiting um okay so let's open the public hearing um if there are any members of the public Carlson Miguel uh please step Welcome. Please identify yourself. And thank you. Yes, I will. Uh Carl San Miguel, past uh president of the Campbell Chamber of Commerce. I'm

a realtor, past president of the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors.

Also a property manager in Campbell and the surrounding cities. And I manage uh landlords and tenants. And I would mention to you that uh both of them like me, so I'm fair. And uh but one thing that really troubles me about the MTC uh requirement for your funding is having um rent control. And rent control, matter of fact, just tonight, Mountain View was addressing the relocation of tenants. They currently have a $12,000 charge uh that the tenant gets to relocate. they're talking about switching it up to 21,000. So, um throughout the county there's greater than 70% of the owners of these rentals are mom and pops and they count on this as their retirement. They're building for that. And I [clears throat] would compare it to an individual that is employed and has a 401k and that your 401k paying you a nice 4 and a.5% return and your company says uh that's a lot of money. So why don't you reduce your amount to 1% give the other three and a half to somebody else that makes less than you. That's essentially what the rent control is doing to property owners. Uh this is their livelihood and quite frankly uh it's been piling on. A lot of them are getting out of the business and uh they're not going to be in it any longer because it's just too complicated for them. Uh but it also addresses um uh giving an uh assistance attorney wise to an eviction even if it's for non-payment. It's like a no-brainer. Making the payment, something's got to happen. And they want to have legal uh which they already do have legal rights. They just have to pay for it. What this would do is have the cities essentially pay for it and the cities of course will

want to pass that on to the landlords somehow. So, uh because it's very costly to do that. So, having this as part of the uh requirement for you to get transit funds is ridiculous. Uh it just doesn't make sense. It's going to lower the amount of affordable housing because I'll tell you, mom and pops don't raise a rent every year. I have some that I didn't think. Go ahead. Finish your thought. I have some tennis that I didn't raise the rent for four years. And so that's typical of the mom and pop, but you get the corporate owners, they they're there every year raising their rents. So, uh, you'll lose a big segment of the rental owners. So, thank you for listening. Thank you for that testimony. Um, any questions?

No. Okay. Thank you,

Jill Toller. Hello, good evening. I'm Jill Toller. I am the president of South County Realtor Alliance. I am a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Directors, Santa CL County Association Realtors Board of Directors. I am a property manager, realtor, all of those things. It's been very interesting listening to everyone tonight. I've really been Oh, I'm losing my time. Sorry. Um, I studied all of the information I received before tonight and um, the MTC transit oriented communities really concerned me because it ties the transitoriented community to um, the funding to housing. And when you tie your grants of all of that to your housing scores, that just concerns me from a property management standpoint, from a realtor standpoint, that that concerns me greatly. Um I'm not sure that this um body, the MTC body has really considered the economic impacts here of rent control and just cause eviction and anti-harassment ordinances. Um and you know, Carl touched on a little bit of that and as a property manager, I don't raise the rents significantly every year. If my tenants are good, it's minimal at best. Okay.

So, additionally, I'm not certain that the TOC really included stakeholders like like property managers, like mom and pop property owners, realtors, people like us who are interacting with property owners in the dayto-day um about these housing changes. So from my perspective as a result, I would ask you to consider that this is a one-sided proposal. Okay? Not that the city staff did not do their due diligence. I read their reports. They're very thorough. But I'm looking at it from the MTC perspective. So I would ask you to really consider this much much thoughtfully. I'm sorry I'm tired. It's been a long day.

Thank you. So, uh just just for clarification, just so I understand, you are advocating that we do not um we do not accept these proposals. No, not not the way they're written. Not at this point in time. You know, I'm I'm having a little bit of a um difficult time um understanding how rent control comes into play here, you know. I mean, I I'm a little bit, you know, so maybe the future maybe future speakers can make that connection. Maybe we can get Stephen to comment. Stephen,

yeah, I can speak to it. So, in the TOC policy guidance, like the framework, they provide a number of different options that a local jurisdiction can take to meet criteria. So earlier we're talking about the housing actions. There's we need must establish two protection, production and preservation. In the protection category, there is protection policy number two within theund and some odd page document which speaks to no net loss and right to return to demolished homes. I believe that is the particular policy which is being brought forward. It's not one that in our re in our recommendations for you tonight has been presented. We're we're recommending uh different preservation policies dealing with the uh it was the uh um

project sen condominium conversion and dealing with uh displacement due to code enforce pretty much code enforcement actions. Those are two distinct policy areas. But but but do we have are you recommending that somebody who used to live there as a result of development or whatever has the first right of refusal to go back? That is kind of what the TOC policy one of the options speaks to. It's extending those sunset provision. It's pretty much establishing a the right to return policy with no sunset date. We it's one of those policies which we didn't look into any further because we just need to hit two in order to score to the maximum points of the category.

