HPB Agenda Packet - 03-27-2019
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, March 27, 2019 | 5:00 PM
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell, California
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2019
Meeting Minutes, 2/27/2019
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Board on matters
of community interest that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may
limit speakers to three minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Board from acting
on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up.
BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NEW BUSINESS
2. 360 E. Campbell Avenue – Awning, Lighting, and Heater Improvements
Referral from the Community Development Director requesting that the Historic
Preservation Board discuss the potential installation of a retractable awning and wall-
mounted lighting and heating fixtures to the Second Bank of Campbell Building on
property located at 360 E Campbell Avenue.
Staff Memorandum
3. Appointment of a Historic Preservation Advisor to the Site and Architectural Review
Committee (SARC)
Request for the Historic Preservation Board to appointment a Board Member to serve as
Historic Preservation Advisor to the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) for
a 12-month term.
Staff Report
Historic Preservation Board Agenda for March 27, 2019 Pg. 2
OLD BUSINESS
4. Kennedy Tract Surveys
Discuss surveyed Kennedy Tract properties and next steps.
Staff Memorandum
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of April 24, 2019,
at 5:00 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available
for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the
meeting, please contact Corinne Shinn at the Community Development Department, at
corinnes@cityofcampbell.com or (408) 866-2140.
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell
CALL TO ORDER
The Historic Preservation Board meeting of February 27, 2019, was called to order at
5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair
Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit.
ROLL CALL
HPB Members Present:
Michael Foulkes, Chair
Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair
Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore
Todd Walter
HPB Members Absent:
None
Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of January 23, 2019
Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Kendall, seconded by Board Member
Blake, the Historic Preservation Board minutes of the meeting of January 23, 2019, were approved with edits to Page 10 to properly attribute comments made there to Planner Daniel Fama rather than
Chair Foulkes. (5-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (ITEMS NOT AGENDIZED)
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 360 E. Campbell Avenue – Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification / Tier 1
Public Hearing to consider the application of Eaton Hall Architects for a Modification
(PLN2019-09) to a previously-approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-
76) including a Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1) to allow a revised window and
door design for an ongoing façade restoration and seismic retrofit of a Structure of Merit
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 2 of 9
commonly known as the Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at 360 E. Campbell Avenue. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically
Exempt under CEQA.
Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows:
• Advised that façade changes to 360 E. Campbell Avenue were initially approved by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on July 25, 2017, upon recommendation of
approval by the Historic Preservation Board.
• Said that it was discovered in the field that exterior changes to the doors and windows has been made.
• Presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the changes proposed depicted in red.
• Stated that the intent is to match the original building as much as possible.
• Pointed out that under the provisions of the new Historic Preservation Ordinance,
findings per the Secretary of the Interior Standards must be made in the affirmative to
allow these changes.
• Added that staff believes these required findings can be made in the affirmative.
Chair Foulkes asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none.
Chair Foulkes pointed out that these applicants were good at supporting the recommendations originally made by the Historic Preservation Board. It seems these
changes will help further the integrity of the original features of this building.
Board Member Blake said that she was very pleased with what has been done. There is no adverse impact and these changes show respect for the building and help capture the original appearance. Thanked the applicants for their efforts.
Board Member Moore seconded the comments of Board Member Blake.
Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Blake, seconded by Board Member Kendall, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No.
2019-01 recommending that the Planning Commission approve
Modifications (PLN2019-09) to a previously-approved Site and
Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) to allow a revised window and door design for an ongoing façade restoration and seismic retrofit of a Structure of Merit commonly known as the Second Bank
of Campbell on property located at 360 E. Campbell Avenue, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Kendall, Moore and Walter NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planner Daniel Fama advised that this item would be considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 12, 2019.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 3 of 9
Board Member Blake advised that the Board has not yet appointed/reappointed a HPB Member to serve on the Site and Architectural Review Committee for any items of historic
significance that might be under review by the Planning Commission.
Planner Daniel Fama said that this item (360 E. Campbell Avenue) that HPB has just reviewed and forwarded a recommendation for approval would be going directly to the Planning Commission and not to the Site and Architectural Review Committee.
Board Member Blake said it would be a good idea to see of Board Member Walter is still
willing to serve in that capacity as he did last year. Board Member Walter said he was willing to continue.
Planner Daniel Fama said he would agendize this action for a future meeting to formalize
that assignment. NEW BUSINESS
3. Authorization to Procure Former Chair Signatures for Unsigned Adopted
Resolutions: Request for HPB authorization to have adopted but unsigned resolutions properly signed
by former Board Chairs.
Planner Daniel Fama provided the following update:
• Explained that in trying to go more paperless, he has been going through existing paper
files to get everything digitized for permanent retention.
