Loading...
TS 81-28CITY OF CAMPBELL 1106,1130,1142 TS 81-28 1 of 2 AUDREY AVENUE ='tt 1106/1130/1142 AUDREY AV TS81-28 Lands of Anderson-Oburn 1 1 !' z r . ti ��. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 2, 1982 ARV SORY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES - MINUTES AND ACTION OR RECOMMENDATIONS ✓TS 81-28 - Planning Director Kee - Report dated January 26, 1962. Lands of Anderson- Oburn - 1106, 1130 Mayor Doetsch asked if anyone wished to be heard. and 1142 Audrey Ave. Mr. Steve Anderson, developer of the subject property, stated that they have followed the rules an, re-,lations that exist under the R-1 zoning district. The; are apnlyinq for sinqle family lots. Following discussion, M/S: Paul, Hammer - that the City Council uphol6 the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny Tentative Subdivizion Mal, 81-28. Motion adopted unanimously. I °03 r'1 STAFF REPORT - TS 81-28, LANDS OF ANDERSON-OBURN, 1106, 1130, 1142 AUDREY AVENUE RECOMMENDATION That the City Council uphold the recomnenddtion of the Planning Commission for denial of this application. DISCUSSION At its meeting of January 12, 1982, the Planning Commission considered the subject tentative subdivision application. After holding a public hearing, the Planning Commission took action to recommend denial of the tentative map, based on the following findings: 1. The submitted subdivision map is not consistent with the stated policy of the City Council dated April 28, 1980. 2. Lot sizes and shapes are not compatible with those in the surrounding area. This recommendation for denial was adopted by a 5-2-0 vote. COST N/A. AGENDA: February 2, 1982 1 � MEMORANDUM CITY OF CAMPBELL To Edward G. Schilling, City Manager Date. January 26, 1982 F. Arthur A. Kee, Planning Director Subject: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, LANDS OF ANDERSON-OBURN, TS 81-28 1106, 1130 AND 1142 AUDREY AVENUE, APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 AND 37 ----------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDATiON That the City Council deny the proposed tentative subdivision map as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.89 acre parcel (net site area) into 15 single-family lots. The proposed subdivision accommodates the construction of a public cul-de-sac and 15 lots with an average lot size of 6,591 square feet. At its meeting of January 12, 1982 the Planning Cortniission considered the subject tentative subdivision map. At that time, Staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission cr,ntinue this application so that the Commission could hold a Joint Study Session with the City Council regarding review of the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas Task Force Report prior to making a decision on this application. However, in accord with the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant's attorney requested that a decision be rendered that evening on this tentative subdivision map. Staff subsequently amended its recommendation from continuance to denial based on the following findings: 1. The submitted subdivision map is not consistent with the stated policy of t`- City Council dated April 28, 1980. 2. Lot sizes and shapes are not compatible with those in the surrounding area. The attached Resolution No. 2083 was adopted by the Plann.ng Commission on January 12, 1982, recommending denial of this application 5y a 5-2-0 vote. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are attached for the Council's information. 3w Attach: (1) Resolution No. 2083 (2) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1982. 1 � �x PLANNING COMMISSION AEETINf, JANUARY 12, 1982 TS 81-28 This is the time and place for a public hearing Lands of Anderson- to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map of Oburn Lands of Anderson-Oburn. APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 and 37. 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant ?s proposing to subdivide a 2.89 acre parcel (net site area) into 15 single-family lots. The proposed subdivision accommodates the construction of a public cul-de-sac and 15 lots with an average lot size of 6,591 square feet. He further noted that at its meeting of November 24, 1981 the Commission received a referral from the City Council requesting that the Planning Commission review the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas Task Force Report and the Planning guidelines in the San Tomas Area. Subsequently, the Commission took action requesting additional direction from the Council and that a date be set for a Joint Study Session between the City Council and Planning Commission regarding this referral. A Joint Study Session has peen set for January 18, 1982. Staff is recommending that the Commission continue this application to its meeting of January 26, 1982 in order that the Commission may have its Joint Study Session with the Council regarding review of the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas lask Force Report prior to a decision on this application. Commissiuner Kasolas inquirec about lot sizes of adjoining property. Mr. Kee responded that he believed the lot sizes of the property surrrounding the project are in excess of 12,000 square feet. Chairman Meyer opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this application. The applicant's attorney appeared before the Commission to ask that a determination be made this evening on this application. 