PC Min 11/09/1982PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1982
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular
session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California.
ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners: Kasolas (7:45), Dickson, Howard,
Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer; Planning
Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner
Philip Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms,
Planner II Marty Nloodworth, City Attorney J.
Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda
Dennis.
Absent None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 26, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and
seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of October 26, 1982 be approved as submitted.
Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-1-1, with
Commissioner Campos abstaining due to his
absence at the referenced meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
S 81-17 Request for reinstatement of previously approved
Rubinstein, H. plans to allow construction of a professional
office building on property known as 42 l~J.
Campbell Avenue in a P-0 (Professional Office)
Zoning District.
It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Campos,
that the consent calendar be approved, as per recommendations of Staff.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
***
ZC 81-12 Request for modification of approved fencing
Huckell, R. plan for property known as 1339-1411 Harriet
Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Single
Family Residential) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered by the
Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. He noted that al-
though Staff is recommending denial, the Committee is recommending approval
of this request because it is felt that the modification provides necessary
privacy for the subject property.
-2-
Chairman Meyer noted that a petition has been received from neighboring
property owners in favor of the fencing modification. This petition is
attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Commissioner Kasolas entered the Council Chambers at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Dickson questioned the setback on the sideyard of the
affected property.
Mr. Kee stated that the project was constructed under a Planned Development
permit, and the sideyard setback is approximately 4 feet from the curb.
Mrs. Elaine Golling, 1409 Harriet Avenue, spoke in favor of the fencing
modification, noting that without it the house would be directly open to
the street with little privacy. Additionally, a heating element would
be visible from the street and would be unsightly.
Commissioner Dickson questioned the site distance.
Mr. Kee indicated there did not appear to be a site problem. He added that
Staff has presented a recommendation of denial because the fencing was not
built as originally approved by the Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski,
that the Planning Commission approve the modification of the approved fencing
plan for property known as 1339-1441 Harriet Avenue. Motion carried with a
vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Fairbanks voting "no".
Commissioner Dickson noted he would like Staff to bring this Planned Develop-
ment application back to the Commission in order that the Commission might
review what was approved.
Commissioner Kotowski asked if it would be possible for Staff to list any
unusual equipment or circumstances that might alter the approved plans
when an application is presented.
S 82-12 Continued application of Per. Donald Patch for
Patch, D. approval of revised plans allowing the con-
struction of a 4,040 sq. ft. automotive repair
building on property known as 854 Camden Avenue
in an P~-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been before the Site and
Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending
approval. He noted that the applicant has addressed all the concerns expressed
by the Committee.
Mr. Kee noted that Staff is also recommending approval.
It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski,
that the Planning Commission approve S 82-12. P1otion carried unanimously.
-3-
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
S 82-14 Application of Mr. Morris Stark for approval of
Stark, M. plans and elevations to allow construction of a
5,600 sq.ft. addition to an existing industrial
building on property known as 781 Mc~lincey Lane
in a CM:B-20 (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning
District.
Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered at this
morning's Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is re-
commending a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of December 14,
1982 in order that the City Council may review the revised parking standards.
Mr. Kee stated that Staff is in agreement with a continuance.
It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski,
that S 82-14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 14,
1982. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UP 82-22 Now is the time fora continued public hearing to
Gridley, L. consider the application of Ms. Linda Gridley for
a use permit to allow the conversion of a single
family house to an office and to reface an exist-
ing commercial building on property known as
19 S. Third Street in a PD (Planned Development/
Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been before the Site and
Architectural Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending approval,
contingent upon the comments of the Public Works Department.
Mr. Helms stated that the Public Idorks Department had originally recommended
denial because of ingress/egress problems. The Public Idorks Department has
attached some additional conditions to the list which address the elimination
of the driveway opening onto Orchard City Drive, the restriction of delivery
vehicles to a maximum of 30 feet in length, and the restriction of delivery
hours to between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 noon, and 1:30 p.m. and 3:30~p.m.
on weekdays. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant is in agreement
with these conditions.
Mr. Kee stated that the Planning Department has no objections to the conditions
set forth by the Public Works Department. Staff is recommending that the land-
scaping plans be brought back to the Site and Architectural Review Committee.
Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
No one wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by
Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unani-
mously.
