Campbell Residents Sound Off: Negative Declaration Protest

Letter shared by C. Reichmuth with Patch - a correspondence sent to the Campbell city officials to be included with last week’s meeting.

_________________________________________________________________

February 16, 2015

City of Campbell Planning Department

City of Campbell City Council

70 N. First St. Campbell, CA 95008

(408) 866-2100

ADDED: ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is a formal protest from several members of your community against the proposed Negative Declaration (ND) that was made public to the residents of Campbell in December 10, 2014.

The reason for this disagreement is because there are several categories within the document that will open the floodgate to each and every unsupported and inaccurate item where the City of Campbell’s management has indicated there will be “No Impact.”

We believe there will be a significant impact on Campbell and its residents and the fact that out of 18 categories and 89 sub-categories, City Management states there will be “No Impact,” is disconcerting, patronizing, and proves to be ignoring the voice of Campbell’s citizens.

Also, it appears that notice of the ND went out to an incredibly small number of people, therefore, the voice and opinions of the majority of Campbell residents, will not be heard.

Moreover, the State mandates that Campbell identify 933 residential units, nevertheless, Campbell has come up with 1,161 [originally 1,218 (page 10), however, Aki Snelling stated there was a mistake.

This number is greatly in excess of what the state requires, yet the ND refers constantly to 933 units, not to the 1,161 units that the ND will allow to happen and what the Planning Commission and City Council will be able to approve.

According to section 2.2.1, of the “Preparation of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration” section of the UC CEQA Handbook: 2.2 - Negative Declaration And Mitigated Negative Declaration, “a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared for a project when there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects could result in significant adverse impacts [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b)(2))].

Therefore, it seems as if the City of Campbell has checked off every box so that there will be “No Impact,” so as to not do further investigation.

In regards to the Negative Declaration, below are various categories and subcategories found within the ND, which according to its residents, will have impact on the City if approved.

1. Aesthetics: For instance…

a. Certain proposed projects are requesting that the Campbell building codes be changed so their buildings will be higher than the current 4-story maximum in order to maximize their gains. This will effect “a scenic vista.”

b. Trees will be removed thus damaging scenic resources.

c. The massive growth that will be allowed due to the ND will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of various sites and surroundings.

d. The ND will pave way to possible future developments that could potentially create new sources of light and glare.

2. Agriculture and Forestry: Not applicable since “Orchard City” has no more orchards.

3. Air Quality: More data needed.

4. Biological Resources: More data needed.

5. Cultural Resources: More data needed.

6. Geology/Soils: More data needed.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: More data needed.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: More data needed.

9. Hydrology/Water Quality: One of the proposed high-density projects is located close to the Los Gatos Creek which is an area that is potentially affected by a “100 year flood” as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Another project is currently under way.

10. Land Use/Planning: Although the ND does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development, this document legally creates the possibility for “Land Use and Planning” to be affected.

11. Mineral Resources: More data needed.

12. Noise: Although the ND does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development, this document legally creates the possibility for “Land Use and Planning” to be affected.

13. Population/Housing: The ND would allow for a substantial population growth in Campbell including high-density structures that go against Campbell’s “Small Town” appeal that is stated within the General Plan.

14. Public Services: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other facilities will be significantly impacted by 2,810 projected people. For instance:

a. Currently, there are seven police officers on duty at any given time, therefore, with a population of roughly 41,000 people, which means that one police officer is to cover 5,857 people.

b. With an increase of 2,810 residents, that will require each police officer to 6,278 residents per shift. c. Is the City of Campbell really communicating and letting the local school districts know what to be prepared for?

15. Recreation:

a. Future housing projects will significantly impact our neighborhoods including recreation.

b. Also to be scrutinized are the estimations of what is reported within the ND referring to 933 dwellings at 2.42 people per household and equates to 2,258 people and that “no impacts are anticipated.”

c. Most importantly, the ND is reporting numbers in reference to 933 dwellings, although the ND will allow up to 1,161 dwelling. Therefore, at 2.42 people per household, that equates to 2,810 people. This is an increase of close to 700 people. Will this then qualify for “impacts are anticipated?” Also, why was this not mentioned?

