What Campbell’s proposed demolition ordinance would change

At a glance

The proposal covers demolition of dwelling units, including certain nonphysical losses such as combining units or removing essential residential facilities. It would create a zoning-clearance checkpoint before authorizing demolition and implement replacement-housing and tenant-protection requirements. It does not mean every proposed housing unit must be constructed before demolition.

When could demolition occur?

The milestones below describe the proposed ordinance. The applicability notes incorporate Planning staff’s written answers shared by a resident on October 29, 2026; they do not establish permit eligibility for an individual property.

White Oaks Manor relevance: Staff’s answers do not identify the housing-development-with-subdivision exception as a direct demolition route for neighborhood SB 1123 proposals on single-family-zoned lots with existing habitable residences. Those properties would not qualify for SB 1123 at application submittal. The subdivision-without-construction exception also should not be assumed to provide an SB 1123 route around that vacancy requirement. Individual demolition applications and any transition protections must be evaluated separately.

Sources: October 27 official agenda packet, staff report PDF pp. 1195–1196 and draft §21.16.085(E)(3), PDF pp. 1211–1212; Planning staff’s three written answers shared by a resident on October 29, 2026 (summarized above; correspondence is not linked here). The subdivision exceptions depend on demolition being required by an approved tentative-map condition before recordation.

What looks positive

• Prevents many premature demolitions: the default rule generally requires approved replacement-building permits before existing homes can be removed.
• Introduces a documented City checkpoint: zoning clearance would verify applicable replacement-housing and tenant-protection conditions before permits are issued.
• Preserves housing supply: qualifying developments generally must replace existing units; additional standards apply when protected units are involved, including affordability and bedroom-count obligations.
• Includes stronger enforcement: unlawful loss of housing can trigger restoration or reconstruction at the responsible party's expense, with a fee alternative only when reconstruction is physically infeasible or prohibited by law. The draft sets that fee at 100% of the Building Official’s applicable building-permit valuation for reconstruction, subject to appeal; it does not specify a fixed dollar amount.
• Closes a potential loophole: elimination of dwelling units through consolidation, conversion or removal of essential facilities is addressed, not just razing a structure.

Sources: staff report PDF pp. 1194–1197; draft §21.16.085(B), (C), (D), (E), (H), PDF pp. 1205–1214.

What deserves closer scrutiny

1. Subdivision exceptions can leave construction readiness unresolved

Housing development with subdivision: where the draft’s map conditions and land-use approvals are satisfied, demolition may precede replacement-home building permit applications. Staff says this would largely apply where multifamily development is permitted. Subdivision without a residential construction proposal: applications for the required replacement units must be accepted for review before demolition, but the permits need not be approved. Staff clarifies that this generally secures applications for at least one replacement unit per dwelling demolished, rather than all anticipated new units. Neither exception alone establishes that construction of the full project is ready to start. Maintenance, security, a site-restoration bond and published construction-start dates remain relevant safeguards.

2. When is demolition actually necessary before map recordation?

Both limited exceptions depend on the tentative subdivision map specifically requiring demolition before final-map recordation. An existing home might overlap proposed property boundaries or interfere with planned access, but that does not automatically establish that demolition must occur before the map is recorded. The City should identify objective reasons for each such condition and explain whether removal can be deferred until replacement construction is further along.

Building-permit timing is a separate issue. Section 11 of Ordinance No. 2334 (Early Building Permit Issuance) allows Starter Home building permits before final-map recordation under specified conditions, including Community Development Director approval, a complete application, a recorded covenant restricting occupancy until recordation, and financial security for applicable improvements. That provision concerns permit timing after the relevant approvals; it does not establish SB 1123 eligibility for a single-family-zoned lot containing an existing habitable residence, or provide a direct demolition pathway for that proposal.

Source: Ordinance No. 2334, §11, pp. 14–15; Planning staff’s answers shared October 29, 2026.

3. Explain the separate demolition and SB 1123 eligibility decisions

Staff has answered the central sequencing question: under the City’s current SB 1123 ordinance, a property in a single-family zoning district must satisfy the statutory definition of vacant at application submittal. A property containing an existing habitable residence would not qualify, and there is no direct demolition pathway for such an SB 1123 proposal. Qualifying presently vacant lots do not need demolition under the housing-development-with-subdivision provision.

Remaining question: What separate demolition or replacement proposal, if any, could lawfully be approved for a property that does not currently qualify for SB 1123, and what obligations would it carry? Staff’s answers do not establish that an owner can obtain demolition solely by stating an intention to pursue SB 1123 later. The City should explain that distinction with examples. Occupancy and rental history must also be reviewed separately for applicable replacement-housing and tenant protections.