-4-
RESOLUTION N0. 2154 It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded
by Commissioner Campos, that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2154 approving UP 82-22, sub-
just to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment
Sheet and stated by the Public t~lorks Department.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos,
Fairbanks, Meyer
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
PD 82-06 Now is the time fora continued public hearing to
Martinez, M. consider the application of Per. Michael Martinez
for a planned development permit and approval of
plans, elevations, and development schedule to
allow the construction of a 7,400 sq.ft. office
building on property known as 900 E. Campbell
Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial)
Zoning District.
Mr. Kee stated that the applicant has requested a further continuance to the
meeting of December 14.
Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
No one wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and
seconded by Commissioner Dickson that PD 82-04 be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of December 14, 1982. Plotion carried unanimously.
***
PD 82-07 Now is the time for a public hearing to consider
Kamboj, 0. the application of Mr. Om Kamboj for a planned
development permit and approval of plans to allow
the expansion of an existing retail building and
the construction of a new commercial building on
property known as 880 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD
(Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kotowski stated that this item had been reviewed by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee this morning; however, the applicant did not
appear before the Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance
to December 14, 1982. He added that there are a number of problems with
this application, as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet.
Mr. Kee stated that Staff did receive a telephone call from the applicant,
requesting a continuance to November 23, 1982. It is the applicant's opinion
that he can have revised plans ready for presentation at that time.
Commissioner Kotowski noted that the Site and Architectural Review Committee
would have no problem with a continuance to November 23, 1982 and would make
that recommendation.
-5-
Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
PJo one wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks,
and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that PD 82-07 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1982. Motion carried unanimously.
San Tomas Area Now is the time for a continued public hearing to
Areas I-V consider the General Plan, Zoning, and Land Uses
in the San Tomas Area.
Mr. Woodworth reported that essentially, Staff is recommending the same pro-
cedure as outlined at the previous meeting. First, as indicated in Exhibit F
(attached hereto), Staff is recommending amendments to the Land Use Element
of the General Plan to restrict certain areas of the San Tomas Neighborhood
to a maximum residential density of "less than 3.5 units per gross acre, less
than 4.5,or less than 6 units per gross acre. These designations would be in
addition to the existing land use categories specified in the General Plan.
Second, there is presently only one minimum lot size of 6,000 sq.ft. specified
in the R-1 Zoning District. In Exhibit H (attached hereto) Staff is recommend-
ing that the R-1 district be expanded to include R1-6, R1-8, R1-10. In each
instance, the number following the R1 designation indicates the minimum lot
size in thousands of square feet.
P1r. Woodworth continued that Staff believes that the amendments as recommended
above would preserve the low density residential character of the San Tomas Area,
yet still allow landowners with large parcels a reasonable use of their property.
The number of potential new single-family homes would be reduced from maximum
of approximately 720 to 320. The large lot sizes should make it easier for
developers to site houses so that trees can be preserved in the area.
Finally, Staff recommends that the Circulation Element of the General Plan be
amended to indicate those streets where less than standard street improvements
would be considered. The provision of modified street standards will further
help preserve the existing character of the area.
In summary, Mr. 4oodworth noted, the following steps are recommended to the
Commission:
1. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect the
new density.
2. Amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to indicate
streets to be considered for less than standard street improve-
ments.
3. Amend the Zoning Map and Zoning Text to reflect the new densities.
4. Apply the new General Plan and Zoning requirements to the properties
in the San Tomas Area.
Commissioner Dickson asked if the Circulation Element will be discussed some-
where in this process, particularly relating to those streets that residents
have indicated they do not wish to become major arterials.
Mr. Helms indicated that Staff is prepared to discuss this element at any
time during the general plan process.
-6-
Commissioner Kasolas asked if there was a provision in the ordinance to
allow a property owner to rebuild a destroyed home if the lot was less
than the new minimum lot size for the area.
Mr. Woodworth noted that there is a provision that states that a
residence can be replaced if the lot was created legally.
Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in
the audience to speak on this item.
Mr. Paul Tyksinski, 1789 Hacienda Avenue, spoke in favor of the area
remaining as it now exists.
Ms. Bea Kruger, 1190 Steinway Avenue, requested that property known as
1160 Steinway Avenue be zoned R1-10. She noted that there has been a
planned development approved on this property, however it has not been
built yet. Ms. Kruger also spoke in favor of allowing only one-story
homes in the area.
