To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 21, 2026 From: Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Subject: Desk Item 8.2 – Correspondence
Attached is public comment related to Item 8.2 – Adoption of urgency measures of Interim Ordinance 2334.
MEMORANDUM City of Campbell
City Clerk’s Office
From: Carolyn Field
To: Clerks Office
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, item # 8.2
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2026 3:24:01 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
________________________________
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to respectfully ask for the suspension of Ordinance 2334, and to instead apply the vacancy standard exactly as state law requires per SB 1132. Further, since state law preempts local ordinances, I would like to ask that the City denies applications on existing projects where the lot was not vacant at time of submission.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Carolyn Field
From: Kylah Staley
To: Dan Furtado; Sergio Lopez; Terry Hines; Elliot Scozzola; Anne Bybee; Rob Eastwood; Clerks Office Cc: Rudy Ruano; Rebecca McCracken; Garrett Anderson; Rebecca Davis Subject: Letter Re: Interim No. Ordinance No. 2334 and applications to develop 1573 Walnut Drive, 661 W. Parr Avenue, and 1170 Steinway Avenue
Date: Friday, April 17, 2026 11:30:29 AM
Attachments: 2026.04.17 Letter to City of Campbell_Final.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
Dear Mayor Furtado, Honorable Councilmembers, and Director Eastwood, On behalf of the neighbors of 1573 Walnut Drive, 661 W. Parr Avenue, and 1170 Steinway Avenue, please find the attached letter regarding interim Ordinance No. 2334 and applications to develop housing projects pursuant to the ordinance and Senate Bill No. 1123 ("SB 1123").
If you could please confirm receipt of this letter, I would greatly appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
--
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.
Via Email
April 17, 2026
Re: Interim Ordinance No. 2334 and applications to develop 1573 Walnut Drive, 661 W. Parr Avenue, and 1170 Steinway Avenue
Dear Mayor Furtado, Honorable Councilmembers, and Director Eastwood:
I am writing on behalf of neighbors of 1573 Walnut Avenue, 661 W. Parr Avenue, and 1170 Steinway Avenue (“Neighbors”) regarding the City of Campbell’s interim Ordinance No. 2334, which conflicts with Senate Bill No. 1123 (“SB 1123”) – the state law the ordinance seeks to implement. One of the eligibility criteria for SB 1123 is that the site for a proposed housing project be “vacant.” Ordinance No. 2334 creates a loophole to bypass this vacancy requirement, allowing projects to be approved under SB 1123 on sites that are not currently vacant, but will become vacant in the future, when the developer demolishes habitable single-family homes.
Under this definition, nearly any single-family lot with an existing home in Campbell is eligible to be cleared for high density development of up to 10-units under SB 1123. This makes the ordinance both illegal and logically incoherent by fundamentally changing the intent of SB1123.
This interpretation is not merely the Neighbors’ opinion; it is the formal position of the State. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) confirmed in a September 2025 technical assistance letter that SB 1123 is intended only for sites that “do not contain housing” and that eligibility must be determined based on the physical state of the lot at the time of application. By ignoring this state mandate, the City is knowingly proceeding with an ineligible and void process.