• Added that during that exploration he discovered some resolutions that did not yet have original signatures from the Chair leading at the time of adoption.
• Stated that he is requesting the HPB give him authorization to secure the former Chair
signatures of any currently unsigned HPB resolutions or minutes.
Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Kendall, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board authorized staff to secure
Chair signatures on any previously-adopted resolutions or minutes
that have not yet been signed for permanent retention electronically.
(5-0) Chair Foulkes agreed to consider Item 5 prior to Item 4. Board Member Kendall will have
to recuse from participation on Item 4 (Mills Act Program Review) due to a conflict of
interest given she is a Mills Act Contract Holder.
OLD BUSINESS
4. Kennedy Tract Surveys: Discuss ongoing survey collection and process
improvements.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 4 of 9
Planner Daniel Fama gave the following staff report:
• Advised that former HPB Liaison Cindy McCormick had provided him with the files
relating to the Kennedy Tract Surveys.
• Said that it appears that the files include notes from various Board Members.
• Suggested that he have the Planning Intern walk through the Kennedy neighborhood
and create a master spreadsheet to which he could then input the various notes
prepared by the Board Members. With this master spreadsheet we will have a better picture.
Board Member Kendall:
• Reported on an article she read recently entitled, “Importance of a Sense of Place.”
• Said that reading that made her ponder whether HBP is looking into this area for
consideration of future historic designation.
• Said that there have been many tear downs and replacement of homes of new homes in this area.
Planner Daniel Fama asked if the question at hand is whether or not this neighborhood
warrants Historic Designation.
Commissioner Kendall replied no.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said otherwise we are looking for particular structures of merit.
• Cautioned that determining whether a Neighborhood Plan might be desirable for the
Kennedy Tract is not the purview of the Historic Preservation Board. Design Guidelines
and Standards are a Planning document.
Board Member Moore said she is looking at the Kennedy Tract as a neighborhood that might benefit from guidelines.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reiterated that development of either design guidelines or a neighborhood plan is not within the purview of the HPB.
• Reported that development of an Area Plan or Neighborhood Plan must first be initiated
by the City Council.
• That’s how the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan was started and developed. It is
derived from the Council down.
• Said that he’s not sure when Alice Avenue was recognized. Board Member Kendall said that was done in the 1980’s.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said it is his understand that this Kennedy project was a prelude to historic district designation.
• Added that to have new homes added to the HRI will involve costs. We could look into
grant funding to cover the costs of having new DPR forms prepared and/or to look into
establishing the Kennedy Tract as a Landmark District.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 5 of 9
Board Member Walter:
• Said what they have started with on with the Kennedy Tract is a windshield survey to
see if any historic recognition is even warranted.
• Advised that the HPB hadn’t discussed consideration of an Historic Overlay for this
area.
• Stated that the intent is more to consider if there are any homes in the Kennedy Tract that might merit being considered for addition to the HRI list. HPB can’t comment unless historic significance is there.
• Cautioned that it would be a huge undertaking to try and initiate an Historic Overlay of
an entire neighborhood.
Board Member Kendall reported that only about three or four of the 40 homes she looked at
might have potential for HRI consideration.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that it appears that there are a lot of similar homes.
• Stressed the importance of looking at the area before making any decisions on what to
do. Get a sense of the neighborhood and the homes within it.
• Stated that Planner Daniel Fama wants to see one common document rather than a
number of separate ones.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said he likes the idea of one spreadsheet with all of their information being documented
within it.
• Stated that the intern can walk the neighborhood and go property by property to include all on the spreadsheet.
• Concluded that information in one spreadsheet would let us know how many properties
we’re talking about.
Board Member Walter asked if it makes sense to consider every home each Board Member has looked at or just those homes that one of us has found to be potentially worthy of
consideration. He advised that he only identified those properties that he found worthy of
being looked at.
Planner Daniel said he thought a complete list could be helpful.
Board Member Walter said that there is always an opportunity to additional house(s) to
come up later.
Planner Daniel Fama said that he would have a spreadsheet compiled with the survey information provided by the five members of the HPB of homes each one has viewed.
Board Member Walter:
• Said that he found most homes to be of Ranch-Style architecture in that area.
• Added that most of the homes on the HRI are not Ranch-Style but rather are
Craftsman-Style architecture.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 6 of 9
• Stated that it might be good to include some Ranch-Style architecture in the HRI as
being representative of that area.
Board Member Kendall:
• Said that most are what she would call Post-War Minimalist that were constructed
between 1945 and 1952. It was in 1952 that the City of Campbell was incorporated.
Chair Foulkes suggested it might be good to look for some historic reason to pick a home for HRI inclusion. It could be the fact that someone notable once lived there.
BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES AND REQUESTS
6. Mandatory Ethics Training – City Clerk notice of mandatory ethics training. The Board Members indicated their understanding of the mandatory ethics training. Most
have already recently completed ethics training.
Board Member Blake:
• Said she had two announcements to share.
• Reported first that on February 11th she participated at a DCNA (Downtown Campbell
Neighborhood Association) meeting held at the Library in the Community Room.
• Said that the intent of the gathering was to get the community involved in projects in the
City.
• Stated that she took the big binder with her and talked about the HPB app and tours. This neighborhood event was very well attended and people there were pleased and surprised by what they didn’t know about the Historic Preservation Board and its
activities and accomplishments.
• Said that she found this to be a very successful outreach effort and she’d like to do it at
other neighborhood group meetings in the future.
• Said that she forwarded a link to National Main Street to each HPB member that has
good information within a well-written article.
• Reported that she has completed her required ethics training.
Board Member Kendall said she had completed her ethics training as well.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reported that the City Arborist, Parks & Recreation leaders and the mayor held a tree
planting event at Capri Middle School on February 13th for Arbor Day.
• Advised that he had posted the update about the CLG Report in the weekly City
Managers Update that is distributed to Council.
Board Member Kendal advised that as they move to the discussion on the Mills Act Update
she must recuse and depart due to the conflict of interest as she has a Mills Act Contract
for her Alice Avenue home. She reported that a Mills Act Contract renews every year for
10 years.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 7 of 9
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Suggested that in future HPB handle its Announcements at the beginning of an agenda
(as Council already does).
• Added that in the future he will place any Mills Act related items at the end of any future HPB agenda given that Board Member Kendall always will have to recuse whenever
aspects of the Mills Act are discussed.
• Clarified that Board Member Kendall will not be able to share input on Mills Act issues even with staff. Due to her conflict of interest status, her opinion is not appropriate to share on issues of managing the program itself.
As the HPB prepares to return to New Business Item 4 – Board Member Kendall left the
Council Chambers for the remainder of the meeting due to her conflict of interest on this item.
NEW BUSINESS – (returned to this section after announcements)
4. Mills Act Program – Proposed Review Pan Review proposed Mills Act Program Review Plan.
Planner Daniel Fama gave the following report:
• Reported that at its meeting in December 2018, Council gave direction to staff in moving
forward with the Mills Act Program Review. This review will be looking at improvements and perhaps expansions. To discuss what is working and what is not working.
• Advised that he had reviewed all existing information on the Mills Act Program and has
put together a “road map”.
• Said he is seeking general thoughts or the program from the members of the HPB.
• Stated that he would get annual reports from the County as they relate to the existing
seven Mills Act contract holders.
• Added that it is important to make sure that information provided is sufficient.
• Said that the 2013 Mills Act Contracts are due for a five-year inspection of their contract.
• Stated that at a future meeting he will bring a report indicating initial findings and program recommendations. These will be the defining materials used to show to
Council to ask for expansion of the Mills Act Program.
Board Member Blake:
• Said that she is pleased that we will pursue this.
• Said that she had sent an email in November suggesting better oversight and to ensure
annual progress reports as required per the contract.
• Questioned who would review them. Will it be the Director? Will the HPB get a report
of the results of inspections? What if tax savings exceed what was spent on the home
improvements?
• Advised that she was once given a list of items that are included on the application to be given out.
• Opined that normal maintenance and good repair should not count against the Mills Act
expenditures.
• Stressed the need to take a close look and to reconsider qualifying repairs.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 8 of 9
• Said it might make sense to draft a ranking system and/or perhaps a scoring system to
determine merit of proposed expenditure of the tax savings on the HRI property.
Board Member Moore asked if it is the house itself, or the property, that is of “merit”.
Should HPB be required to look into historic significance of a house of merit under consideration for a Mills Act Contract?
Board Member Walter:
• Said that a house in consideration for a Mills Act Contract must be a Structure of Merit in order to even qualify to apply.
• Stated that HPB is looking at front exterior elevations rather than interiors of prospective
properties.
• Added that we should only focus on exterior or interior features included in the
Secretary of the Interior Guidelines.
• Questioned how we would justify the costs.
Chair Foulkes:
• Pointed out that the tax benefit from a Mills Act Contract can be as much as $25,000
per year.
• Suggested having a contract go back into a “pool” for redistribution after five years
and/or have an existing property owner reapply to requalify for another five years. This
will let someone else get one if a property owner has done all qualifying maintenance on
their historic structure.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that is sounds like staff and the HPB are on the same page.
• Stated that a lot of review documents were created administratively.