Mr. Woodworth noted that the development schedules for 1160 and 1170
Steinway Avenue (ZC 81-10 and ZC 81-13) have both expired as of April
1982 and July 1982 respectively. In order for the development schedules
to be reinstated, the applicant would have to petition the Commission.
Ms. Dorothy Ellis, 1109 Steinway Avenue, spoke for an R1-10 zoning on
1160 Steinway Avenue.
Mr. Dan Oburn, 79 S. First St., stated that he purchased 1106 & 1130
Audrey Avenue with the intention of sub-dividing and developing the site
under the 6,000 sq.ft. R-1 zoning. fir. Oburn continued that the delays
caused by this process have almost destroyed his family.
No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and
seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion
carried unanimously.
Discussion
Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would very much like to see an
Area Plan developed to protect the San Tomas Area and its uniqueness
An area plan would permit the people who live in that area to come for-
ward with specific items that they wish to address, other than density.
Commissioner Fairbanks continued that, in her opinion, Staff's recommenda-
tion this evening only addresses density; and, there are other considerations
in that area. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she felt that the Commission
would be doing the same things they have been doing in the past, which is
going through public hearings and emotional presentations, if they approved
the recommendation before them this evening. A few years back, the City
Council had the San Tomas Task Force with the hopes that its recommendations
would eliminate the continued arguments regarding what happens in this area.
Based on the fact, Commissioner Fairbanks stated, that these recommendations
were not somewhat more cemented, there have continued to be problems in the
San Tomas Area.
-7-
Commissioner Fairbanks stated that the San Tomas Area needs to be set aside,
and that an Area Plan should be developed that addresses the rural atmosphere
and the alternative street improvements, as well as other things that make
this area unique. Commissioner Fairbanks continued that the recommendation
presented this evening does address density, and it is going to help protect
the large lot sizes in the area. However, she felt that there are issues
other than density that need to be addressed. Commissioner Fairbanks re-
quested that the Commission consider asking Staff to come back with an
Area Plan for the San Tomas Area.
Commissioner Kotowski asked Commissioner Fairbanks to elaborate on her
definition of an Area Plan.
Commissioner Fairbanks responded that, as she understood it, an Area Plan
would address the unique or different things about an area and speaking
to those needs or desires--an acknowledgement that there is something that
needs to be protected.
RESOLUTION N0. 2155 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded
by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Planning Com-
mission adopt Resolution No. 2155 recommending
that the City Council (1) initiate changes to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan, as shown in
Exhibit F (attached); (2) initiate changes to the
Zoning Map, as shown in Exhibit H (attached); (3)
initiate changes to the Circulation Element of the
General Plan to indicate those streets to be con-
sidered for less than standard street improvements;
and (4) initiate the appropriate text amendments.
Discussion
Commissioner Kasolas stated that he was in disagreement with some of the infor-
mation presented in relation to Staff's interpretation. First, it appeared to
him that the basic concern of the residents of the area that fronted onto
Winchester Blvd. off Sunnyoaks was with the traffic that would be put onto
Old Orchard Road, and the land use of 241 W. Sunnyoaks. In the newly annexed
areas, the concern seemed to be with conformity in lot sizes that existed in a
particular block or tract. With regard to the Elam area, it appeared that the
majority of people in that area spoke in favor of having a choice of higher
densities. In this Elam and San Tomas Aquino Road area there is a large area
of high density with an recommendation for 3.5 units per gross acre across the
street, which does not maintain any continuity.
Commissioner Kasolas stated that he could not support this motion, in relation
to the Elam/San Tomas Aquino Road area. Although the area does contain some
rural factors, it was Commissioner Kasolas opinion that the people who live
there should certainly have a choice of being able to develop their property,
of being able to take away some of the single family homes which may not meet
proper codes, which cannot be done at a density rate of 3.5 units per gross
acre--from an economic standpoint.
Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt it should be pointed out to the
people that zoning does not mean that you have to build high density--it just
allows you a choice.
See amendment/clarification
statement of Commissioner
Kasolas at meeting of
November 23, 1982.
-8-
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she will speak in favor of the motion based
on her feeling that it is another step to help protect this area and the needs
and desires of the residents.