So it's not really one that we brought forward for discussion. Say not brilliant stuff just because I'm getting tired too. Both of these citizens members of the public are very clear saying they don't want this to be tied to rent control and you're saying it isn't. The city does not need to establish uh that particular preservation policy to hit the scoring that we've identified. Okay. And this proposal isn't recommending that. We do. Staff is not recommending that. Right. Is it? Okay. Okay. It sounds like in some other communities, some other communities, it sounds like they have brought forward that as a policy because this discussion topic is also about MTC policy compliance. That might be why it's being brought.

The final say is the city council, right? Correct. So, so even though it's not there now, maybe we should advise the public that they should also carry their concerns. Jump in quick. So, to be clear, uh staff's not recommending any of the policies that recommend rent control yet cloud discussion. Council has discussed rent control a few times. Uh it's actually been discussed council believe over the last year that majority of the council appines not to go forward with the rent control ordinance at that time. Just want to inform the commission. Okay. And one other point I want to make clear, tonight's item is a study session. So, we're just seeking broad general direction and feedback. No.

Uh which would then be forward to the the city council. Even at the city council hearing, there won't be a decision rendered. They'll be providing direction to us. Come back with more refined direction and feedback saying, "Okay, we've heard we've heard what they've had to say and this is what we're recommending uh to do about it." Got it. Thank you. Okay. And next, um, Enrique Novaro Donalan.

Good evening. Good evening, uh, plan commissioners. My name is Enrique Navar Dalan. I'm the government affairs associate with the Santa Clair County Association of Realtors. We represent up to 7,000 members and affiliate members. And we're part we're part of a broad coalition of of pro business groups that formally oppose the TOC policy for the damage that it stands to inflict on local business environments and housing supply and affordability. Uh the TOC is a bad policy and neither the planning commission nor the city council should endorse it or promote it upwards. In fact, it has not come to pass yet at the MTC regional level and its harmful housing policy provisions may not come to pass at all. In fact, it is currently facing heavy criticism and opposition for not engaging stakeholders such as their own association in drafting the policy. It's a policy that strips away local control and destroys local affordable housing by stripping homeowners of their p of their property rights through a menu of bad housing options including just cause evictions, taxpayer funded attorneys against housing providers, rent control, tenant anti-harassment uh so-called anti-harassment protections, tenant relocation assistance, inclusionary housing, and TOPA/COPA, the community tenant opportunity to purchase act. Uh these damaging policies are costburdensome on small housing providers and disable them from effectively managing their properties. In addition to the to this, the soft story balcony electrification and insurance requirements will bankrupt small mom and pop housing providers. And it only takes one of these to put them out of business. And mom and pop housing providers are also the backbone of affordable housing in Campbell, countywide, statewide, and nationwide. And so we ask you not to endorse uh this policy to the city council. And uh and and thank you. And then maybe just to touch on one more item, I know it was on the staff report uh talking about um supporting uh what was the what was it particular item? It was the condominium conversions and the condominium convergence reading from the staff report it seems to touch on a on a couple of things that were we're opposed to which is the tenant right of first

purchase which sounds like the tenant opportunity to purchase act. Um and then there's one other if I'm losing the page here in particular. Uh yeah, I think it uh think I might have not highlighted it, but uh there was another aspect in it that that sounded um similar to the uh to the other items that were opposed to as well. So you uh W Jean Hunt. All right. Welcome.

Well, thank you very much. My name is Jane Hunt and some of I recognize some of you because I was here at the uh city council meeting couple weeks ago I guess on a different issue and here the question before you really is to either put the whole thing aside for now to recommend to the council to not take any action or to push forward some of the ideas that have been presented to you by staff. The issue that most of us as realtors are bringing up is, as Mr. Eastwood has pointed out, buried deep in the uh scoring system. And I was at that last commission meeting where several dozens people spoke up about that particular issue. And as a result of us speaking up, many of the commissioners pushed back on the staff who are trying to implement this scoring system. Since the scoring system actually hasn't been implemented and as Mr. Eastwood has pointed out it is in flux right now. I recommend that you take a position of not taking any action or recommending that to the city council. Don't take any action on this now. There's no need to. It's not settled. It's not settled and there are some very egregious kind of issues contained within it which turned out to be buried very deeply in it so that they get skipped over by many people who especially late at night can't keep up with the things that we're always all talking about. So I thank you for your time very it's been very entertaining for me to watch this and listen to all of you speak. Thank you very much.