Neighbors respectfully request that the City Council approve and adopt a new ordinance that complies with state law before approving any projects under SB 1123. Applications to develop projects at 1573 Walnut Avenue, 661 W. Parr Avenue, and 1170 Steinway Avenue Daniel Furtado, Mayor
Terry Hines, Councilmember
Elliot Scozzola, Councilmember
Sergio Lopez, Councilmember
Anne Bybee, Councilmember
City Council
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
[email protected]
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
[email protected]
April 17, 2026
Campbell City Council
(collectively “the Projects”) are among several projects seeking to use Ordinance No. 2334’s vacancy loophole to obtain ministerial approval under SB 1123. The City simply cannot approve these projects until the City adopts a new ordinance implementing SB 1123 that complies with state law. The City must stay all pending applications – including those for the Projects – relying on this void interpretation. The City cannot “grandfather” or vest rights into a ministerial process for which a project was never eligible under state law. Any attempt to “grandfather” these applications would constitute a knowing violation of the Government Code and subject the City to immediate litigation. Time is of the essence. The City must act quickly to avoid potential costly litigation. If it fails to act before projects are approved based on the existing illegal ordinance, it will be subject to litigation for ministerially approving a project that does not comply with SB 1123.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
SB 1123
Senate Bill No. 1123 revised the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021 (“SHRA”), which allows for ministerial approval of housing projects that meet certain requirements, including “that the housing development project on the lot proposed to be subdivided will contain 10 or fewer residential units, is zoned for multifamily residential development, is no larger than 5 acres, as specified, and the newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square feet.” (SB 1123, Legislative Counsel’s Digest). SB 1123 expanded the SHRA to allow the ministerial approval of housing projects on vacant lots in areas zoned for single-family residential development. (SB 1123 § 3; Gov. Code § 66499.41(a)(2).) Under SB 1123, the term “vacant” means “having no permanent structure, unless the permanent structure is abandoned and uninhabitable.” (Id. (a)(2)(A)(ii).) “Vacant” does not mean:
(I) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rent or sales price to levels affordable to persons and families of low, very low, or extremely low income.
(II) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or sales price control through a local public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(III) Housing occupied by tenants within the five years preceding the date of application, including housing that has been demolished or that tenants have vacated prior to the submission of the application for a development permit. (Id.)
Further, recent technical assistance from HCD clarifies that SB 1123 is intended only for sites that “do not contain housing” and that eligibility must be determined based on the physical state of the lot at the time of application.
Interim Ordinance No. 2334
On August 4, 2025, the City Council adopted interim Ordinance No. 2334 to implement SB 1123. In the Ordinance, the term “vacant” means “a lot having no permanent structure, unless April 17, 2026
Campbell City Council
the permanent structure is abandoned and deemed uninhabitable by the Building Official, excluding (1) housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rent or sales price to levels affordable to persons and families of low, very low, or extremely low income; (2) housing that is subject to any form of rent or sales price control through a local public entity' s valid exercise of its police power; and (3) housing occupied by tenants within the five years preceding the date of the starter home project application, including housing that has been demolished or that tenants have vacated prior to the submission of the application.” (Ordinance No. 2334 § 3.)
However, under the “Site Eligibility” provision of the Ordinance, a starter home project is eligible for ministerial approval if (among other things) the project “will meet the definition of ‘vacant,’ as provided in [the Ordinance], no later than the date of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first.” (Ordinance No. 2334 § 4(C) [emphasis added].) This provision of the Ordinance thus attempts to create a future-vacancy standard whereby a starter home project is eligible for ministerial approval even if the project site has an existing occupied house at the time of approval.
DISCUSSION
I. Ordinance No. 2334’s Definition of “Vacant” is Preempted by State Law and Invalid.
“[T]he general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled.” (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1148 [internal citations omitted].) “A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” (Id.) “Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.” (Id.) “A local ordinance contradicts state law when it is inimical to or cannot be reconciled with state law.” (O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1068.)
SB 1123 establishes a present requirement that a site be vacant at the time a local agency is considering ministerial approval of a starter home project under the SHRA. SB 1123 provides that a “local agency shall ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets” certain criteria, including that the site for the proposed project be “vacant.” The use of the word “meets,” indicates a present tense requirement, not a future one. Thus, when a local agency is considering such a project, the site, at that time of consideration, must be vacant. The definition of “vacant” under SB 1123 is clear: “vacant” means “having no permanent structure, unless the permanent structure is abandoned and uninhabitable.” (SB 1123 § 3; Gov. Code § 66499.41(a)(2)(A)(ii).) Ordinance No. 2334 conflicts with and undermines this requirement by allowing ministerial approval of a starter home project if it will become vacant, i.e., if it “will meet” the definition of “vacant” at a future date. (Ordinance No. 2334 § 4(C) [emphasis added].) The April 17, 2026
Campbell City Council
City’s attempted creation of this future vacancy standard is in direct conflict with and contradicts SB 1123’s existing vacancy standard. It is impossible to reconcile City’s future vacancy standard and SB 1123’s existing vacancy standard. Thus, Ordinance No. 2334 is illegal and void.