Vote on Motion
AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Kotowski, Fairbanks, Campos
NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
**~
GP 82-04(E) Now is the time for a continued public hearing
City-initiated to consider possible amendments to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for portions of the
San Tomas Area.
h1r. l~loodworth presented an Exhibit (attached) to the Commission showing the
proposed land uses for the San Tomas Area.
Commissioner Fairbanks questioned the lot sizes being proposed for Old
Orchard Road, noting that some of the lots are in excess of 20,000 sq.ft.
Mr. Kee noted that the recommendation speaks to the majority of lots in
the area; there are a few exceptions, however. These exceptions would
have to come before the Planning Commission prior to subdividing.
Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
No one wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded
by Commissioner Campos, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Kee briefly explained the public hearing process relating to this item,
and noted that the Circulation Element should be addressed at this time,
particularly regarding Abbott Avenue.
Mr. Helms reported that since the last meeting, Staff has reviewed factors
regarding the circulation element. Staff is still supporting putting
through Abbott Avenue, because a current north/south arterial for this part
of the City does not exist. At one time, Burrows Road was designated as the
north/south arterial. The Council made a policy that it would be bettearso
widen Abbott, rather than construct along the creek on Burrows, many y
ago. A plan for completion would depend upon the priorities set forth by
the City Council in the Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, the Council
has adopted a one-year Capital Improvement Plan and a three-year Capital
Improvement Plan--this street is not a part of either one of these plans.
Commissioner Howard moved, and Commissioner Dickson seconded, that the
public hearing be re-opened due to the controversial subject matter being
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
-9-
Mr. Milton Brown, 1181 Steinway Avenue, stated that he wished to strongly
protest that the Commission took a break after the last item. He noted
that people in the audience thought the portion of the meeting regarding
San Tomas was over. Mr. Brown added that he had nothing to say regarding
the circulation element.
No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and
seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked Mr. Helms about the streets that would be
considered for alternative improvements in the San Tomas Area.
Mr. Helms distributed a list of possible streets for consideration, noting
that Staff did not have a problem with a list being attached as an exhibit
to the amendments proposed for the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks that the list of possible streets for
consideration of alternative improvements be included as an addendum to
the recommendation to City Council regarding the Circulation Element. Motion
dies for lack of a second.
Commissioner Dickson stated that he felt the Commission should delay the
circulation element portion because the public has not seen it yet.
Mr. Kee noted that the Commission could move ahead on the land use element
section, and the Commission may wish to instruct Staff to notice the
circulation element for public hearing.
RESOLUTION N0. 2156 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and
seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.
2156 recommending that the City Council
amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan as illustrated in Exhibit A (attached).
Discussion
Commissioner Kasolas stated that his comments would be the same as indicated
in the previous item this evening.
Commissioner Howard stated that he would be voting against this recommendation
because he felt it is not quite as indepth as he felt it should be.
Vote on f~1ot i on
AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks
NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
RESOLUTION N0. 2157 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded
by Commissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2157 setting January 25, 1983
as the date for public hearing concerning the Cir-
culation Element of the General Plan. h1otion
carried with the following roll call vote:
-10-
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos,
Fairbanks, Meyer
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
GP 82-04(D) Now is the time for a continued public hearing
City-initiated to consider possible amendments to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for portions of the
Downtown Area.
Mr. Stafford reported that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission
to review the General Plan in both the Downtown and San Tomas Areas of the com-
munity. One of the issues that both areas have in common is that of residential
density. The Downtown General Plan Study Committee has recommended that con-
sideration be given to raising residential densities in the downtown area.
Pursuant to the Commission's request, Staff has notified property owners in
the area by first class mail.
It should be noted that the Land Use Element of the General Plan which was in
effect in 1973, indicated Low-Medium Density Residential for this area. At
the time the City was in the process of bringing the General Plan and Zoning
into conformance (in 1973), there was a proposal to increase the zoning in
this area from R-1 (Single Family) to R-M (Multiple Family) residential. At
that time, the property owners strongly protested any proposal to increase
residential densities. As a result, the City Council reduced the density
indicated on the Land Use Element from "Low-Medium Density" to "Low Density"
residential.