1 -7- Mr. Steven Anderson, applicant, appeared before the Commission to read a prepared statement. A copy of this statement, dated January 12, 1982, is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. This statement addresses concerns expressed by the opposition at past hearings regarding this site. At this time Mr. Kee stated that Staff would recommend denial of the Tentative Map by the Planning Commission should the applicant wish a decision this evening. He noted that there are a number of things that should be considered by the Commission on any map, lot design and shape are two important considerations that the Commission should take into account. He expressed concern about the shape of lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 in particular. Further, Staff would like to be assured that one can build a house without a variance on these lots. Mr. Lee Peterson of 1156 Audrey Avenue appeared to speak against this map. He asked that the Comnission deny this application. He cited the Council's policy on development in the San Tomas Area. Ms. Maggie Desmond of 1491 Hack appeared before the Commission to also speak in opposition to this application. Mr. Jim Lyle, Pacific Design Group, spoke in favor of this map, noting that all lots within the subdivision meet the stated standards. No one else wishing to speak, Commissioner Fairbanks moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Kasolas and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2083 Commissioner Fairbanks moved that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying the application of Anderson-Oburn for approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map based on the following findings: 1. The submitted subdivision map is not consistent with the stated policy of the City C3uncil dated April 28, 1980. 2. Lot sizes and shapes are not compatible with those in the surrounding area. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dickson and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Fairbanks, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None RESOLUTION NO. 2083 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 8 37) AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" (LANDS OF ANDERSON-OBURN, 1106, 1130 8 1142 AUDREY AVE). TS 81-28 After notification and public hearing as specified by law on proposed Tentative Subdivision Maps, and after nresentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the proposed tentative subdivision map (TS 81-28) based on the--fo7lowing findings: 1. The submitted subdivision map is not consistent with the stated policy of the City Council dated ,April 28, 1980. 2. Lot sizes and shapes are not compatible with those in the surrounding area. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 1982 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Fairbanks, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None APPROVED: Jane C. Meyer hairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary _.__.-s� i1 it � '� �i-2Z r O t •• ei w, _ r' � __-7�i---•� �Ali W •[; � ;'. to-_--_- � t IL IL • `i 1 = 1 it f i•_------ w I � _ 4[r - . sue---l--- •►� if f ~_� • •� • L 7••••••'V�••�ii lam- f �� ...•c•�.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. . -------- t ••• o-••• . • • • • • • • • • • • • •F-� -- I IL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t PUBLIC HEARING HELD BEFORE 1 I! IPLANNING t I N ON 1-12-82, RES.COMMNO. 02083 ����,• , I / REC. DENIAL (VOTE: 5-2-0, Vavv __D Steven B. Anderson 1C82 Lucot :Jay Campbell, Ca. 95006 Jan. 12, 1982 Planning Commission City of Campbell, Ca. 75 No. Central Ave. Campbell, Ca. 95008 TS 61-28 Gentlemen: 1. We have, in the previous hearings (ZC 81-22) heard a great deal from the spokespersons of the opposition. 2. No one has spoken out for the Community -at -Large: A. Land in our valley is increasingly scarce: it is one of our most precious assets. The community needs housing that is fairly near employment -- we should avoid restrictions that force more and more cars on longer and longer commutes. B. Our community (The City of Campbell) could certainly use the property tax revenues that the port -prop. 13 homes would provide. C. New homes in the area should improve property values of the neighborhood homes. U. New homes in the area would probably help reverse the downhill trend in property maintenance of many nearby homes. 3. Traffic --- probably the principal concern of the opposition. A.. I feel the opposition has worked themselves up to an almost hysterical fear of the effects of an added 12 homes on traffic on Audrey, Hack and Vale Aves. B. I drive on Audrey Ave. fairly often, and I have never seen more than two other moving vehicles on that street -- mere often than not mine is the only one. C. Addition of 12 homes on the proposed cul-de-sac street should add even fewe.- cars to Audrey Ave. than Lucot Way (16 homes) adds to Vale. D. I would think that anyone voting on this matter should either a. Believe the traffic study of the city's specialists, or b. Visir the site in person to ascertain the truth before votina. - 1 - TS 81-28 Jar. 12, 1982 4. Density; A. I cannot understand Mr. Lee Peterson's attempt to have you believe that our proposal would increase density 4004! B. Twelve added houses would increase density four times if you started with only three. C. The immediate nieghborhood is more nearly 80 homes on 30 acres. Density is approx. 80/30 or about 2.66 homes per acre. Addition of 12 homes would result in 921/30 or about 3.1 homes p-r acre. This would leave the neighborhood with a very low density. 5. Visual effect on the area (the "rural character") A. The 12 new homes would be on a cul-de-sac street visible only a few seconds when driving on Audrey. B. The frontages of the proposed lots would be nearly as wide as the others of the neighborhood. C. In a very short time, trees and other plantings should "mature" the new street. D. Development under the existing R-1-6 Zoning is much more likely to produce the random house styling that is typical of Audrey Ave. etc. than the originally proposed ID plan. 6. A fea other points: A. We are not proposing to take away as much as one square inch from the large lots of the neighbors. B. We cannot agree that everyone who may want to live in this area should be required to buy a large lot. More and more people these days do not require a large lot. C. This development can hardly set any precedents: it is the only remaining undeveloped parcel that could affect the neighborhood, however slightly. Steven "B."Anderson PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. JANUARY 12, 1982 TS 81-28 This is the time and place for a public hearing Lands of Anderson- to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map of Oburn Lands of Anderson-Oburn. APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 and 37. 