• Said that the criteria should to be blessed by the City Council.
• Reported that he had found no information on how to evaluate a property for a Mills Act
Contract.
• Listed tasks as including a discussion on the purpose for a Mills Act Contract; create
criteria to get you to that point; and interior versus exterior improvements.
• Added that it would be good for us to ferret out and give a good recommendation to the Council.
• Advised that the City Council wanted to talk about marketing and promoting the Mills
Act. We’ll need to develop a plan. Perhaps check with other cities on what they do.
• Stated that the City Council is proud to have a Mills Act Program.
Chair Foulkes said that a Mills Act Contract is a great gift to an HRI property owner.
Board Member Blake suggested lowering the currently $7,000 application fee for consideration of a Mills Act Contract.
Board Member Walter said that the number of contracts was limited at first by Council.
Council now wants us to promote the Mills Act Program.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 27, 2019 Page 9 of 9
Planner Daniel Fama said the HPB will work to tighten criteria, clarify purpose and provide more accountability to Mills Act Contract holders.
Board Member Moore said she’d like to know what’s going on with the houses that
currently have Mills Act Contracts. She’d like to see updates on those houses. Board Member Blake said that PLN2018-302 included the selection criteria listed.
Planner Daniel Fama said that there is one pending application that he plans to hold. He
advised that the City is not obligated to process until we resolve the issues with the current process.
Board Member Blake asked if the house he is working with is on First Street.
Planner Daniel Fama said a home on Third Street was approved in December. He hasn’t heard back from the owner of the First Street property. He said he was not sure when he could get all this research completed and returned to HPB. He asked for patience from the
HPB.
ADJOURNMENT The Historic Preservation Board meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. to the next Regular
Historic Preservation Board meeting of March 27, 2019.
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-01
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING THAT
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE A MODIFICATION
(PLN2019-09) TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT (PLN2016-76), INCLUDING A
HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (TIER 1), TO
ALLOW A REVISED WINDOW AND DOOR DESIGN FOR AN
ONGOING FAÇADE RESTORATION AND SEISMIC RETROFIT OF
A STRUCTURE OF MERIT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SECOND BANK OF CAMPBELL BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 360 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE IN THE C-3 (CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT. FILE NO: PLN2019-09
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Board Secretary, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Historic Preservation Board finds as follows with regards to file number PLN2019-09:
1. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Campbell and Central Avenues
in Historic Downtown Campbell.
2. The project site is zoned C-3 (Central Business District) on the City of Campbell
Zoning Map.
3. The project site is designated Central Commercial on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The project site is an approximately 1,500 square-foot commercial property
developed with the Second Bank of Campbell Building, a designated Structure of
Merit constructed circa 1911 in an Italian Renaissance Revival style.
5. On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) to allow a minor addition, façade restoration and
seismic retrofit of the Second Bank of Campbell Building; and a Modification
(PLN2016-99) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-183) to
modify the interior configuration of an existing restaurant with approved general
alcohol sales and late-night operational hours.
6. On December 20, 2017, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed and approved
construction plans submitted for a building permit pursuant to the Planning
Commission's Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) approval.
7. On April 2, 2018, the Building Division issued Building Permit No. BLD2017-1353 for
the approved minor addition, façade restoration and seismic retrofit.
8. On January 4, 2019, the Planning Division conducted a "framing inspection" in order
to confirm that exterior work was being performed per the approved plans. Upon
conducting the inspection, it was apparent that the door and window design diverged
from the construction plans issued under Building Permit No. BLD2017-1353.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-01 Page 2 of 4 PLN2019-09 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. – Modification
9. The proposed project is an application for a Modification (PLN2019-09) to the previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76) to allow a
revised window and door design in order to better replicate the original façade design
of the building.
10. Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.070.B.2 (Discretionary Permit Applications)
requires that discretionary development applications affecting a historic resource be reviewed in accordance with the standards for a "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration
Permit, provided in Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1).
11. When reviewed against the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the proposed
project would satisfy the applicable criteria in that the restored storefront would
continue to be a faithful representation of the original storefront, without creating a false historical appearance.
12. The proposed project is consistent with the C-3 (Central Business District) Design
Standards with respect to building mass, building form and composition, storefront
design, materials, colors, and finishes, and overall building quality.
13. In review of the proposed project, the Historic Preservation Board considered traffic safety, traffic congestion, site circulation, landscaping, structure design, and site
layout.
14. The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Policy LUT-8.1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and
cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building
patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community.
Strategy LUT-8.1c: Adaptive Re-Use: Encourage adaptive reuse of and incorporation of the city’s
historic buildings and structures for new development projects, when feasible.
Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives: Develop incentives to encourage
preservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate historic
Building and Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements.
Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve
historic resources as much as possible.
Policy D-4.1: Historic Preservation and Redevelopment Compatibility: The small town
character of Downtown Campbell shall be maintained by encouraging the
preservation of important historic resources, promoting the improvement of existing properties and businesses, and encouraging new development compatible in design with existing and newly approved development.
15. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as
currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-01 Page 3 of 4 PLN2019-09 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. – Modification
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that:
Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B):
1. The project will be consistent with the General Plan;
2. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area;
3. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s);
Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080):
4. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the
applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
5. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
6. The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural,
cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district;
7. The proposed action is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as
follows:
a. The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the
historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size,
massing, scale and proportion, and materials.
b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or
significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource.
c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the
greatest extent possible.
d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be
constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
8. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 Class 1 of the California
Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to an existing private
structure, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-01 Page 4 of 4 PLN2019-09 ~ 360 E. Campbell Ave. – Modification
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the Planning Commission approve a Modification (PLN2019-09) to a previously approved
Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76), including a Historic Resource
Alteration Permit (Tier 1), to allow a revised window and door design for an ongoing
façade restoration and seismic retrofit of a Structure of Merit commonly known as the
Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at 360 E. Campbell Avenue, subject to the attached Recommended Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 2019, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Board Members: Foulkes, Kendall, Walter, Blake, and Moore
NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members:
ABSTAIN: Board Members:
APPROVED:
Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST:
Daniel Fama, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1)
360 E. Campbell Avenue
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public
Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines,
ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under
review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply
with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Modification (PLN2019-09) to a
previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2016-76), including a
Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1), to allow a revised window and door design for an ongoing façade restoration and seismic retrofit of a Structure of Merit
commonly known as the Second Bank of Campbell Building on property located at
360 E. Campbell Avenue. The revised project shall substantially conform to the
Project Plans stamped as received by the Planning Division on January 14, 2019.
2. Permit Expiration: This Approval shall be valid for one (1) year from the effective date of Planning Commission action. Within this one-year period, revised
construction plans for Building Permit No. BLD2017-01353 must be submitted.
Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of an issued building permit will result in
the Approval being rendered void.
3. Previous Conditions: Except as modified by this Approval, the Conditions of Approval provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4394 shall remain in
effect.
4. Additional Alterations: Additional alterations to the subject structure, including, but
not limited to the installation of awnings or wall-mounted heaters or a change in
building colors, may be approved administratively by the Community Development Director only if such changes would not alter the character-defining features of the
structure pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.33.070.B.1.a.(1). All other changes shall require
a Modification to this Approval with issuance of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit
(Tier 1).
ITEM NO. 2
To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: March 27, 2019
From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: Referral from the Community Development Director requesting that the Historic Preservation Board discuss the potential installation of a retractable awning and wall-
mounted lighting and heating fixtures to the Second Bank of Campbell Building on
property located at 360 E Campbell Avenue.
Background: Upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB), the Planning
Commission approved design and material changes to the fenestration of the Second Bank of
Campbell Building at its meeting of March 12, 2019.
While this application was being processed, the proprietor of the restaurant housed within this
building, Pino Spanu, approached staff regarding adding a retractable awning and wall-mounted
lighting and heating fixtures. The property owner's representative requested that these changes
not be considered as part of the formal application but rather as a subsequent request.
Discussion: The Historic Preservation Ordinance allows the Community Development Director
to approve minor changes to an historic resource in an expedited manner if the changes "would
not alter the character-defining features of the structure…"(CMC Sec. 21.33.070.B.1.a).
Otherwise, a formal application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is required, with
formal public hearings held by both the Board and Planning Commission.
Due to the prominent Downtown setting of this building, the Director is requesting that the
Board conduct a preliminary review of the proposed awning, lighting, and heater improvements,
in order to assist in his decision as to whether to approve Mr. Spanu's requests.
Mr. Spanu has provided an elevation drawing and manufacture's specifications on the awning
system he is considering installing on the east side of the building (reference Attachments 1 and
2). He will also provide additional information on the wall-mounted heating and lighting fixtures
at or prior to the meeting. With respect to the awning, the Community Development Director has
indicated that he is open to the proposal so long that the awning is retractable and not include any support columns or side panels. He asked that the Board comment on the appropriate size,
design, and color/pattern of the awning. However, the Board may render its own judgment if it is
not supportive of an awning.
In terms of the heating and lighting fixtures, the Community Development Director also asked
the Board to consider whether there is a concern about wall damage due to new penetrations into
the building, as well as to provide guidance on appropriate designs for the fixtures.