4. Projects already in progress

The transition provisions generally exempt applications deemed complete before the effective date and qualifying earlier Housing Crisis Act preliminary applications retaining statutory protections. Unissued demolition permits generally become subject to the new rules, but post-entitlement demolition permits for exempt projects are excepted. The specific effect on individual properties requires a permit-by-permit and application-date review; this draft alone does not establish the status of 1115 Holmes, 1124 Holmes or 1995 White Oaks.

5. Is the reconstruction fee a sufficient deterrent?

The draft does specify a formula: 100% of the building-permit valuation for the restoration or reconstruction otherwise required, calculated by the Building Official (draft §21.16.085(H)(3)). It does not establish a single fixed dollar amount. The City should explain how these valuations are calculated, disclose representative dollar examples, and ensure the fee is not economically more attractive than complying with reconstruction requirements. The draft permits the fee only when reconstruction is physically infeasible or legally prohibited, not as an elective way to avoid rebuilding.

6. Adoption and enforcement details matter

The ordinance is only a proposal at this stage. Staff describes effectiveness 30 days after adoption, with Council consideration tentatively December 1. Actual implementation, verification practices and enforcement resources will determine its impact.

Sources: staff report PDF pp. 1195–1198; draft ordinance PDF pp. 1211–1217. Remaining questions above incorporate the staff clarifications shared October 29, 2026; neither subdivision exception is confirmed to apply to a specific property.

White Oaks Manor recommendations for Campbell

White Oaks Manor neighbors developed recommendations for the City’s proposed demolition ordinance. Grow Campbell Together shares these recommendations as part of its broader community-information effort.

1. Explain the demolition route separately from future SB 1123 eligibility. Publish clear examples for single-family-zoned lots with existing habitable residences. Staff says those properties do not qualify for SB 1123 at application submittal and have no direct demolition pathway for that proposal. Identify what separate approvals and replacement obligations, if any, would apply before demolition.
2. Require a clear justification for pre-recordation demolition: where a subdivision exception applies, publicly explain why the approved tentative map requires demolition at that stage, whether a later demolition milestone is feasible, and how vacant-lot maintenance and construction-start expectations will be enforced. Staff says the housing-development-with-subdivision route would largely apply where multifamily development is permitted.
3. Show how much replacement development is secured: for a subdivision without a residential construction proposal, identify the existing dwellings being demolished, required replacement units, total anticipated new units, and which building permit applications have been accepted. Staff clarifies that accepted applications cover required replacement units, generally at least one per dwelling demolished, rather than every anticipated new unit.
4. Empty lots need standards. Ask for maintenance rules (fencing, weeds, dust, security), a site-restoration bond, and published construction-start dates.
5. Post notice when a demolition permit application is filed: require an on-site sign and online publication of the demolition permit application when submitted, including the property, proposal and review status. Apply these transparency steps to ministerial projects where legally permissible, without implying an additional discretionary approval process.
6. Make the fee alternative transparent and a true last resort: publish the Building Official’s valuation method and illustrative dollar amounts for the draft’s 100%-of-permit-valuation fee, and evaluate whether lawful adjustments are needed so the fee does not make noncompliance cheaper than reconstruction.
7. Publish transparent demolition records: show demolition permits, applicable replacement-development status, approvals and remaining steps in a manner residents can follow.
8. Clarify grandfathering: explain how earlier preliminary applications, completed applications, issued permits and pending demolition permits will be treated with concrete examples.

These points are White Oaks Manor community recommendations, not requirements that the draft ordinance already contains. Whether additional restrictions are legally permissible should be evaluated against state housing law.

Meeting outcome and next step

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Replacement Housing and Demolition Control Ordinance (Item 4, PLN-2026-83) on October 27, 2026. Commissioners split evenly between yes and no votes. The Commission serves in an advisory role on this ordinance; the draft moves to the City Council with the commissioners’ comments. The ordinance has not been adopted.

Meeting outcome: Resident report received October 28, 2026; pending confirmation against the official meeting record. The agenda packet documents the draft and scheduled review, not the vote outcome.

City Council: tentative December 1, 2026 consideration; confirm from a subsequently published Council agenda.

Official October 27 agenda packet and ordinance text ↗

Last updated October 29, 2026. Prepared as a resident-oriented analysis of the City's October 22 draft; not a City statement or legal advice. Quotations and interpretations should be checked against the ordinance itself.