16. Transportation/Traffic: How the City has suggested there will be “No Impact” on transportation and traffic is disturbing.

a. The projects will cause a massive increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.

i. VTA has not followed through on their plans to increase public transportation and at this point, there is no funding.

ii. At the moment, our thoroughfares are already taxed and overburdened.

iii. With 1,161 dwellings and 2.42 people per unit, is the City stating that there will be no effect to Transportation/Traffic with roughly 2,436 more cars on our streets?

iv. In regards to the 2,436 more cars on our streets, the fact that the highest increase of growth per capita will be in Downtown Campbell and that Downtown is within the heart of Campbell, this will drastically effect every street, road, or avenue within Campbell.

b. An increase in traffic will significantly exceed a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. For example, if any projects are approved for Railway Ave. in Downtown Campbell before the Robson project is finished off of Sam Cava in Downtown, two of the main roads into and out of Campbell will be massively affected.

c. Campbell citizens are constantly posting events to social media where they have almost been run-over due to traffic. An increase in population will have a direct correlation to additional dangerous intersections which also relates to the lack of Public Services. Along the lines, Campbell has one of the lowest Police to Resident ratio within the Santa Clara County.

d. Will there be inadequate emergency access? Yes. Within the Robson project alone, the large fire trucks will not be able to enter the main road, thus massively decreasing safety. An example would be if there was a call to the fire department in which the smaller fire truck answered. If there is a fire at the Robson project and only the larger trucks are available, what will happen?

e. Will there be conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation? That has yet to be determined.

17. Utilities/Service Systems: More data needed.

18. Mandatory Findings of Significance:

a. Does the ND have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment? Yes.

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? Indeed.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Undeniably so. In most of the cities that surround Campbell, information is mailed and polls are taken to all of those that live within a .5 mile (or more) radius in which the projects will affect.

Only a small percentage of people follow what the City posts on Nextdoor.com and not many people read the newspaper nowadays. In fact, a random poll was taken of Campbell residents and not one of them knew of the Negative Declaration...not even those that are on Nextdoor.

These people had no idea about the Negative Declaration or the growth that it approves.

Obviously, Facebook, Nextdoor, and an advertisement in the newspaper are not sufficient enough. Upon receipt of more responses, the ND should be re-evaluated, re-considered by the new council and then voted on.

Although the housing element of the General Plan may need an overhaul, the proposed ND is a means of guaranteeing that massive growth, with disregard to Campbell citizens, will be recommended by the staff and able to be approved by the Council.

As proven by the recent election, the City Council race results were not a sweeping affirmation the plans made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This plan should be amended and properly reflect the vision and voice of the Campbell Residents.

Campbell citizens are unhappy and expect adequate representation from their city council.

Sincerely,

• Jen Allan, Downtown Campbell
• Loralea Anderson, 134 Bland Ave.
• David Blinn, Downtown Campbell, (Added 2/15/15)
• Nadia Burtz, 345 Budd Ave.
• Terry Burtz, 345 Budd Ave.
• Honda Cevallos, 2099 La Con Ct. (Added 2/14/15)
• Catherine Conk,177 S 3rd
• St Joe Cusimano, Apricot Ave. (Added 2/13/15)
• Patricia Smith Derham, 477 Sam Cava Lane
• Courtney Elliott, 571 Maple Ave.
• Karen Kane-Foempe, Hacienda Ave.
• Nancy Fomenko, 110 El Caminito Ave (Added 2/12/15)
• Ryan Gustafson, 571 Maple Ave.
• Mary Granger, 21 Alice Ave.
• Pat Hallinan, Cherry Lane
• Cindy Hardgrave, Campbell
• Eric Hardgrave, Campbell
• Jane Harmer, 1392 El Moro Drive
• Laurie Hendry, 80 Harrison
• Cindy Hilliard, 1075 Smith Ave.
• Cynthia Holiday, N 1st St.
• Ken Jercha, Hacienda Ave. (Added 2/11/15)
• Janet Josselyn, 189 Bland Ave.
• Lee Ann Kuntz, 206 El Caminito Ave.
• Tom Kuntz, 206 El Caminito Ave.
• Jeff Kusnitz, 485 Sam Cava Lane
• Ramona Lione, Pamlar-Borello, (Added 2/15/15)
• Al Lowder, 351 California St.
• Michael Mitoma, 161 Grant St.
• Laura Moore, 63 N. Second St.
• Alvin Myers, 30 N. Milton Ave.
• Janice Newman, 235 Dillon Ave.
• Ray Nugent, Campbell Community Center
• Rebecca O’ Bryan, 127 Timbercove
• Dr. Cristin Reichmuth, 108 S. 1st St.
• Maggie Salama, South 1st St.
• Stacy Sauber, 431 Harrison Ave.
• Gary Sloan, 411 N. Milton Ave., (Added 2/13/15)
• Darlene Steele, 653 Maple Ave.
• David Steele, 653 Maple Ave.
• Shannon Thomas, Morgan Park
• Linda Tsai, 74 N 2nd Street (Added 2/13/15)
• Anne-Louise Vernon, 408 Esther Ave.

Cc:

• Campbell Chamber of Commerce
• City of Campbell Fire Department
• City of Campbell Parks and Recreation
• City of Campbell Police Department
• Downtown Campbell Business Association
• NorCal Regional Carpenters Council
• Santa Clara County Planning Department
• Santa Clara County Roads & Airports
• San Jose Water Valley Transit Authority