1106, '130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue. Mr. Kee ,-eported that the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.89 acre parcel (net ite area) into he osed accomm;,datessthe construction 5ofasingle-family publiccul-de-sacTand 15plots withan aver-_ge lot size of 6,591 square feet. He further noted that at its meeting of November 24, 1981 the Commission received a referral from the City Council requesting that the Planning Commission review the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas Task Force Report and the Planning guidelines in the San Tomas Area. Subsequently, the Commission took action requesting additional direction from the Council and that a date be set for a Joint Study Session between the City Council and Planning Commission regarding thi; referral. A Joint Study Session has been set for January 1B, 1982. Staff is recommending that the Commission continue this application to its meeting of January 26, 1982 in order that the Commission may have its Joint Study Session with the Council regarding review of the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas lask Force Report prior to a decision on this application. Commissioner Kasolas inquirea about lot sizes of adjoining property. Mr. Kee responded that he believed the lot sizes of the property surrrounding the project are in excess of 12,000 square feet. Chairman Meyer opened the public hearing and invitea anyone in the audience to speak for or against this application. The applicant's attorney appeared before the Commission to ask that a determination be made this evening on this application. +v�,<�:rr .�:.a.aw ,.«onaw raiaNamar■�i� -7- Mr. Steven Anderson, applicant, appeared before the Commission to read a p�:Pared statement. A copy of this statement, dated January 12, 1982, is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. This statement addresses concerns expressed by the opposition at past hearings regarding this site. At this time Mr. Kee stated that Staff would recommend denial of the Tentative Map by the Planning Commission should the applicant wish a decision this evening. He noted that there are a number of things that should be considered by the Commission on any map, lot design and shape are two important considE-ations that the Lommission should take into account. He expressed concern about the shape of tots 6, 7, 8 and 9 in particular. Further, Staff would like to be assured that one can build a house without a variance on these lots. Mr. Lee Peterson of 1156 Audrey Avenue appeared to speak against this map. He asked that the Commission deny this application. He cited the Council's policy on development in the San Tomas Area. Ms. Maggie Desmond of 1491 Hack appeared before the Commission to also speak in opposition to this application. Mr. Jim Lyle, Pacific Design Group, spoke in favor of this map, noting that all lots within the subdivision meet the stated standards. No one else wishing to speak, Commissioner Fairbanks moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Kasolas and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2083 Commissioner Fairbanks moved that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying the application of Anderson-Oburn for approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map based on the following findings: 1. The submitted subdivision map is not consistent with the stated policy of the City Council dated April 28, 1980. 2. Lot sizes and shapes are not compatible with those in the surrounding area. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dickson and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Fairbanks, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None I 1 t ------- Y e RR iL--11►___- i t� .0 •;tI �,•••••ir•••••• 49 fell I Itl at IN I IL IL e - '.'•'v'4 �' • • • • • • • • • • • • • lb IS' IS. J % 1 PUBLIC HEARING HELD BEFORE to"N �qN�A► II" PLANNING ON It ` �� 1-12-82, RES. NO102083 REC. DENIAL (VOTE: 5-2-0) Steven B. Anderson 1082 Lucot Way Campbell, Ca. 95008 Jan. 12, 1982 Planning Commission City of Campbell, Ca. 75 No. Central Ave. Campbell, Ca. 95008 TS 81-28 Gentlemen: 1. We have, in the previous hearings QC 81-22) heard a great deal from the spokespersons of the opposition. 2. No one has spoken out for the Community -at -Large: A. Land in our valley is increasingly scarce: it is one of our most precious assets. The community needs housing that is fairly near employment -- we should avoid restrictions that force more and more cars on longer and longer commutes. B. Our community (The City of Campbell) could certainly use the property tax revenues that the post -prop. 13 homes would provide. C. New homes in the area should improve property values of the neighborhood homes. D. New homes in the area would probably help reverse the downhill trend in property maintenance of many nearby homes. 3. Traffic --- probably the principal concern of the opposition. A.. I feel the opposition has worked themselves up to an almost hysterical fear of the effects of an added 12 homes on traffic on Audrey, Hack and Vale Aves. B. I drive on Audrey Ave. fairly often, and I have never seen more than two other moving vehicles on that street -- mcre often than not mine is the only one. C. Addition of 12 homes on the proposed cul-de-sac street should add even fewer cars to Audrey Ave. than Lucot Way (16 homes) adds to Vale. D. I would think that anyone voting on this matter should either a. Believe the traffic study of the city's specialists, or b. Visit the site in person to ascertain the truth before voting. - 1 - TS 81-28 Jan 12, 1982 4. Density; A. I cannot understand Mr. Lee Peterson's attempt to have you believe that our proposal would increase density 400%: B. Twelve added houses would increase density four times if you started with only three. C. The immediate nieghborhood is more nearly 80 homes on 30 acres. Density is approx. 