The terms and the stated intent of the statute is to protect existing housing stock, while allowing development on sites that do not contain housing or contain unsafe uninhabitable housing. This purpose SB 1123 would also be undermined by allowing developers to essentially create a vacant parcel by demolishing existing housing or rendering a home uninhabitable.
SB 1123’s legislative history further indicates, that when the Legislature defined “vacant,” it meant for the term to refer to the current conditions of a site. As a report from the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development states: “To provide further clarity, the committee may wish to make clear that “vacant” sites include those with no existing structure or an abandoned and uninhabitable structure.”1 It did just that by requiring sites meet the SB 1123 vacancy standards at the time an application is submitted – not by demolishing existing housing.
The HCD has clarified that it also interprets the vacancy requirement to apply at the time a project application is submitted and to exclude parcels that require demolition of residential units. 2 Moreover, HCD noted that it “encourages local governments to apply the definition of vacant in a manner that promotes the SHRA’s effectiveness on single-family zoned sites that do not contain housing.”3
Furthermore, if the City is permitted to approve a project under SB 1123 using its dubious future vacancy standard, the Legislature’s use of the term “vacant” would be rendered mere surplusage and meaningless. “[T]he Legislature does not engage in idle acts, and no part of its enactments should be rendered surplusage if a construction is available that avoids doing so.” (Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1074, 1087.) Under the rule against surplusage for statutory interpretation, “every word should add meaning – and no language should serve as mere surplusage.” (Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493, 509.) The rule can be applied where “it results in a reasonable reading of the legislation.” (MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 635, 650.) Expanding the meaning of the term “vacant,” as the City has done here, would undermine the Legislature’s intent to protect existing housing stock. As HCD has explained: “[i]n expanding the SHRA to be used on single-family zoned sites that are vacant, the Legislature established strong protections to prevent the displacement of residents and demolition of specified, vulnerable types of existing housing units.”4 Thus, the 1 Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development: SB 1123, Planning and zoning: subdivisions:
ministerial review (June 12, 2024), available at: https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/CA/2023/SB/1123/analyses/assemblyhousing-and-community-development.pdf (emphasis added). 2 Definition of “Vacant” in the Starter Home Revitalization Act – Letter of Technical Assistance (September 19, 2025), available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-cruz-couhau-2362-ta-091925.pdf (attached hereto as “Attachment”) 3 Id. (emphasis added.) 4 Id. (emphasis added.) April 17, 2026
Campbell City Council
only reasonable reading of SB 1123’s eligibility criteria that a site be “vacant,” would be that the site, at the time of application, has no existing permanent structure or has a permanent structure that is otherwise abandoned and uninhabitable as defined in the Health and Safety Code. (See Health and Safety Code § 17920.3.)
II. Because Ordinance No. 2334 is Preempted by State Law, the City Must Adopt a New Legally Valid Ordinance.
a. Any pending project applications approved based on Ordinance No. 2334 would be invalid.
Senate Bill No. 330 (“SB 330”) “require[s] that a housing development project only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted.” (SB 330, Legislative Counsel’s Digest.) However, if the City were to approve or “deem complete” any pending project applications under Ordinance No. 2334, the City would be acting ultra vires – beyond its legal authority, and such an action would be invalid. (See Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 77, 91 [city enjoined from enforcing ordinance that conflicted with and was preempted by the Ellis Act].) As a result, if the applications for the Projects are “deemed complete”5 while Ordinance No. 2334 is still in effect, they cannot be “grandfathered” in under the ordinance and rely on its future vacancy standard because the ordinance is preempted by state law and void. The Projects would thus be subject to standards established in a new, legally valid ordinance.
b. The City must wait to approve project applications until a new ordinance is adopted.
Under SB 330, a local agency only has 30 days to deem an application for a housing development project complete, or incomplete, if the project contains 150 or fewer units of housing and 60 days if the project contains 150 or more units of housing. (SB 330 § 3; Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If the agency does not act on the application within the required time frame, the application is automatically deemed complete. (Id.) With this requirement in mind, we urge the City to stay all pending project applications submitted under Ordinance No. 2334 for as long as possible (29 days), and to move expeditiously in adopting a new, legally valid ordinance.