P~Ir. Stafford noted that Staff can support an increase in residential densities
in the Downtown Area; however, since land use and density as indicated on the
General Plan is a policy matter, Staff is recommending that the Commission hear
testimony from the affected property owners prior to forwarding a recommendation
to the City Council.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked for the zoning on surrounding properties.
~1r. Stafford indicated that to the south and east was zoned PD; north on
Central Avenue was Low-Medium Density; north of Latimer on 1st, 2nd, and
3rd is R-2; property to the west of Campbell Grammar School is zoned PD,
with PO and High Density Residential; to the northwest is to Post Office
and P~ledium Density.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked <<1r. Helms what the width of Central Avenue
is, as compared to the width of 1st and 2nd Streets: and, would an increase
in density bring those streets to the point of one-way traffic.
Mr. Helms indicated that Central Avenue is a substandard street at 32 feet,
while 1st and 2nd Streets are approximately 40 feet wide. Staff does not
feel that increased density would affect the two-way traffic pattern for
these streets.
Chairman Meyer noted that several items of communications pertaining to
this item have been received by the Commission. The Recording Secretary
was requested to make these letters part of the minutes (attached hereto
and made a part of these minutes).
-11-
Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
Mr. Mike Charleton, 91 N. Second Street, spoke in favor of low density.
h1s. Joan Wilderman, 236 N. First Street, spoke in favor of low densities.
Ms. Shannon Foster, 161 Grant Street, stated that this area is almost 100%
single family homes and a good neighborhood. The neighborhood is a very
fragile one, and it is hoped that the City will take constructive steps
to protect it's R-1 zoning.
Mr. Lowell Gratten, Monte Serreno, spoke in favor of increasing densities.
Ms. Sandra Meyers, 200 N. Second Street, spoke in favor of maintaining the
area as is. She stated that rezoning would eventually squeeze her out of
her home.
Mr. Gene Rickey, 83 N. Second Street, spoke in favor of leaving things as
they are--a neighborhood with stability.
Dr. Corwin 0•lds, 210 N. Second Street, spoke in favor of maintaining the
low densities.
Mr. Pete Wilderman, 236 N. First Street, spoke in favor of low densities,
noting that the two-story condominiums to the rear of this property have
not sold.
Ms. Rita Reed, 213 N. Second Street, spoke in favor of low densities.
f•1s. Pat Alfred, 212 E. Rincon Avenue, spoke in favor of maintaining the
area as it exists, noting that she sees the higher densities creeping
her way and she does not like it.
Ms. Pauline Davis, 195 N. Third Street, spoke in favor maintaining the
status quo.
Mr. i~lally Sommer, 186 N. First Street, spoke in favor of low densities.
Ms. Lois Plymale, 214 N. Third Street, spoke in favor of maintaining the
area as is.
Mr. Milton Brown, 1181 Steinway Avenue, spoke in favor of low densities in
this area.
No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and
seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kotowski thanked the residents for coming to the meeting, and
for their comments.
-12-
RESOLUTION N0. 2158 It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded
by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Planning
Commission adopt Resolution No. 2158 recommending
that the City Council take minute action supporting
the Planning Commission decision not to change the
General Plan for the area shown on the map attached
to the minutes. Motion carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos,
Fairbanks, Meyer
NOES: Corr~nissioners: None
ABSENT: Com~nissioners: None
on.ini iRNMFNT
It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded
by Commissioner Kotowski, that the meeting be
adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
APPROVED : Jane P P1eyer
Chairman
ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis
Recording Secretary
~ - ~ L , ~~ K ~S I .~ ~. IUT~ C
~~ ~~o~ ~A~~~~ Avg
Tel ~~ ~~ti~ A ~
~~F~~ , T (~) Com~P~
~ o l i T ~-1 -T N l~ (-~.~ l-t o Cam- ~_-
~ u2~ E I'Yl ~°T ~A C. I-~l ~ FtT (til c~ U ~-
--~-~ T 5 a~ ~- ~ m~P~ov ~rn ~-~
-e~~ ~
~ ~Q ~ ~~n.~ C~-~
~~
~~7
A
_~~~--~
~~~_
~ r-T- ~, H o
>_
iT ~Tr
ST .
. _ ` -..