80/30 or about 2.66 homes per acre. Addition of 12 homes would result in 92/30 or about 3.1 homes per. acre. This would leave the neighborhood with a very low density. S. Visual effect on the area (the "rural character") A. The 12 new homes would be on a cut -de -sac street - visible only a few seconds when driving on Audrey. B. The frontages of the proposed lots would be nearly as wide as the others of the neighborhood. C. In a very short time, trees and other plantings should "mature" the new street. D. Development under the existing R-1-6 Zening is much more likely to produce the random house styling that is typical of Audrey Ave. etc. than the originally proposed PD plan. 6. A few other points: A. We are not proposing to take away as much as one square inch from the large lots of the neighbors. B. We cannot agree that everyone who may want to live in ired to buy a thishould do of requot. ire a large lot. ly set any C. development can parcel precedents: that could affect the neighborhood, however slightly. Steven n erson J ITEM MO. 15 TO: The Planning Commission and City Council y (�^�^ " of the City of Campbell R I, • , I � � I� SUBJECT: Request for Zoning change ZC 81-25 JAN 1 1 198? J 959 Emory Avenue and 455 W. Sunnyoaks Avenue from R-1 (Single Family Residence) CITY OF CAMP©ELL to P-D (Planned Development) PLAN1 vc DE1AR--ENT We, the undersigned property owners n,.'acent to the subject property, respectfully petition the Planning Ca mission and City Council of the City of Campbell to NOT APPROVE the change of zoning as requested on these two properties to allow construction of 2 additional residences o» 959 Emory Avenue. This proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to and not harmonious with the present single family neighborhood. NAYE ADDRESS i — ""�i�7✓ ✓ r'/-lilt Est ate._-..L_ O S% fi Ht U<'rt�.�y[.� . -, i ,. ._ / 1./ - -�., i. n . .ate h..�._r1,u <� �. �r_•ta' - i'a [A_-721 /fit. - t Z i -D l _ ZS' if t-:.s -!�,. �f • ..� ��c� ` lf�.--./ lL , . ITEM NO. 6 STAFF "ENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1982 TS 81-28 Tentative Subdivision Map: Lands of Anderson - Lands of Anderson- Oburn. APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 R 37. Oburn 1106, 1130 8 1142 Audrey Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission continue this application to its meeting of January 26, 1982, so that the Commission may have its Joint Study Session with the City Council regarding review of the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas Task Force Report prior to a decision on this application. STAFF DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.89 acre parcel (net site area) into 15 single-family lots. The proposed subdivision accommodates the construction of a public cul-de-sac and 15 lots with an average lot size of 6,591 square feet. As the Commission may recall, at its meeting of November 24, 1981, the Commission received a referral from the City Council requesting that the Planning Commission review the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas Task Force Report and the Planning guidelines in the San Tomas Area. Subsequently, the Commission took action requesting additional direction from the City Council and that a date be set for a Joint Study Session between the City Council and Planning Commission regarding this referral. A Joint Study Session has been set for January 18, 1982. In accord with the aforementioned decision of Planning Commission, Staff is recommending a continuance of this application until the Joint Study Session is held. The referral from the City Council regarding review of the Planning guidelines in the San Tomas Area and the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 1981 concerning this referral are attached for the Commission's review. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TS 81-28 Lands of Anderson-Oburn APN 406-24, 18, 19, 20 & 37 1106, 1130 & 1142 Audrey Avenue PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. 2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots with the subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Waterworks. Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be provided and installed at the located specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $195 per fire hydrant. 3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the installation of any and all public utilities and/or facilities. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell Municipal Code. 5. Subdivider to pay Storm Drainage Area Fee. 6. Subdivider shall install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work. 7. C.C.&R.'s to be approved by City Engineer to insure provision for maintenance of buildings and common area. 8. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right of way. 10. Dedicate the new street to a width of 60 feet with 20 foot radius returns at Audrey Avenue. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11. Eliminate 10-foot access easements. 12. Parcel B1: The provision of a carport or garage for this parcel. 1 Referral from Referral from the City Council for a review of City Council the guidelines set forth in the San Tunas Task Force Report. Mr. Kee reported that at its meeting of November 3, 1981 the City Council denied first reading of the ordinance for 2C 81-22 (1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey ANtnue). A number of people who spoke at the public hearing on this matter expressed con- cern regarding the issues of residential densities, minimum lot sizes, and development standards in the area. Following the hearing, the Council took action to direct the Planning Commission to evaluate planning guidelines for the San Tomas Area as set forth in the San Tomas Report. He then noted that Staff is recommending the following: 1. That the Planning Commission establish the date of a study session to review the General Plan for the San Tomas Area, and the guide- lines set forth in the San Tomas Task Force Report. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution setting January 26, 1982 as the date of a hearing to consider any proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the San Tomas Area. After lengthv discussion by the Commi;sion it was the consensus that the Commission receive additional direction f-om the Council and that the date for a joint study session between the Council and Commission be set. The City Attorney stated he felt this would be the most appropriate action at this time. Mr. Kee stated that a referral could be sent to the Council asking that a date for a joint study session be set. Commissioner Howard then moved that the Planning Commission hold a study session with the City Council to discuss guidelines and further direction regarding the San Tomas Area and San Tomas Task Force Report. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks and adopted with Commissioner Meyer voting "no". At this time, Mr. Lee Peterson appeared before the Commission to present a petition signed by residents in the San Tomas Area opposing any study or re-evaluation of the San Tomas Task Force Report without resident participation and appropriate public notification. A copy of this petition is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Commissioner Meyer stated she felt before a study session is held that an inquiry should be sent to the Courcil asking for direction, since there are no guidelines within which to work. The Chair then requested that the Council be asked to notify the Commission of the meeting date with an agenda to include areas of concern and issues the Council would like to cover during a special study session. cm OF CARRELL CITY OM CIL/ADVISMY =MISSION/ETAFF REFERRAL FORM George Kasolas, Chairman so: Planning Commission Ralph Ovetsch, Sr., Mayor 2 EgFm Do NOV 519811 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLAnn:M6 DEPARTMENT lux: INS1R1=10NS FOR OSE OF VUS PORK: This Form should be mtilised ubersevar a "farral It Bads from am "acted or mdvisory body to the city Colneil rr Advisory Commission er City Manager. The information required to Complete the form should be Provided by theInitle iator of the time the referral is adds. 7Ue staff advisor will be "spona mtosilatinj the form for review mold sipature by the Mayor or Commission Chairman. fUEJECT: (A specific summary of the rafarral.) Following the public hearing on ZC B1-22 (1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue) the City Council denie; first reading of the ordinance. The Council did take action to refer to the Planning Commission the subject of evaluating planning guidelines in the Sin Tomas Area including re-evaluation of lot sizes the criteria for walkways/sidewalks etc. Potential developers are to be notified that the guidelines are being reviewed. AMON REQlIFSM: VVORNATION ONLY wEVIEM E ALCOMI]O ACTION TMZ ACTION 0 CDN?¢MS: (If Nee•sary) � - There was considerable discussion on the San Tomas Task Force Report and guidelines for development In the San Tomas Area. It was the consensus of the Council that the Commission should review and reevaluate the guidelines set for h in thp gonnrt - - — ........................................ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY: (ly chat We the anion should be Ooaplated. If me data is specified, that should be Indicated) a:•: Nov. 4. 19e1 . 0 visrAtum UNYWWr vim' esw Oai>�) ,�. ,i i y ��� ��'. " � i k � �� fl.- :� .,, � - -- - �--- a�Nr.. �,. �„ y .� � ._ ... -� I I ; . .:, -k— s ,i (� I `i,, N �� �a =, =: L ,.� _ 1 � � £ 'i Y4 f O � NY � • ' t ,I I 1 J _ ,. _' I V f -- �_ _ �� --- I t / .� >� ., �:� :i l is _ _ _.__ ..._ - ^�-. �Y --------sz---� s 41 I� �� • !1 `I� ft ---Nf--- I 1 = tj •••►• s.•.•••.•••yy���� ••••IL 3- ••••• •• ••••••••••• I• ------- o �r �i�., ••4••••••••••••q i 0000* i?!! •to :� ••: .i • i•••i f _. •••••Ilb I STAFF PROCESS LIST FILE NO. ��✓ BI � SHEET AGENDA DATE: 1 IZ 7i DATE FILED: FEE: PAID: SITE ADDRESS: 1L/(o t%3o I kAZ- b,,P%,y Avg. APN NO: PROPOSED USE: eAW6aLt; ewrntw-4 t. ZONING: (Z-� GENERAL PLAN: Law VGU41" fChV. APPLICANT: NBC.. V44L" 1* /6yRN' xer-Z4 P+ttagRSa. t ADDRESS: -19 47. F%yel- yr. 66- q 05CO& PHONE NO: DATE PUBLISHED IN CAMPBELL PRESS: i.?�3�f %/ DATE PROPERTY WAS POSTED (IF APPLICABLE): DATE urTER SENT TO .APPLICANT: DATE OF FIRST (PUBLIC) HEARING: CONTINUED TO: / APPROVED P^TE: RESOLUTION NO: DENIED DATL. RESOLUTION NO: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY COUNCIL: FINAL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED Copies to: 1 l'1TY (if CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE C AMPBEL L, CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (4081 378 8141 Department: City Clerk February 4, 1982 Mr. Kenneth Oburn and Mr. Steven Anderson 79 South First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Re: TS 81-28 Gentlemen: The Campbell City Council, at its regular meeting on February 2, 1982, voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and denied your application for a tentative subdivision, TS 81-28, for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avanue. Ver// 6e' ru l y (�yonurrss , 1�12Y ACKCER( l City Clerk cc:,/ c: Planning Commission Arthur Kee, Planning Director 1 CITY (IF CAMPIIELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA LIF0RNIA 95008 (408) 378.8141 Deparunml: City Clerk February 4, 1982 Mr. Kenneth Oburn and Mr. Steven Anderson 79 South First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Re: TS 81-28 Gentlemen: The Campbell City Council, at its regular meeting on February 2, 1982, voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and denied your application for a tentative subdivision, TS 81-28, for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue. Ver ruly yours, City Clerk cc: Planning Commission Arthur Kee, Planning Director 1 MEMORANDUM ' To: JIM PENOYER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT F,om: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CAMPBELL Dace December 30, 1981 s.bieoc: TS 81-28 Lands of ANDERSON-OBURN APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 & 37 ----]106,1130&-1142J1udreyAvenue -------------------------------- 1. Eliminate 10' access easements. 