III. None of the Project Sites Adjacent to the Neighbors are Vacant.
While there are at least half a dozen projects in the pipeline attempting to shoehorn themselves into the City’s illegal exemption from the vacancy requirement, the Neighbors are particularly concerned about three, all of which are proposed by a single developer, AlphaX RE Capital. The developer applied to build a combined 28 units on three single-family properties located at 1573 Walnut Avenue, 661 W. Parr Avenue, and 1170 Steinway Avenue. 5 “Deemed complete” means “that the [housing development project] application has met all of the requirements specified in the relevant list compiled pursuant to [Gov. Code] Section 65940 that was available at the time when the application was submitted.” (SB 330 § 4; Gov. Code § 65905.5(b)(1).) April 17, 2026
Campbell City Council
At 661 W. Parr Avenue, there is an existing, owner-occupied, single-family home. Both 1573 Walnut Drive and 1170 Steinway have existing, unoccupied, single-family homes on them.
These properties are not currently vacant, abandoned, or uninhabitable, and the development of the Projects would require the demolition of existing single-family homes.
By no logical or legal definition are these lots vacant. Each contains a habitable house that renders them ineligible for approval under SB 1123. Any attempt to approve these projects ministerially under SB 1123 would be illegal and subject the City to litigation for acting in excess of its authority.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Neighbors urge the City Council to repeal Ordinance No. 2334 and adopt a new ordinance that is consistent with SB 1123 as soon as possible and stay the pending applications for the Projects until the new ordinance is adopted.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
ATTACHMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
September 19, 2025
Stephanie Hansen, Assistant Director
Community Development and Infrastructure Department
Santa Cruz County
701 Ocean Street, Fourth Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Stephanie Hansen:
RE: Definition of “Vacant” in the Starter Home Revitalization Act – Letter of Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a request for technical assistance from Santa Cruz County (County) regarding the definition of “vacant” in the Starter Home Revitalization Act (SHRA) of 2021. 1 The SHRA
enables applicants to propose a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that will result in ten or fewer parcels on a lot that is “vacant and zoned for single-family residential development.”2 Among other things, “vacant” is defined to include certain sites that include a “permanent structure [that] is abandoned and uninhabitable.”3 This letter provides technical assistance explaining that a site containing an empty religious use building located at 1818 Felt Street, within the County, qualifies as “vacant” for the purpose of the SHRA.
Background
HCD understands that the County was approached by an applicant interested in utilizing the SHRA to develop a 10-unit housing development project located at 1818 Felt Street and acquiring the site. HCD understands that 1818 Felt Street is a one-acre site that is zoned for single family use (R-1-6). The site includes a gravel parking lot and a 5,889 square-foot religious use building constructed in 1965.
HCD understands that an August 2024 environmental assessment report found unsafe levels of moisture and mold contamination within the building. Subsequently, Spiritual Living Santa Cruz, which owns the site, vacated at the end of 2024. Two other organizations that leased the building also concluded their leases on 1 Gov. Code, §§ 66499.40-66499.41
2 Gov. Code, § 66499.41, subd. (a)(2)(A)(ii).
3 Id.
Stephanie Hansen, Assistant Director
December 31, 2024. The building no longer has any active leases, according to documentation submitted to HCD by the potential applicant.
Analysis
SB 1123 (Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024) amended the SHRA to add sites that are “vacant and zoned for single-family residential development” as eligible sites for the SHRA under Government Code section 66499.41, subdivision (a)(2)(A)(ii). For the purposes of this provision, “vacant” is defined to mean “having no permanent structure, unless the permanent structure is abandoned and uninhabitable.”4 Additionally, all the following types of housing are specifically excluded from this definition of “vacant” and are thus ineligible:
• Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rent or sales price to levels affordable to persons and families of low, very low, or extremely low-income (ELI).