N~~~~ ---
~R ~ ~_, m
E
I~ -
~ , ---j--~--~ ~---
~'~ AA --' ~ ~ ~ ~~
s* wow: ~.. , ~. ~~
., ~ - ~` '
~~ ~ ~ ~
~-L{~~ S 4 1I, ~
J I .",e f Y ~~ ~ ~ ..
~~_~ '~'~ ~ r ~~_ i
.:,-. i ( - i , ,
~c ~- ~ _ ~>T1 ,~ -* '' 'fit- r + i ~ ~
~ I ~~ I~ .:
W ~ ~, f~ .~
in L N y
~ O V l U L N 4 ~ ' Mme:. S
u
~ m m ~ u c: .]: ~ f ~~R
O V N _ ~ U ~ 10 ' ~= -
_ ~_ A N O N ,0 ~ M N _ ~ ~] 1
W C C Oi [~ C C C O ~~6~ i11..
J Z y u V u L y pi U ~ I I~ ~I ~2'j~ -"
..'~ :'.>
7 J ~ ¢ v+ ¢ y ¢~ C 4 O l -^
Z W _ c E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
J W ~ N~ ~~ N y ~ C N -- , ,~~
G V ~ {~~ U~ Cu ll~ u[ ~ ~y 7 _ \ ~-
N ~ u~ G? u ~O V~ V ~\ a
O Q -+ J J G ) ~ I ~ .
¢
O.
~ U A W `~~
' 'd .rte,.. / ~~ `,1~ ~~~ : 1,-~-
c
~ a --s xa e ~_ ~ .~
f ,.., •rs... ~,~~.; .. ,~ ,y ~ J~ ~~ l it
~~ f ~ Imo-- ~ 8' '' f „
`_ -_i ~ 1. ~iri ti ~~ .f~YF ~ `? I S /\~
// ~ --r ~ ~.... ~, _ .o ~
~ ~ is _= -- ui _ ?~ i ~ ~
W ~. ~_~_
~1~.r ,_, .F ~•..
"Ci_. _
,~
ire ~ ~ r ~ :. ,~ ~,~'- ~ i
1 ~ , '~ ~, .
,i
c _
o
E E ~ ~ -
A A 7 A 3 A~ i
E .. E - C ..y" .
cuu c c c c ~ ~ _ ' ~~"1`~~~ti~
C O E ~ E ~ E n _ r ~'~~'~ -.i i H
w ~v.
O Y ~ ~ ~"-y "v , ~ Z
u N N N C K 4- ~~
Z _ * - .J1
N C E W E~ E W -r- -~.\ \ ~VJ
I ~~ ~
O O W p W N W Y V _ 1 Q1
W C N ~ ~. ~
~n V V V O X 4 ~
O N O O O V - ~\ ••~ ~ 1p~ i"
0 o c o c o c ~. - _ ,~
r /1
~ /~
~.
~~ S~ ,~~ ~•~~9~~lS ~i ~ /
1 ~~ ~~ i ~ <%~,~ o f ~ ~~
~~JJ~~~~ C ~~iYCSG~J /U ~~C ~L~~~-S
~ L~C~~C~l4-~~,
~, J~,~ r-
CITY pF CAtYfPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
%~~~~
210 N. Second St.,
Campbell, CA 95008
g November 1982
To: THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
City of Campbell, CA
Gentlemen:
My wife, Velma, and I are owners of a single-
family home at 210 N. Second St., Campbell, within the
area presently under population-density review. We have
lived in this house ever since it was built, over thirtr-
four years ago.
SYe are opposed to any change in population-
density from the present status.
This area under consideration is a neat, quiet
area. of good neighbors, many of whom have owned and lived
in the same home for many years. Some, like ourselves,
have lived here since the tract was opened shortly after
VJorld War II. Several of them are widows or single
women, some rather elderly, w`~o, like ourselves, wish to
live out their remaining years quietly in the house that
has been home to them for a long time. Some others are
older couples.
To all of us our homes are semi-sacred and
hallowed with treasured memories. ~'!e speak for many when
we say,
"Please do not change our present density
status".
