Campbell council adopts interim ordinance to exclude specific sites from SB 79, staff to pause broader implementation

Acting presiding Mayor Pro Tem and council members heard a multi‑part presentation Tuesday on Senate Bill 79, the state law that expands housing capacity within a half‑mile of qualifying transit stops.

Senior planner Steven Rose told the council SB 79 ‘‘applies to 25% of the city’s land area’’ and explained the law’s tiered standards, minimum unit counts and height and floor‑area requirements. He said the statute assigns more intensive standards near stops and allows up to 85 feet and very high densities in the closest zones. ‘‘The law would allow for up to 80 units per acre on those sites and heights of 55 feet or 5 stories,’’ Rose said, and noted downtown height allowances could rise by roughly two stories under the law.

Rose outlined four response options for Campbell: (1) immediately initiate a transit‑oriented development (TOD) alternative plan to reassign capacity; (2) defer action while awaiting state and regional mapping and any statutory fixes (staff recommendation); (3) pursue targeted rezonings to protect industrial or commercial parcels; or (4) take no local action and allow SB 79 to take effect. He cautioned that a TOD alternative plan requires tradeoffs and consultant support and that the city would have to maintain overall capacity per state guardrails.

Public speakers included Raul Sigamoni of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, who said VTA ‘‘is ready to serve as a resource for the City of Campbell’’ on SB 79 implementation. Residents urged protections for mobile‑home parks, long‑running downtown businesses and nonresidential tax bases, and warned of infrastructure and fiscal strains if deep conversion pressure occurred.

Councilmembers pressed staff on priority choices. Councilmember Lopez said the city should ‘‘be strategic’’ and prioritize protecting long‑standing downtown commercial uses and mixed‑use industrial areas while also seeking protections for mobile‑home parks. Councilmember Scazzola supported ‘‘targeted rezoning’’ to preserve key employers. Several members said market realities make immediate wholesale transformation unlikely but that proactive steps could blunt unwanted conversions.

After discussion, the council adopted an urgency interim ordinance identifying specific site exclusions under SB 79 — walking‑distance exclusions and local historic‑resource exclusions — and authorized staff to submit the ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for statutory review. Planning staff described an exacting mapping approach that captured pedestrian access point latitudes and longitudes and walked path tracing to establish sites eligible for removal from SB 79’s reach.

Acting on staff’s recommendation and council direction, members signaled they will generally follow a cautious approach: delay major programmatic work until regional HCD/ABAG/ MTC mapping and any legislative fixes (especially for mobile‑home parks) are released, while advancing targeted steps to protect high‑priority commercial and mixed‑use industrial areas. The interim ordinance was approved by roll call vote; the council asked staff to return with priority‑focused options and anticipated further action after the state and regional guidance are published.

The council’s immediate next steps are to respond to HCD comments on the interim ordinance, finalize any required mapping exhibits, and bring back cost and timeline estimates for a TOD alternative plan or targeted rezonings as directed.