Attachments
1. Elevation
2.Sunair Retractable Awning Specifications
City of Campbell MEMORANDUM
Planning Division
des ig n f or enter taining s paces681 48TH AVENUE SUITE #4SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121415.866.4926miramare@comcast.netmmira ma r2.8.2019A-0 VICINITY MAPPROJECT STATISTICS360 E. CAMPBELL AVE.CAMPBELL CA 95008APN #: 412-07-030ZONING: C3CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-BONE STORY + BASEMENT SPRINKLERS: NOOCCUPANCY: B (SAME AS EXIST.) USE: RESTAURANT (SAME AS EXIST.)FLOOR AREA: 1ST FLR & BASEM’T = 2,609 S.F. SHEET INDEXA-0 SITE PLAN & VICINITYEXTR. ELEVATIONSALL CONSTRUCTION SHALLCOMPLY WITH THE 2016 CBC,CPC, CMC, CEC, AND ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCESSCOPE OF WORKEXTERIOR WORK ONLY:- NEW RETRACTABLE AWNING ON S. CENTRAL AVE. ARCHITECT:ROBERT FUKUDA / ALEX MIRAMAREMIRAMAR DESIGN681 48TH AVE. #4SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121415.866.4926MIRAMARE@COMCAST.NETPROPERTY OWNER:THE SALVATORE F. & KAREN E.BLANCATO REVOCABLE TRUST301 EUREKA CANYON RD.CORRALITOS, CA 95076PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO.:KB FACILITIES MANAGEMENT301 EUREKA CANYON RD.CORRALITOS, CA 95076T 831-722-1100 PINO’STRATTORIA360 E. CAMPBELL AVE.CAMPBELLCA 95008S. CENTRAL AVE.SITE PLAN 1/8” = 1’-0”E. CAMPBELL AVE.360 E.CAMPBELL SIDEWALKSIDEWALKPROPERTYLINE360 E.CAMPBELL ADJACENTRETAIL STOREADJACENTRETAIL STORETREETREETREEBENCHLAMPPOSTNNBUILDING ELEVATION - S. CENTRAL AVE.1/4” = 1’-0”BUILDING ELEVATION - E. CAMPBELL AVE.1/4” = 1’-0”(E) AWNING TO BE RE-INSTALLEDPER PREVIOUS PERMIT # 2017-01353(N) RETRACTABLE AWNING -FABRIC & HEIGHT TO MATCH (E) AWNINGATTACH W/ 3/8 DIA. X 4” EXPANSIONBOLTS TO (E) SOLID BRICK STRUCTURE25’-6”6”4’-0”9’-0”10’-6”SITE PHOTO (E) AWNING(N) PROPOSEDRETRACTABLEAWNINGVERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONSAT THE JOB SITE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK.Attachment 1
SUNAIR® Retractable patio awning
Highest quality Lateral Arm Awning.
Forged aluminum elbow and shoulder components.
Double stainless PVC coated cable arm design for durability.
4:1 / 8:1 Bevel gear for most efficient operation.
All aluminum extruded front bar, Torsion bar, and roller tube.
Powder coated components and extrusions.
A stop in the gear to prevent the fabric from over rolling.
Stainless steel fasteners.
Optional: One-piece aluminum hood system.
Optional: XP Cross over arm & Valance Plus.
The Sunair® retractable patio awning model is our finest most
versatile model of our retractable awning line. This product has
evolved over the years as a top of the line awning product on the
market using only the finest materials, with extremely attractive
styling. The Sunair® model also comes standard with many of
options not normally associated as standard on other awning
systems.
Lateral Arm
Awning
9 standard
Sunair colors
Through 35’
40’ possible
4’2”, 5’7”
6’11”, 8’7”,
10’2”, 11’6”,
13’0”, 14’0”
Deck, Patio
& Storefront
Sunbrella,
Tempotest / Para,
Sattler,
& Recasens
15 year limited
frame warranty10”
Revised : Dec 14, 2018
Attachment 2
Reduces indoor temperatures and energy costs while
keeping you cool on your deck or patio.
Reduce heat gain inside by as much as 77% and reduce
sunlight and glare through your window by as much as
94% (see Minnesota energy study).
A Sunair awning keeps you cool on your patio or deck,
but it also minimizes your exposure to the sun’s
harmful rays.
A Sunair® retractable awning will increase your
outdoor living area comfortably and efficiently at a
fraction of the cost of a permanent addition
BENEFITS OF AWNINGS
Retractable Deck and Patio Awning Installations
SUNAIR® MODEL FEATURES: COMPETITION SUNAIR® BENEFIT:
All arm parts under stress
are made of forged alumi-
num including the shoulder,
elbow, and arm compo-
nents. All arms 8’ 7” and
above use three heavy duty
steel springs.