2. Parcel M1: The provision of a carport or garage for this parcel. TJH:Id 1ITY OF l.anrncu On��ruw.�M NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Campbell Sacramento, CA 95814 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 vx County Clerk's Office Santa Clara County 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 SUBJECT: 2110o Filing 2 of Notice f DeterPublic nation in Compliance with Section 1152 PROJECT TITLE: (Ts 81-2e) STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If Any) CONTACT PERSON Tim J. Haley Tel. No. (408) 378-8141, Ext. 236 PROJECT LOCATION 1106,1130 and 1142 Am PROJECT DESCRIPTION _Azplication for a a na map o r arP f;fro�n single family on parcel nog 406-24-1219 20 37 This is to advise that the CITY OF CAMPBELL has made the following determinations regarding the above nescribed project. 1. The r,roject has been _ approved by the city of Campbell disapproved 2. The project _ will have a significant effect on the environment. will not 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: The Planning Department. City of Campbell. 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell. CA 95008. 4. Mitigation measures _ were made a condition of the approval were not of this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations _ was adopted for this project. was not DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: SIGNATURE TITLE MEMORANDUM C CITY OF CAMPSEU To ARTHUR A. KEE Dare Vec.W b.r 'I Planning Director From JOSEPH ELLIOTT Director of Public Works Sub,ecc Tentative Subdivision Map Lands of n Oeborn APN rS7 ------------------------- The following conditions of approval are recommendeQ concerning the subject tentative subdivision map submitted by 5 eve A r ncl Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the sub- division in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said �. District No. 4. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the sub- division in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurte- nances shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance 2 , fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $195 per fire hydrant. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the '3 . installation of any and all public utilities and/or facilities. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell �. Municipal Code. S Subdivider to pay Storm Drainage Area Fee. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report. Subdivider shall (install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work) Dedicate additional right-of-way to widen to feet from centerline. C.C.&R.'s to be approved by City Engineer to insure provisions for maintenance 7 of buildings and common area. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City k . Engineer. 9 . Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right of way. mot_ N.1- .1._t �. La wTN Lo Ef, r*A%-+j retorns By: 'BILL M. HELMS Engineering Manager PROOF OF PUBLICATION ,2015.5(C.P STATE. OF CALIFORM.N. ('aunt, of Santa (lara I am a citizen of the l-rated States and a resident of the County aforesaid. 1 am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled mallet I am the principal clerk of the printer of the CAafPBELL PRESS 10950 N. Blaney Ave.. Cupertino. California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino. California. County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Campbell, California. County of Santa Clara and which newspaper has been adjudged a news paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara. Stale of California. Case Number MM; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non-pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said news- paper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dries, to wit: Dec, 30, all in the vear 14 `32 1 certify (or declare) under penally of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. haled at Cupertino. ('olilotnia, this 30th day of Dec, Ic (I signature - G This spar. for the County Clerk'• Filing Sump ADd 535—CP PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION LLBAL NOTICE NOTICE IS Hefty OVE4 nut. Negatha Daaa.aat hat p.m Ia.Parad for as Tatar► non of ff►r K. 6Mwi Anat.a lot • tanaama ma..an .. for it —a 1109117D and I ar AuaA.,Rip >i TN19 PROJECT.4 bec to .d..n far.mxov. nr tn. cn� of C■snot on ,l.—V t,.. tNINTERESTED PFP'!;NO o.r r.M.w . R.ry .rr alit In. Mai of ft PYwy OrI. wtnrnt. Camino 0: N/,,: 75 Norm Cams Av.iu1..' Pup la4aei_.. _- 96& PROOF OF PUBLICATION ,2015.5C C.P STATE OF t ALIFORNIA, 1'ounly of Santa I lara 1 am a citizen of the t nioed Slat- and a resident of the County aforesaid. I am oser the age of eighteen years. and not apart y to or interested in the above.entitled matter I am the principal clerk of the printer of the CAMPBELLPRESS 109W N. Blaney Ave.. Cupertino. California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, California. County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Campbell. California. County of Santa Clara: and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, Slate of California, Case Number 840I8: that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set u1 type not smaller than non-pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said news- paper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates. to wit ➢pr. _ �.n all In the year 14 31 1 certify (or declare) under penally of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino. Calilmma, thm 30 tthh day o of Dec_ :9 ' 1 signature The spat, for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp AD# j94—CP PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF I NOTICE OF NEARING NDMOFNIAMN slzda aY hn'ole► 9Awl art like I Ceminknion of dr 01V of OncM. Taw drhard v 1 . M.12 n do dry, ,Iran 12. 