Thank you. One question for you. Um, so the commission meeting you were referring to, it wasn't this planning commission meeting. No, I went to I was up in Walnut Creek. The MTC commissioners had a meeting up there. I think it was last Thursday and so their their staff were presenting their plan which was which is what your staff are building on here. Thank you for clarificating. Sure. That's the extent of the public speakers and I don't have anybody online. Nobody online. Thank you so much. Um, thank you very much for your time. I'll go home.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Um, I will close public hearing. Um, Stephen, do you want to address um maybe one more time the two speakers that spoke? I mean, I would just simply reiterate the comment I mentioned earlier. There are probably rent control provisions within the TSC policy the city could explore, but it's not something that we brought forward to you tonight. Is it appropriate for us to express our opinion about that aspect that isn't there now?

Uh without I I suppose one could uh although we haven't really presented a fair argument of or analysis of the TOC policy as it as it is outlined just in case you're thinking about it. No. Is that [laughter] okay? Yeah. that could be that could be included in the in in the in the record as far as enforing a recommendation. I don't know how everybody else

I mean I I mean if it's something that's buried in there, you know, it's trying to sneak in. Well, of course I wouldn't be happy about it. like to learn about it and you know be able to um give you an informed advice advisory opinion you know and so um that's why it's reassuring to hear Stephen saying the rent control is not something that will be recommended going forward unless it's discussed and unless it's been talked about you know so um uh I know my opinion would be whatever we recommend that we make sure rent control that we heard concerns about is not part of it until we have its own study session and its own expiration that's well it's not on the list

I think you should be chairman so I agree yeah I mean it's not on a list of things that we were reviewing so to me it's like you know unless there's something else comes up that is put for forth to us that that are these controversial issues, you know, then we need to inform ourselves, right? Just like you said. Okay. So, I I personally would think we should go through the things that are specific to what the staff is offering us and give our opinions about and ask questions. Okay. Um uh yes, let's go ahead and do that.

So, you got to go back to the side. want to go to each guy or go down the list. What is um I I think we said we were um commissioner bookbinder. I think I heard you say you prefer if we go by commissioner and come up with you know so each commissioner can say I have issue with number two number five number six or I'm okay with everything you know in the interest of time you know it's been it's 10:15 now so we got to take some triage action if you will um would you like to start well if you can put the thing back up okay

I mean there's a there's a number items like so um uh on number one you're you're it sounds like you want to put it aside for now right is that you're not talking about I'm going to make making working on that particular issue that right correct we're just suggesting that we would pair that with the consideration of the DoD alternative

so on the on the commercial office uh of fires Um I just want to understand better what this what this means. It I guess it means that if we go up on the F or commercial developments that means that in from a practical point of view it allows somebody to build a commercial building that covers more of the parcel. Right. That would be that would be lot coverage. Floor ratio is just a total building area mass in relation to the lot. That's what I meant. Yeah. So, you're generally getting taller. I like to think of F is more taller. You're going to get taller. It could be both. It could be

Okay. covering more of the lot and taller. All right. But yeah, you'd be getting taller buildings than what we currently would rather than reducing the amount of space for parking. Yeah. Right. Go to zero lot. All right. Okay. With our step back. Yeah. I I'm always confused about F. So, so if you go if you go higher the fire can be bigger the number would would go up.

Yeah, it's different ways of controlling the overall building envelope. F is is a method by which cities limit the total buildable area of a property. Um so these particular standard just to kind of speak to the two on the screen the minimum F is established in the floor and minimally when you're building a site it has to hit a certain minimum F when built within a certain distance of of of the light rail stop half mile and then the second number is raising the ceiling the maximum floor air ratio. So the city does not have a minimum today. This would be requiring us to establish a floor that they'd at least have to build to a standard whenever you were to build anything on a property, which could be difficult or challenging for all developers to do, especially if you have an existing non-compliant building you're adding onto it. Or if you wanted to remove area for whatever reason, you really couldn't do that. It' be not F minimum compliant. F maximum, that would allow you to build more stories or more building area than you otherwise could. So,

so, so you're you're recommend action is to consider raising the F, but you're you're not being specific tonight, right? It's just you want to look into it. Yeah, we'll just look into it in more detail. We probably need to study it. What is the industry standard? What is best practices around F around like these transit stops and because there's an economy of scale to have that same discussion at the same time as SP79, we're recommending just pairing the two efforts together. We move on. I mean, can I make one suggestion?