• Housing that is subject to any form of rent or sales price control through a local public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
• Housing occupied by tenants within the five years preceding the date of the application, including housing that has been demolished or that tenants have vacated prior to the submission of the application for a development permit.5 In expanding the SHRA to be used on single-family zoned sites that are vacant, the Legislature established strong protections to prevent the displacement of residents and demolition of specified, vulnerable types of existing housing units. The site located at 1818 Felt St. provides an example of how nonresidential structures can be considered “vacant” under the definition provided for in the SHRA and facilitate projects that neither displace existing residents nor demolish specified residential units.
The site located at 1818 Felt Street contains an existing permanent structure built and used for religious use. As confirmed by County staff, the property currently does not have an existing dwelling unit and the structure is therefore “uninhabitable.” Although not explicitly referenced by the SHRA, other definitions of habitability in state law are informative: the existing religious use building does not meet habitability criteria contained within the California Civil Code6 or Health and Safety Code. 7 Additionally, the
existing non-residential building qualifies as abandoned for the purpose of the SHRA, as it does not currently have any active leases and has been vacated following the environmental assessment that found unsafe conditions. Finally, the site does not meet the three exclusion criteria, as it did not contain housing and did not contain housing within the previous five years.
4 Gov. Code, § 66499.41, subd. (a)(2)(A)(ii).
5 Gov. Code, § 66499.41, subds. (a)(2)(A)(ii)(I)-(III). 6 Civ. Code, § 1941.1. 7 HSC, § 17920.3 Stephanie Hansen, Assistant Director
HCD encourages local governments to apply the definition of vacant in a manner that promotes the SHRA’s effectiveness on single-family zoned sites that do not contain housing. The Legislature passed SB 1123 to update the SHRA to include certain singlefamily zoned sites to be eligible. In balancing housing production with protecting certain existing housing stock, the definition of “vacant” within the SHRA allows it to be used on single-family zoned sites with permanent structures that are abandoned and uninhabitable. This definition also specifically avoids vulnerable types of housing either subject to certain price controls or occupied by tenants within the five years preceding the date of the application. Applying this definition correctly is important in working to accomplish the SHRA’s goal of expanding opportunities for ownership of more affordable housing types.
Conclusion
HCD remains committed to supporting local governments in facilitating housing at all income levels and hopes the County finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Brandon Yung at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Brian Heaton
Section Chief, Land Use Policy
Housing Accountability Unit
From: Fardad Tayebaty
To: City Managers Office; Rob Eastwood; Dan Furtado; Clerks Office; Anne Bybee; Terry Hines; Sergio Lopez; Elliot Scozzola
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please reconsider Ordinance 2334 and ensure compliance with SB 1123 Date: Saturday, April 18, 2026 7:43:44 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Furtado, Councilmembers, Rob Eastwood,
I am writing to ask the City of Campbell to reconsider Ordinance 2334 and to ensure that any starter-home application is reviewed under the vacancy standard required by state law.
My concern is that Campbell's ordinance appears to allow a property to qualify as "vacant" based on a future demolition plan, rather than requiring the parcel to be vacant at the time the application is submitted. That interpretation seems broader than state law and could create a precedent that affects many single-family neighborhoods across Campbell.
This issue is about more than the current applications. If the city treats lots as vacant based on future demolition plans, it could make many ordinary single-family parcels eligible for much denser development than residents reasonably expect. That is a major policy change and one that deserves careful legal review, not rushed approval.
I respectfully ask the City Council to:
Reconsider Ordinance 2334.
Review whether the ordinance is consistent with state law.
Apply the vacancy standard exactly as required by SB 1123.
Deny any application that was not eligible at the time it was submitted as state law preempts local ordinances.
Thank you for your time and for your service to the residents of Campbell. I ask that you protect the integrity of the law, the public process, and the voice of your constituents.
Sincerely,
Fardad Tayebaty and Mojdeh Faraz
garage so there will always be street parking, and there is no overflow parking for visitors and parties, which will be frequent with 10 families living there. Given the lack of interest the developer has shown in making the project attractive or compatible with the neighborhood, one wonders about the quality of the materials choices and building practices they have chosen or will choose. And two unlucky single-family-home families will suddenly and without any recourse have 10 new families as next-door neighbors. I dare any of you to sign up for that in the name of improving access to housing. The day after I received the flyer, I came down for breakfast and saw it sitting on the table and started to cry. That is how this feels. These buildings dropped into our neighborhood with no warning and no consultation with the residents feel like an act of contempt for everything and everyone who was already here.