11. n 75 lrfiot�raMla�frnrnl tl t7rrdra. 76 pla t 1& 0 - "aafaataaa Kt ASOObmodM.lrawt Andagoikoaq Wafara ft araaon of Now p1�b i ard 11108. 117p, w1 42,ydiq, Avant b0a110 - an R-1 IS( q*F /low puunY RwldraWl 2antq Ostrid. APN. Ziata, 19, 70. 37. Ts PN Map and taaal daacrV— y Me �w ftoo V pe. owattant. 75 Nw1h Cams Avon a t:anpbsll, caomw. wrt r anil bs ne a mod ON Gry Of Gnphaa h/ Anlar A. Kes 1ila.: u73ota1 ,ate CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPS ELL, CALIF 0RNIA gs00B (408) 378-8141 Department. Planning EIR - 3 File N TS 81-28 DECLARATION THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) APPLICANT Mr. Kenneth Oburn G Mr. Steven Anderson ADDRESS 79 S. First St. Campbell, CA 95008 PROJECT NAME TS 81-28 ADDRESS 1106 t »0 - a n c� Audrey Ave. Campbell, California Pursuant to the applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and City of Campbell Resolution No. 5164; and After review of plans and information supplied by the applicant pertaining to the captioned project, and after completing the attached initial study, the undersigned does hereby determine that the captioned project will have no sigificant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act and Resolution. Executed at Campbell, California., this 16th day of Dec. 19 . Arthur A. Kee Director or Official B Tim J. Haley Planner I e i m CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPS EL L, CALIFORNIA 95008 (108) 378-8101 Department: PLANNING January 7,1982 Anderson- Oburn Partnership 79 S. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 RE: OUR FILE NO. TS 81-28 APPLICATION FOR 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrev Ave. Dear Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code of the State of California, please be advised that the Planning Department has made the determination that the application referred to above is: xx Accepted as complete. Not accepted - incomplete (see attached sheet which indicates those parts of the application that are not complete and what Is required to make the appli- cation complete). If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the Campbell Planning Department. Very truly yours, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR PJS:Jw ENVI40NALliTAL CHECKLIST TO B1, USrD BY 171E CITY OF_CAMPBELL IN MAKING AN + h. IRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESS?-, .T (INITIAL STUDY) I. SACKOROUND 1. Name of Proponent NL• /++P611afo►J pxo It¢.a$of�1 Y. Address and Phone umAiier o!" oponen //rw0 1 u• . Cop 1 3. Date of Checklist Submitted ly j151d 1 Agency Requiring Checklist twr�P S• Name of Proposal, if applicable II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: _ a. Unstable earth conditions or in / changes in geologic suLstructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground ✓ surface relief feats-res? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the alto? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of • river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? IL 1 of 7 Pages YFS MAYBE NO Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards cuch as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, / or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air• quality? b. The creation of objectionable . odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally / or regionally? _✓ 3. Water, Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in / either marine or fresh waters? _✓ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patteran, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ d. Change in the amount of surface / water in any water body" _✓ e. Discharge into surface waters, or In any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to termperature, dissolved oxygen or / turbidity? f. Alteratior. of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _✓ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available ✓ for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards Such as flooding or tidal waves? 2 of 7 Pates ue �Q 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result a. Change in the diversity of species, Or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grace, crops, microflora and aquatic pints)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction In acreage of any f agricultural crop? _ 5• fe_ Will the proposal iei� a. Change In the diversity of species, or numbers of any speelee of animals (birds, land animals Including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, Insects or microfauna)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish ✓/ or wildlife habitat? .r — 6. Noise. Will the proposal result In: a. Tncreases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe f rolse level*?— �, I.i ht and Glare. Will the proposal / v pro ucemew—TlUt or glare? _ 6. Use. in inalltetionolesult stialrao the present or planned land use of an f area?— nF 7 PAPost YkS MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the s proposa resu a. Increase in the rate of use of / any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any / nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal, nvo ve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) pesticides, In the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter TTie ocat on, dir.Zribution, density. or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area' — 12. H��ou�sI _ W:111 the proposal affect extfne hou_ing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will Tfie proposa resu. t AFIO a. Generation of substantial addi- J tional vehicular movement? _ b. Effecta on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? -- e. Substantial impact upon existing f transportation systems? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of �. people and/or goods? _. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail f or air traffic?— f. Increase in traffic hazards to / motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal TUve an a ec upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mentci services in any of the following areas: . YES MAYBE MO a. Fire protection? D. Police protection? C. schools? d. Parks or other recreational I facilities? e. ltiintenance of public :ac111- / ties, including roads' _ _✓ f. Other governmental services? f 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of / fuel or energy? b. Substantial Increase In demand upon existing sources of energy, / or require the development of new sources of energy? _ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result TF-&--n-e-e-T7or new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _— - b. Communications systems? c. Water ✓% d. sewer or septic tanks? e. s'corm water drainage? f. Lulid waste and disposal' 17. Human Health. Will the proposal res�:lU7 a. Creation of any health hazard or / potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ ✓/ b. Exposure of people to.potential / health hazards? 5 of 7 Pages J YE,S MAYBE UU 18. ACEthctic--. W111 the proposal result n -je o.structJon of un� scenic vista or vier open to the p,iblic, or w111 tha proposal result in the creation of an acstti:tically offenVive site open to public view? 19. pecreation. Will the proposal result n an Impact upon the quality or quantity of existl:u, recreational opportunities'? — Archeoloflcsl/Historical. Will the .20. pioposa resu_: n ar. a teratlon of a significant archco?oelcal or historical Vitt, structure, object J/ or building's — 21. mondatory rindinas of Sionific�. (s) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below Self sustaining - levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate -important / examples of tine major periods of California J/ history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the poten- tial to achieve short -Lana, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, btt cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact nn two or more separate resources where the lmpact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the j total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environ- mental effects nhich will cause . substantial adverse effects on human beings, elther directly or indirectly? 6 of 7 Pages I III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIkON1u:NTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION: AFTER REVIEWING THE ENVIR02M NTAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND AFTER COMPLETING THE uVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST USE] BY THE CITY OF CAMPBELL IN MACING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect an the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. L% I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the soitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. `] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date urn Nora ,Ml lx ty A • KF �,Ar� NuG pc f• IL s ..s I e.. D Ir+ lilAl. 7rvv-c t 6} TAF pit ,torrt+�T'oF nh4 lm aee-f'I g+PEuFI�ut lyts op yW_t6Kr' 11-t<(evMGKT 4 -tc.t. tNveu.+a ptgt• �.�•s-+asp 1pl+�►,Kur or tm,4Ti—c ge1�5. '(}hs5c AGitnJ�i wit - wa lat itp�iv�O. H\�+•r,, b.'rt� ce�`��s-tt--� A �ilcwlFtv�...r N��sc t�+ro.u' is -or P-I 'm a Pb'Qyj IF) er JAMS s�Css acr .. ,� p�+tater��►t '(}l E4;r- L.R; 1r 1 a_ y�ur.FaFiE-�Ctk�E 0 $^ia LY'c t�� FO.Cx . 4 64vw�6Fj WIL'_ 8E f.Gter�ne9►.T'�S� wct'H 'CktG. FiJtaVl�ile� O F A j1bV_- 7f {_1- "q5. e?%-- 9E ►.tYl(��31'1p A) R1E veyas art �-T >v- -cam Mw1Aso t ZTS,- �-..,c Notsic L.1t,6t-s C!rueV01z t !quc.& tt, 9try �VtVh - tTFE. GGowTt+ aF t+CwbScsrl•,C fr�D dyl.G N• G�+4tOt"T^�i7 li. QsL1 ftr NtG1 t:4,--T' iz, 1*a uF—nrwv-v_. \"rp, --5 P'aRE k�ATT Gt{AxTu p \Y rr* 1) 1tE "roLt>ti Q5oc Vu �cG1�t�bKiE kvq\Tte A.(_ pW BI{�� k-M 1 r-.+ ► O T O F Tq ih d) fie- vfote5 5 C'�tTdls• a l,�lw D�Q,.� i t7E�Eu C3`'r OP k%,' tL.�. it1<Gsd7 foBC\olcs,e tS 4.� rc4t�n.t- t..rftt Upr t,9t ct rt-- ^' aN '[ �ea-�v ugh e-Ia► .ram T G F 6L -fcft-j F rK 1pvfOfi,6,N2 Cj%�y9\014low vtrtlV (w( 1tc� ��'t= l�3�4tNb motto &*- •F TTW- C-9-t I'b) j1kj5. /.w-Clolrr,.1¢. G RCrCCe^kFDw"T1+114E 9.E_rU0--aph6'C(_ OP 11thc, Ct+,JEct osttL 6E 6. �i�6�IF1uXr INKY Sc t� J'W, I�YFtn t+ib 'T L*. I c. LE tru IN Tl1+� ►a i�l6tlQr�ttest7, t+., Yt5,l., Y�w- "D\ll..ip.t. r f1G h.�� jliG ►�/Scii�A i L l $-O%L ' ME —IT Gf7�911Aiic vy h �'� �1N p L C�i�T�.1�lt E gyp. tsWben,-tITY �,1nEc i16� b��l6t't�>aR-�t� I J �1 �1 f S�Gwt��a.�.r Tl��� H'1,ZKb'",s- Fc�g ver A.;VT�u7�t�Aj. I Co�tn��ryra�b,.-. c -05 Bt -z 9 L46k� D E�IiR�G R�npy-�.rcE Tr' brc �TP►�+{�0 4�EY�' WoT khf�E d.li000�'D.f`� �jEl'tiAUc. �.I-o�16 t'�epbSt��b �mrS'C- [] t�4E fRo n'i�nr t �l� 6. e-kw w.--T- OV- &O W-O-cts roles T%"5 PPp-GEC- . CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE C A M P 8 E L L, CALIFORNIA 95008 14081 378 8 14 1 Department Public Works November 30, 1981 i Planning Dept. Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision Map of: Lands of Anderson 8 04burn APN 406-24-18,19.20 8 37 Audrey Avenue The enclosed Tentative Subdivision Map has been filed with the City Engineer for approval. A copy is being sent to you for the purpose of obtaining any comments or suggestions you may have with respect to it. If your comments or suggestions are not received prior to I December 19 81 it will be assumed that no comments are ort coming. i Very truly yours, Joseph Elliott Director of Public Works 6 James Pe James Engineering Technician JP/le enclosure re: meeting date January 12, 1982 J _ J CITY OF CAMPBELL 1106,1130,11.42 TS 81-28 2 of 2 AUDREY AVENUE