I think only three and five, unless someone disagrees with the city's recommendation to defer action until policy is clarified, are the only ones we actually need to discuss. Okay? Unless any of us feel like we disagree with staff's recommendation to like either codify something we're already doing and some of these say hey all we have to do is you know say our economic development manager does this. So like I think it's just correct me if I'm wrong but it's just three and five right is housing policies and parking standard. Yeah,

might be oversimplifying. I just like in the since it's 1020. Yeah, I do appreciate the the simplification. I mean, each of these does do have their own distinct action. Some of these are no actions. So, obviously, I would table all the no action items. Yeah. And I I as staff would recommend anything that where we're deferring action to be paired as part of a separate update that that makes sense to us as an economy of scale item. So really these items which would need to be severed and brought forward separately. This would be your opportunity to comment on three is a perfect example. Again we are still even in that not saying that we should study as part of the Hamilton Avenue public improvement plan. We're saying that has citywide significance and effect and therefore we should study it.

Let me jump in. So I'd recommend you appine on three and five. Yep. And if commissioners got any strong opinions on any of the other ones you can toss that in. Okay. Well said. So, let me ask you about three. What do you want us to opine on? Tell tell me I'm a little slow. Okay. So, what do you want to hear from us in terms of choices? Do you want do you want us because I don't really quite you know this is a fairly dense thing you know that you gave us. So, um maybe you can just briefly explain it again to

Yeah. And I can explain it is a little bit confusing how this came about because it does kind of relate to the Hamilton plan why we're even bring this forward item uh to al together as part of the corridor planning process Hamilton we committed to studying this and presenting these as policies which we could establish as part of the Hamilton plan staff pretty much across the board here were pretty much saying it doesn't make sense to do it as part of that that one area plan it should be a broader effort involves a lot more of the city we're talking about there's a time and place for that to happen and we're identifying what that is and we're just hoping that the planning commission is in general agreement that that would be the appropriate time and manner by which we would handle the consideration of this in greater detail. So as far as direction on it, I we didn't present all of the policies which could be under the preservation category. We just had cherrypicked the two that we thought were what made the most sense to us as staff. That way we weren't burdening you with a dozen other options on the table. if the two that are on the table make seemingly make sense. If you have any questions about them, you may certainly ask, but these are the two that we which we would intend to bring back rather than all of

Okay. And we're talking about condominium conversion and preventing displacement. Correct. Okay. All right. Anybody else? I I mean, these both spoke to me as things that seem reasonable in that the [snorts] Campbell has a lot of old five unit apartments with families in them. I would love for those families to stay in them. However, some of them are quite old. I would like to see them redeveloped and having policies that help support keeping citizens in Campbell seems reasonable to me. So, I was supportive of of these myself.

You look like you want to say something. [laughter] In general, I think if something that they put in these policies is a good idea, like, oh, bike parking, that's a good idea. We should do that. But I am I'm really hesitant to I think staff did a very good job of saying I don't think this is a good idea for the city because especially since, as I understand, this hasn't even been finalized. We don't know what the bar is and jumping through random hoops for unclear benefit if something is not clearly a good idea for the city is just a just a bad idea. So I'm like broadly in favor of staff's approach here and and what to what commissioner Fields was saying anti-displacement is a reasonable idea. Is that something we would have done on our own because it may make it harder to redevelop things which is in some sense is worse. And the problem with why you need to do anti-displacement is you haven't done enough development and people are stuck in one place. Are you just making things worse? It's it's a it's a pol it's not an obviously good policy. There's a lot of things like that that are things that you're supposed to do, but they're not all obviously good ideas. They're certainly not all obviously good ideas. for example. So, broadly I follow steps, but my my only specific ideas about this for

Oh, does a transit hub involve having those uh bike share docks? That would be a cool thing to have there.