We are told now that these buildings are a necessary response to State Bill 1123 and that the city has no recourse and very limited ability to influence or deny this project or any of the others proposed all over the city. Yet it seems the City has embraced this invasion of poorly-planned housing into its neighborhoods and even encouraged it by passing a city ordinance that greatly expands the definition of “vacant” parcels to include parcels with habitable housing and even parcels with people living on them. The state bill does not define “vacant” in this way, so it would appear the City is violating its own zoning and its own approval processes for new housing for no reason whatsoever except that they made up a law without telling their residents about it. This should be illegal. There are lawyers to talk about this – I will leave that to them.
It is possible, now that the existence of these Starter Home projects is widely becoming known, along with the knowledge that Campbell is unique in their interpretation of SB1123, that knowledgeable home buyers and realtors will begin to avoid Campbell as a place to buy a home. NOW. Not once the buildings pop up and the people move in. NOW. Personally, knowing what I know now, if I needed to buy a home before this issue was resolved, I would not buy in Campbell, as there is no way to be sure one of these housing projects would not end up next to my new home. The longer this issue remains unresolved and the more new projects that start, the more damage may occur NOW to existing property values citywide.
And, of course, if property values drop and sellers need to sell, one of these starter home developers could be an attractive option, creating more projects and even less desirable neighborhoods.
I would hope the City of Campbell would take a good look, with their lawyers, at what SB1123 actually requires of them and what it does not, and that the city would stand by its own zoning and approval processes wherever possible. Poorly designed and poorly executed housing projects without quality and suitability requirements bring down neighborhoods and will not even help the homeowners who are able to buy into them. A starter home is only as helpful as the quality of the building itself and the quality of the neighborhood; otherwise it is just a way for the homeowner to lose money.
Obviously we the residents need to impress upon our state legislators the need for quality of housing projects while pursuing quantity, but the City should fight for the neighborhoods they have painstakingly created and for building projects that both increase the availability of housing and provide quality housing that does give owners a solid beginning in home ownership. The townhouse development at 1201-1211 West Parr Avenue comes to mind as an example of what is possible; a six-unit townhouse development with garages plus on-site overflow parking and beautiful landscaping on a lot smaller than the parcel at 1170 Steinway.
These homes are attractive and do not detract from the neighborhood and if that was my price point I would gladly live there.
I am disappointed in the State, but also in my City, which has not fought hard enough, I think, for its existing residents. Please get the law straight and do everything you can to increase housing availability responsibly and with consideration for the human beings who live here.
Sincerely,
Karen Holmes
Campbell, CA 95008
April 18, 2026
Campbell City Council
70 N 1st St
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: CAMPBELL STARTER HOMES POLICY (ITEM 8.2) – SUPPORT OPTION 1 Dear Campbell City Council,
On behalf of Orchard City Indivisible, I write to support Option 1, which would continue Campbell’s successful implementation of SB 1123 without modification.
Orchard City Indivisible, founded in 2017, is a volunteer-led grassroots political activism organization. We have several thousand members across Santa Clara County and work with sister organizations to encourage voter turnout, helping members connect with their elected officials and advocating for the most underserved in our communities.
Campbell’s successful implementation of SB 1123 has been a key aspect of its commitment to improve affordability and provide starter homes. These homes are vital for young families, for retirees, for service workers.
The proposed “Option 2” would make it much harder to produce these starter homes by increasing uncertainty around financing. We hold starter homes for families to be a higher good than parking concerns, aesthetic worries, or “the character of the community”. We support Option 1, preserving the present policy.
Orchard City Indivisible strongly supports Campbell in its work to make an affordable city for all.
