First - find which district you live in.
You can only vote for the candidates running in your district. District 3, 4, and 5 are up for election this year. Districts 1 and 2 will be up for election in 2028. City council members serve 4 year terms.
Candidates in bold have not responded to the questionnaire yet. If you would like to see their responses, please reach out to them!
District 3:
District 4:
District 5:
Responses are listed by district in alphabetical order of last name.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
Housing is a perennial challenge in not just Campbell, but all of California. We should leave no stone unturned in our search for suitable places to build. Until our conversation shifts from a housing shortage to a surplus, the job is not done.
One city council term isn't long enough to get everything built, but it is plenty of time to lay the groundwork for our path forward.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
My vision for housing in Campbell is to have High density housing where it makes sense. Create fewer hurdles for homeowners and allow them to convert their homes for multi-generational housing, adding ADU's. This can only happen if we stream line the process and have one set of development standards for all of Campbell instead of 3.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
Not meeting our RHNA goals is absolutely a problem. The path to achieving them is high-density development. We can debate the merits of 10-unit complexes allowed under SB1123, but the fact of the matter is that one 300-unit development is worth 30 of those smaller townhome projects from a numbers standpoint, and those high-density options should be closer to affordability.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
We need to be more creative and go taller where we have the ability to do so.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
I would push for better incentives that make high-density housing more attainable. We have too many unused and under-used spaces that continue to sit empty. Streamlined application/permit processes and implementing an in-lieu fee schedule for developers are where I think we can make the greatest impact on getting these projects over the finish line (and potentially build a funding source for a 100% BMR development).
While this is not specific to high-density, I believe that Campbell's permit process and ordinances surrounding single-family home development are also needlessly strict and complicated. Applications can take months to review, and frequently come back with multiple pages of nonsubstantive comments.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
If by housing you mean the permitting building process, yes. Streamlining the process.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
One project that stands out to me is the as-yet unused lot at 980 E Campbell Ave, home of the long-shuttered Original Hick'ry Pit diner. I was opposed to a previous proposal to add a half-hotel, half-apartment complex development to the site. Campbell has enough hotel space and almost never exceeds our approximately 1,000 room capacity. A newer proposal for a 324-unit apartment complex has my strong support.
Another development I am in favor of is the 74-unit townhome complex proposed at 1500 E Hamilton Ave. While townhomes are less dense, those projects face fewer financial hurdles for developers, and potentially fill some of our need for "missing middle" housing.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
No
Joe Brenner (District 3)
As a resident of a single-family neighborhood, I have been open about my skepticism of SB1123. I believe it is too broad and that those developments sometimes can have undue negative impacts on traffic congestion in neighborhoods. Our path to car-alternative transit is a long one, and we must still account for emissions and parking when planning for housing.
I believe these projects should be approached on a case-by-case basis, but unfortunately SB1123 does not allow for this course of action. There are instances of similar development that I think are great for Campbell, such as the 31-unit project proposed at 318 W Rincon Ave. Additionally, there are plenty of examples of single-family homes that were turned into beautiful triplex units that both add density and suit their surrounding environment.
The proposed demolition-control ordinance, as I have read it, does not directly conflict with SB1123. Because Sacramento has so severely limited cities' oversight on development, I can understand some of the desire for and agree with this ordinance. It is environmentally irresponsible to tear down a safely habitable dwelling solely for the sake of more units.
Corporate interests have always been capable of acquiring parcels for development. We cannot cede control to private developers in addition to the state. If we get to the point where our high-density projects are insufficient, I am open to revising my stance here. But giving in to developer interests all at once is irresponsible governance.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
Yes. I believe the city misinterpreted SB1123.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
High-density development is yet again our path forward here. Increased supply improves affordability, and many state laws such as SB330 carve out BMR units in high-density projects.
In-lieu fees would enable us to continue to build funds necessary to support a 100% affordable project.
Finally, an outside-the-box, "dream big" suggestion would be to explore methods for converting some of our long-vacant commercial space into housing. Can we make loft-style living spaces, where independent business owners can live above their workspace? We need to be creative when it comes to solving the affordability crisis.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
I have not had time to dive into this subject.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
Campbell's transition away from car-dependency starts with wider sidewalks, more and better-protected bike lanes, and adopting standards for e-bike usage. For example, the E Campbell Ave Line Plan was insufficient in its pursuit of dedicated, continuous bike lanes for travel in both directions between downtown and The Pruneyard.