And um I agree with not recommending minimum densities because if you're not getting anything there, that's not improvement. Um and I disagree with not recommending parking maximums. I think we provide too much parking. Um, but that's a big policy discussion. I really understand staff not wanting to just make a a sweeping change like that in order to take a box. That's my my general opinion on this. I I given that this isn't even finalized. We don't know what this means and a lot of it doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't think it's worth taking as seriously as nothing's worth taking that seriously. You're saying it's a good idea. We should do it, but not just to not just to get points on this.

Okay. Looks like poor is like a no-brainer commercial. It seems like it would cost us nothing. Yeah. Yeah. So, sure. And uh I was parking. Why was parking standards? Should we straw poll on whether we agree with the recommendation to not establish a maximum residential? Yeah, probably that's a good idea. Okay, I I would agree with that. Yeah.

Okay. So, please raise your hands if you agree with the recommendation not to um not to establish a minimum. Is that a max? Sorry, a maximum. Sure. So we got five and then versus two. Okay. I would put that in the notes so we are specific or rejections. No, we got five plus. No, we got five to agree that not to establish a maximum.

Um, any other items we want to do? I just had a question about the bicycle park thing just just kind of as a informative thing. It's like um the the implications of requiring secure spaces um what at whatever rate is is that a hard thing? I mean, it's like somebody puts in, we're talking about like apartment, somebody puts an apartment building of 100 units or 200 units and then there's going to be some um 0.1. So, they got to come up with 20 secure be able to secure 20 bicycles or whatever the number is, right? I are there is that like a common thing that's okay that that the developers are going to be okay with in terms of providing uh you know secure or unsecure bicycling bicycle stuff.

I mean I I won't say it's uncommon for apartment development projects near light rail stations or just even in general to have like a bike room. I mean you don't generally see them from the street unless you're inside the building. it's usually an amenity that they see that they're providing to their their tenants in a certain percentage ratio. Uh one per one per unit is high, but this is again that first thing I saw. This is where we're getting at a reaching standard. I mean the MC you don't have to adopt all of them. The idea is that it's trying to provide a

a number to hit and you score favorably for having it. Um, not to complicate the conversation, uh, I did want I I would mention that even if the city were to say impose such a standard if even assuming that we can because the AB130 and say a residential standard, uh, developers could likely utilize state density bonus law, concessions waiverss to leave themselves requirement regardless. So um but for the reason that's stated in the report, staff's not recommending um the establishing at this time because we we need to do a deeper dive on the legality of even imposing it.

So the bad news of this with these unintended consequences is I was a semi-professional cyclist for decades and I was big part of Santa Clara Valley High School Coalition and whatnot and we had big push for employers to put these lockers everywhere. The problem is is they quickly turned into storage for anything but a bicycle. And over half of the ones put in my building, it's 3,000 horse employer. When we did our our audit, over half were used for anything but a bike. And then the ones that were used for a bike had clearly not been actually used and were just long-term bike storage. And so if we're going to talk about why increase the cost of construction and then add this to it and then realize well it really doesn't help as much as we wished it would. So I would be up like don't add this requirement. It just doesn't pass up.

Well maybe it needs to be enforced but that's just a random condom because I've done them for my clients. So,

and then while I'm speaking, I think that the concerns I have with one and two is, you know, Campbell's a small town. We start building 4.0 F, etc. around transit. It's uh I don't know that you're going to be able to get developers to do that. It's going to be very expensive. Uh and also, are we going to Manhattanize Campbell? You know, I like the small town feel. That's why I live here. Now, we're starting to consider huge commercial developments, etc., which I don't know that one that'll be built until they'll pass a lot. It'll take away from the character of the city. But the other ones, I mean, like everybody stated, it's this is not even crystallized yet, this whole MTC thing. So, it's still like in flux. It's still a moving target. So until we know more, we really can't address it logically.

Well, I have a question. I don't know what number goes to. Um, where does does Uber lift factor into this thing at all or whatever the trade name is for those guys? Share.

Rid share. That's the phrase. Yeah, arguably under the um the mobility hub planning probably to some extent, but I don't think it speaks to it so specifically. It's there's a whole playbook of different ways you can address that kind that bridging that first and last mile connection. I I think that the examples it provides is like enhanced lighting and providing EV bicycle parking spaces, probably providing some type of drop off station type thing that that could provide for easy ride onto um a light rail station could be probably part of that playbook. I'm not certain if it's in that playbook today.