Others typically
uses all Die-cast or
extruded aluminum
arm parts and one
or two springs to
save on cost.
Forged aluminum arm compo-
nents are stronger than all die
castings or extrusions resulting
in a stronger awning against the
elements. Three heavy duty steel
springs provide better arm ten-
sion and longer arm life.
Sunair® uses only the
strongest materials yet is
engineered for flexibility
with a unique two way
movable front arm attach-
ment.
Most systems use a
single front pin that
only moves in one
direction.
Our unique two way movable
front arm attachment relieves
strain, increases flexibility and
strength in the arm which
reduces damage.
ARMS
FLEXIBILITY
ELBOW
The Sunair® uses twin
high quality stainless
aircraft cable covered in
a vinyl PVC sleeve.
The hinge is triple angled
with an elliptical cable
radius.
Typically the
competition uses a
single smaller cable
which is not always
coated. Most
systems do not
have this angle and
the fabric rubs on
the arms.
Twin covered cables are far
superior to a single cable, as
cable wear is reduced, allowing
better arm and fabric tension and
durability. The elliptical cable
radius increases tension as the
awning extends. The angles help
keep the fabric from dragging on
the arms.
GEARS
Sunair® uses a heavy
duty German 4:1 ratio
bevel gear with a stop. A
13:1 gear is used on
larger widths.
The competition
often uses inferior
quality 7:1 gears
without a stop
The 4:1 gear is the most efficient
gear made. This gear minimizes
the time and effort needed in
operating a manual awning. The
stop eliminates fabric damage
due to over rolling.
SUNAIR® MODEL FEATURES cont. COMPETITION SUNAIR® BENEFIT:
The competition
often mixes
aluminum and steel
profiles to save on
cost. Competitors
very often actually
wet – lacquer the
extrusions to save
on cost.
Aluminum extrusions are strong,
yet will not corrode over time like
steel. This equates to a longer
lasting awning.
Powder coating is more attractive
and holds up better against the
elements, resisting cracking and
peeling.
All extrusions and
components are exclu-
sively made of the
highest quality aluminum.
The extrusions and
aluminum parts all
electro statically powder
coated.
PROFILES
&
PAINT
Hundreds of 100% acrylic
premium grade solid and
striped fabric colors to
choose from.
You surely will find a
fabric to suite your need
and taste.
Sometimes the
competition uses
vinyl or a non
acrylic fabric. Some
companies use
poor quality lighter
thickness acrylics
fabrics.
Acrylic fabric is more attractive
and breaths better than vinyl.
Vinyl traps heat and will crack
over time. Acrylic fiber is also
resistant to fading and mildew
and has a water repellant Teflon
coating.
FABRICS
All fabrics are sewn with
Tenara® thread. This
thread is manufactured
from GORE-Tex, and is
clear and nearly invisible.
The competition
typically uses a
synthetic thread.
Often the competi-
tion cuts corners
and uses only a
white thread which
is very visible on
the fabric.
Tenara® thread is made of Teflon
and will not deteriorate from
exposure to the elements. The
clear thread is nearly invisible on
most fabric colors.
THREAD
Note: Available features
will vary by model THE SUNAIR IS THE CLEAR CHOICE!
9.375”
SUNAIR® Cross section
10” with hood
8” without hood
SUNAIR® EXPLODED VIEW
MEASURING A LATERAL ARM AWNING:
WIDTH:
The width is based upon the size of the deck. Due to the large sizes of
some decks it is not always necessary to cover the entire deck. Make
sure the wall is free of down spouts, chimneys and electrical conduit.
Any object protruding out from the wall will interfere with the roller
mechanism. Note the hood is always 1” wider than the width of the
awning frame. The fabric width is always 5” less than the awning frame
on units up to 20’ wide, and 5 ½” less on units over 20’ wide. If the
deck faces the West, then projection is important to consider. If the
deck faces South, then width is important to consider.
The roller assembly of the SUNAIR® measures 8” high without a hood
and 10” high with a hood. Be certain that you have at least 8 – 10” of
unobstructed mounting surface (see sketch below right)
Width
Projection
A minimum of 8” of clearance
above the door to the gutter is re-
quired without a hood, and 10”
with a hood.
ACTUAL PROJECTION
PROJECTION ORDERED The SUNAIR® Lateral Arm Awning is designed for residen-
tial decks, patios and commercial storefronts. Smaller
projections should be used for a storefront awning. The
awnings are designed for sun protection; they are not
designed to withstand wind or heavy rain and should not
be sold for such purposes (see warranty).