Sincerely, ~ ~~~~~
COR~JIN H. OLDS
~~~ ~ ~~~
VELMA G. OLDS
D
CITY OF CAh1PBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L~~
//-o. /~'
,;~~ ~~-o~<,~~
November 6, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
75 No. Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Commissioners,
We are in receipt of your letter of notification regarding
"possible changes to increase residential densities in (our)
area". We were quite disappointed to realize that our City
Fathers are once again arming up to change the face of our
historic little community. It seems to us that it is rather
peridoxical that the powers that be in this town saw fit to
preserve the decaying relic of a grammar school (albeit the
fact that the structure will be in time, restored), but will,
in a contradictory spirit, make way for change that will destroy
the charm and essence of the community itself-the core of the
city, our downtown residential area.
I have heard in previous meetings and in previous arguments
about how there is a housing shortage in this valley. There is
no housing shortage in Campbell. Why should we plan for the
overflow of other areas, when such moves would mean increased
social problems in equal ratio with the influx of humanity.
Gentle people, we and our neighbors are ready to fight to
keep our community the quiet, uncrowded, peaceful neighborhood
that makes this area a desireable place to live.
Respectfu ly,,
,,- ~r~i~
a ~~. ~r~
Jeff and Karen Stephens
164 N. Third Street
Caanpbell, CA 95008
U
CITY OF CAEvSPBELL
PI AN NINI: h~PGF7TM~NT
November 6, 1982.
The following people (names and addresses) are Campbell residents
maintaining well kept homes. They feel strongly about the movement
instigated by the executive body of the City of Campbell (specifically,
the Planning Commission) to "conduct a public hearing-~o consider
possible amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for
portions of the Downtown Area".
Since the shaded portion on the map pertains to an area now designated
as R I, it can only be assumed that this is a movement to place these
homes in the category of increased density.
/~ j
~a.,w~nv ~ /~I~L~J
Pauline E. Davis
For maintaining status quo.
P.S. The following list of names represent only property owners.
~q ~~~~
NOV 09 1902
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,~' ~a-o~~~)
C
~~I' a ~d .~~- s -~o e
'fl~~~-
~a r~ - l ~ sN, ~ ~d. ~~. ~ ~n-r~b~~l
~i'~ I~~~c~."~ ~e~-e,~o~. ~i~ ti and s1~
~p / ~- /~ ~/3 71. ,?.,tip
8 ~ ~ , ~,~~~.~L.,,,N.a.~ ~ zj = Iv~' z ~~.
~ ~ G~l~u.~., ~~„~ aop r~. ,~u,.,d ,off ~
~,
~ ~~.C~~1 ~/t'~
~~
~~~~
~y
o~
c~-
1
l '~ ~ ~~ .
/ A ~a~ Rr~e
~9
~ ~~
~~
a~
~3
~y
a s'
~~:~~, .~
r
/PG~.~ f~ P.._
~e,~.,r.,~.~Q a~u.ri.
9/ /~ ScwM~
l~-a. ~ ~ ~,N b . Sr
IVv N. 2"~S~Q. --
/7s-y, ~ sz~
Rio /~.~.~~~
~/o h. z ``~~•
/ 9 y N. ,~ rl ST.
~ 9 ti N• 3 r~ S ~'•
~~~
1 J
~~
~~_
~ -
l6l ~a~~.1- Sf.
~6 i ~~ ~
1VV V U ~ OG
maintaining w~llJkept homes.
~C The undersigned are Campbell residents the executive
~ They feel strongly u.r~the movement instigated by
~~ body of the city of~ell (specifically the Planning Commission)
to "conduct a public hearing to consider possible amendments to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan for portions of the Downtown
Area" . _ _
-- - - -
Since the shaded area portion on the map pertains to an area now
- designated as-R=1-,-it can only be assumed-that this is a movement-
b place these homes in the category of increased density.
The following signees represent only property owners..
27. `-~~lL ~ .
- ~~
-- -
-- -_
~.~~ _ -
_ ' ~GL,~ L
3 2 . l ~ L ~ ~ ~~c~~T ~ ~ ~~
~ ' ~~(~ -~_. -~- = ---- ~ -~ mss;
---
__ - - _ _ _ -
-- ----
--- -
--- ----~/%~'z~,,,~- - - -
,~~ ~z yf
- - - - - -- 1!1! ~ - _ _ _ _ - - -- --- -
__~ ___
3 5 . - -- -- ----
-- - _ - A i t
- ---
7 -
- -
3 ~ ~ _- _