One issue residents have noted, and I see frequently firsthand, is speeding and ignoring traffic signs in residential areas. We should make requesting speed studies easier for residents, and renew efforts to enforce traffic laws in these neighborhoods.
Another "pie in the sky" objective for me would be making public transit free for all riders under 18. Encouraging a car-dependent population to adopt transit is a particularly tall task. I contend that if we can promote transit as the primary source of getting around for young people, we can create the generation that finally views cars as secondary. While this is not something we can accomplish alone in Campbell, I would use my extended voice on city council to champion causes like this.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
We can have safe paths for pedestrians and bicyclists, but need to be careful in not exasperating traffic problems. Safer bike paths are best if located on streets with slower speed traffic. The state has allowed cities to speed up the implementation of lower speed limits around schools. I would encourage the council to act on that.
Joe Brenner (District 3)
https://www.joebrenner4campbell.com/values The Values & Experience section of my website has two sections, "Housing That Makes Sense" and "Planning for Our Future Transportation + Environmental Needs," which mention housing and transportation.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
No
Joe Brenner (District 3)
https://www.joebrenner4campbell.com/values The Values & Experience section of my website has two sections, "Housing That Makes Sense" and "Planning for Our Future Transportation + Environmental Needs," which mention housing and transportation.
Dan Furtado (District 3)
Davis Fields (District 4)
Joseph Guardado (District 4)
Daraius Sorabji (District 5)
Campbell YIMBY is the local branch of South Bay YIMBY, which is itself part of YIMBY ACTION, a grassroots housing advocacy non-profit. More details are on the South Bay YIMBY About Us page.
YIMBY stands for Yes In My Backyard, as in, “Please build more housing in our community.” YIMBY’s advocate for more housing, and city planning changes to support higher density such as pedestrian/bicyclist safety and public transportation.
We love Campbell because of the wide array of people who live here. We believe that living in Campbell should be an option available to anyone. Campbell is a wonderful place to live, work, play, and raise a family. However, housing in our city has become deeply unaffordable for many. We are working to ensure that Campbell remains accessible to everyone who wishes to call the Orchard City home.
Put simply, we are working to increase the rate of housing development.
Objectively, our goal is for Campbell to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets. You can find more info in the most recent status report from Campbell city staff (see the Discussion section starting on page 2). Currently Campbell is on track to meet 26% of its goal by 2031, a shortfall of 2,183 units.
We believe there are actions the city can take that will lower development barriers and improve the rate of housing production.
We like to hang out and discuss what's happening on Slack. If you join Campbell YIMBY as a member (or if you're a member of another YIMBY Action chapter), you can join us on YIMBY Action's Slack workspace.
Here are some Slack channels where you are likely to find us:
How do you propose to reduce the cost of housing?
Build more housing. It’s as simple as that. The price of a house or apartment is a result of supply/demand economics. More supply will put downward pressure on prices.
The only housing that is being built in Campbell are townhomes, and they are priced very high. Are you in favor of building housing if it’s not affordable?
More housing supply is good for the overall market. While the townhomes themselves are very expensive, they provide more supply which reduces the demand on the rest of the market. Put another way, if the townhomes were not built, then the prospective buyers would have bought/rented other units which would have driven up prices for those other units.
That said, high-priced townhomes are a major concern since townhomes are typically the entry-point for first-time homebuyers. The fact that the price of townhomes is so high is a reflection of the challenges that developers face. When development is difficult then only the expensive/high-return projects get built. That is why we are focused on lowering the barriers to development such that more projects at lower prices can be built.
Additionally, the fact that only townhomes are being built in Campbell is another major concern. No new apartment buildings have been built in Campbell for a long time. There needs to be more rental supply since not everyone can or wants to buy a property. This is another reason to lower development barriers so more types of housing can be built.
SB79 would allow up to 40,000 units to be built in a narrow corridor of Campbell. Are you in favor of this?
40,000 units greatly exceeds the RHNA target. It would be a massive and unnecessary overbuild. 40,000 is just the theoretical maximum if every lot in the SB79 area were to be built to the maximum allowable density. In reality this is extremely unlikely to happen.
Can our infrastructure (power, sewer, water) handle the extra load of all these new people?
Infrastructure capacity is analyzed in the city’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, which is the roadmap to show how the city can meet the RHNA targets. In all cases our infrastructure has the capacity to support 100% of the RHNA targets without major upgrades. Infrastructure capacity is discussed starting in page 40 of the Housing Element linked above.