Okay. And the other one was autonomous vehicles. Same thing, same answer. I I don't think there's any discussion on it whatsoever, but we know it's coming and these plans are five to 10 years out. I mean, I think to some extent it's getting at that through elimination providing parking maximums and eliminating parking minimums. This idea hopefully through autonomous vehicles we would need less cars in general. Well, I was thinking maybe we got points if we allowed it. That that's what I was hoping.

I didn't see anything like that in the in the scoring as it exists. Okay. Um, so, um, do you have what you were asking from us or did you want to continue? because I know it was sort of a jumping from place to place and it wasn't very distinct, but given the time and given the maybe

it looked like to me that we we're in agreement to uh to agree to the staff's recommendations on on pretty much every item. Are we not? I mean, we're not in disagreement on on any of those items in terms of the the staff's recommendations that I could see. I have to agree. You know, I I haven't seen anything, you know, I mean, looking at the list, I I haven't seen anything that I would be opposed to. Anybody else disagrees? We basically agree with what staff is telling us.

I think it's good from our perspective. As as mentioned, things are still a little in flux. If the goalposts change dramatically and we need to report back to the planning commission and [laughter] council as they change we will but at this point in time again we're fulfilling an obligation want to socialize the issue and what our thoughts are but I think the feedback you provided is is enough for us to move and also the public's feedback [clears throat] about the preservation you know um you know that will be put in the record as so do we know do we [clears throat] need to formally bless this or is study session. Okay. Yeah.

Excellent. Okay. So, let me [cough] go back to our menu to agenda. Um, thank you for that. So, new business planning commissioner subcommittee report. Um uh I I need to report that uh was not able to solicit any um new members to join me in in my land use subcommittee. So um I would say at this time probably it's time for it to as Steph Curry would say night

for that subcommittee. Good. And then um but then we were also going to I guess we can agendaize creating the committee to discuss the um park fees. Park fees. One one thing I'd suggest because there might be an argument. You could do that. Um the park fees aren't wholly in the charter of the commission. Um, I can invite public works staff and recreation staff to come and just give you an informative presentation on what park fees are, how they calculate what maybe start with that. Yeah. And decide where makes sense. Okay. Sure. Great. Okay. Thank you.

We could potentially do the subcommittee as part of the like January. Absolutely. Absolutely. We have a housing yeah it's a broad question I happy to provide a report questions what are you looking for income we get what we eat what do housing programs do I

sorry what do we need cost set aside That's a big policy discussion. You know, takes a lot of work. I couldn't get couldn't commit to give you that in the short term. I'd say a lot of those discussions we had during the housing element participated in commissioner Buckbinder broader philosophical discussions on what should be in the housing element. That was about two years ago. I happy to bring it back to you. I'm just not sure if it's in the work plan.

That's too big. Sounds good. Okay. So, um uh and so that's item six. Item seven, report of the community development director.

Got about an hour worth of uh the only thing I was going to ask of the uh commission. So, uh three things uh that I hope you all attend the upcoming commissioner center. One is we got the photo done. Thank you very much. two is uh sometime I think in the next week or two send Ken and I your thoughts on the question uh they had on what do you find meaningful in being a commissioner. We want to pass it on to the clerk. They want me to report that out as part of the dinner. Um and we can print reprompt that to you. The third was they just wanted three accomplishments of the planning commission of this year. Uh if you want I Ken and I just picked a couple put them on the screen and if it helps I just highlighted the ones I thought made more sense but uh how far and deep you want to go into this discussion. So the top ones I thought but you could pick any of these uh were formed your ad hoc subcommittee on the public outreach notification. You received the report and forwarded recommendations onto the council. uh you made decisions on nine conditional use permits for businesses ranging from personal service to expansion of a pickle ball facility. You'll remember that.

And then the the third one big one I thought was you provided recommendations tonight on the new housing policies and modifications to the inclusionary housing uh overlay district. There's others you might want to talk about. These were the study sessions on Chick-fil-A and the great pit project. You considered appeal and fence exception. You accepted some reports. Those aren't really decision items. And then two of you, of course, went to I think the fence exception. [laughter] Well, I still as long as you want on this. That's big stuff. I think those are those are a good selection of three. Yeah.

Okay. Got it. We'll run with those. It looks good. Uh I don't have anything else. Don't want to hold you. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay. So with that we are adjourned to the meeting of November 11th 2025 Thank you, Mr. Pharmacist.