Thank you,
Mara Privitt, Co-Founder
Orchard City Indivisible
From: C2
To: Clerks Office
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 8.2
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 11:23:06 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
My name is Carin Powell, I'm a homeowner in Campbell where I live with my husband and daughter, and I'm writing in support of more affordable housing in our city. Over and over I hear complaints from residents at City Council and Planning Commission meetings about plans for constructing housing nearby, and they don't seem to understand the irony when they, in the same breath, complain about our unhoused population. It's almost as though the two things are related! They want to keep the character of Campbell the same when the character as we know it - namely, our downtown and the ways we interact with our community through events like the farmer's market and the wine walk - was a) established less than twenty five years ago, and b) directly under threat thanks to the loud and ignorant rants against more neighbors. Our population is aging, growing richer through their property values, and shrinking. If you'd like to narrow Campbell down to a few elderly wealthy squeaky wheels who don't want people who can't afford a two million dollar house nearby, by all means, entertain their complaints and lose that which would sustain our city in the years to come. If you want Campbell to actually thrive as a city, welcome the young, the workers, the new graduates, and the new families by making it possible for them to actually live here. -Carin PowellCampbell, CA 95008
From: Adam Buchbinder
To: Clerks Office
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, ITEM 8.2
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 11:45:51 AM
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
I'm writing in to express support for Option 1 on Item 8.2 this evening regarding the city's implementation of SB 1123, the Starter Home Revitalization Act.
I was disheartened to hear my fellow residents speak out against the city's most successful housing policy. Of course new homes will bring more residents and more traffic, and we'll see new buildings from our backyards. The only way to avoid that is to stop building everything, which has been what we've been trying for the last fifty years.
We cannot and should not attempt to make it harder to build starter homes by separating the two phases of applications. We cannot and should not attempt to skirt the bounds of state law by delaying approvals (illegal under the Permit Streamlining Act) and post-facto revising our rules (illegal under the Housing Crisis Act).
I would imagine that the people upset about the new homes are also upset about our homeless encampments. We have people living on the street because we cared more about the "character of our neighborhood" and the ease of free street parking than whether or not people could live here. And make no mistake: if we do not build new homes, we will continue to consign people to the streets.
Henry Grabar, in The Atlantic earlier this year, cited specific research to this effect:
In one case, two of the article’s co-authors, Justin Tyndall and Limin Fang, told me, a unit at the Central was purchased by a woman leaving an apartment built in the 1960s in a low-income neighborhood. That unit was subsequently occupied by someone moving from a transitional-housing facility for the formerly homeless, presumably freeing up a bed for someone living on the street. Put succinctly: The sale of an apartment costing more than half a million dollars seems to have created a vacancy at a homeless shelter.
But anyone who's ever seen a hermit crab understands how this works. For years, we've layered so much process and difficulty and conditions on our new housing that little if anything actually gets build. Now that we're actually building, there's a backlash. It's understandable, but the city should not let the voices of securely-housed homeowners, who will still be securely-housed homeowners when they have new neighbors, overpower the voices of the families who will be able to call Campbell home because the city decided to make it possible to build.
Let's keep a good thing going!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Adam Buchbinder
From: raja
To: Clerks Office; [email protected]; Anne Bybee; Dan Furtado; Terry Hines; Elliot Scozzola Cc: Planning Division
Subject: SB 1123 and Housing conversation tonight
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 6:54:27 PM
WARNING: This email originated from an external sender! Please do not open attachments or click on links unless you are certain it is legitimate.
Hi Esteemed council,
Unfortunately I am traveling international and could not show up at the meeting. 30 years ago the san tomas neighborhood folks came up with san tomas neighborhood plan to say, we dont want diversity.
Then in 2019 the same neighborhood did their best restrict adus, till state law said otherwise.
And now the same set of people frrom walnut do not want starter homes.
Schools are closing because younger families are not moving.
Stuck old property taxes are forcing city to raise sales tax When the City allows for class A commercial buildings like 1700 Dell Avenue. https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/26941745
City should also plan for increased housing in the neighborhood immediate to the area.
I am all in for addressing and educating residents on the need for increased housing.
Hoping council does the right thing by not making it hard to build new starter homes and provide the opportunity for younger families also to make campbell their home. -raja