PROJECTION:
Determine the ground clearance above the door or window and then determine the desired projection. Refer to the pitch
chart on next page for the ideal mounting height and pitch for the desired projection. The greater the pitch on the
awning the less projection it will have (see pitch chart). When the awning is extended the front bar should be at least 7
ft. off the deck or patio. On a commercial installation the distance from the ground to the front bar should be at least 8 ft.
depending on local codes. The pitch chart indicates that for every 12” of projection of the awning the mounting brackets
should be located 3” higher than the front bar when the awning is extended (3/12 rule).
PITCH CHART AND IDEAL MOUNTING HEIGHT
For example: The brackets on an awning with 10’ projection needs to be mounted 9’6” from the ground on a residential
installation, 10’ x 3” = 2’6” & 2’6” + 7’ = 9’6”). Because the ideal pitch may not always be attained, it is possible to install
the awning lower than the ideal pitch. While the “3/12” rule is ideal, it is perfectly fine to install the awning with a 2/12
pitch. A 1/12 pitch is absolute minimum. Maximum pitch is 45°.
Note: A good rule of thumb is never to install a Lateral Arm Awning below 8 feet at the top of the installation bracket. If
only eight feet is attainable do not install an awning with more than 10’2” projection. If the installation height is too low
or the desired projection is too great for the available space the awning may have to be installed on the roof (see the
installation manual for each individual model).
OPTIONS: OPTIONAL HOOD
Sunair® offers an optional aluminum one piece hood, made from the highest quality aluminum. The
hood protects the fabric when the awning is in retracted position. With the aluminum hood, your
awning is always automatically covered when you retract it. If the awning is mounted under an
overhang protruding at least 10”, then the optional hood is not needed.
10”
SUNAIR® XP CROSSOVER
ARMS
If the area on the wall to mount the awning on is very narrow, but a larger
projection is desired, the Sunair model with “XP Crossover” arms offers the ability
to overlap the arms in order to fit larger projection arms onto a narrow frame. This
cross-arm version is available when the desired projection exceeds the width. The
roller assembly is 15” tall requiring a larger 12” valance.
VALANCE PLUS
SUNAIR® MODEL:
Maximum “projection” manual operation 13’
Maximum projection “motorized” operation 11’ 6”
Maximum “width” of unit acrylic fabric 20’
Maximum “width” mesh fabric 24’
SUNSTAR® MODEL:
Maximum “projection” manual operation 10’
Motorized not available
Maximum “width” of unit acrylic fabric 20’
Maximum “width” mesh fabric 24’
The Valance Plus is an optional roll down drop
valance. This valance is great for extra shade on
western exposures when the sun is low on the
horizon. Valance height is 43” – 48” high
depending on fabric chosen. This option is
available motorized or manual. If motorized you
need to upgrade to a Telis 4 multi channel
remote.
Available standard with Ferrari Soltis 86 or
Recscreen 5000P mesh. You can also choose an
acrylic fabric. Darker mesh fabrics will block the
sun and also maintain some view through the
fabric. Note: maximum allowable width on mesh
OPTIONAL LED KITS FOR YOUR LATERAL ARM AWNING
Available in warm white and cool white colors.
Kits available for arms on awning system.
Compatible with the Sunea SOMFY manual
override motor only.
Uses a Dimmable remote lighting kit.
Use a multi channel remote.
Lights installed in the field by dealer.
Available in warm white color.
Kits available for arms and front bar .
Compatible with the Sunea SOMFY manual override motor
and can be used with other motor systems as well.
Uses a Dimmable remote lighting kit.
Use a multi channel remote.
Lights installed at the Sunair factory during assembly.
SOMFY LIGHT KITS SUNAIR LIGHT KITS
AU41 AWNING ASSIST BRACES
8 ft. Long
Minimum 2 posts needed per awning.
One (1) post per arm needed.
If 3 arms, 3 posts needed.
For Sunair®, Sunstar®, and Sunchoice®
models only ( Not for Suntube® model).
Must be released before operating awning.
AU41 Available Colors:
White, Mocha, Ivory
Note: colors may not match exactly with awning
frame.
Sunair® Front
Sunstar® Front
NOTE: The Assist braces provide added stability to a
retractable awning when it is extended. Adding these
posts does not make the awning into a stationary
awning. There is also no guarantee the awning will not
be damaged in wind. Damage to awning or property is
NOT covered by the Sunair® warranty. Please see
warranty and separate instructions for proper use of
these posts.
8 ft. posts can be cut down
to desired length.
ASSIST BRACES cont.
FRAME COLORS ( STANDARD)
Awnings & Screens*
WHITE Gloss
Ral 9016
CREAM Gloss
Ral 1013
MOCHA
Semi Gloss
BROWN Gloss
Ral 8019
BLACK Gloss
Ral 9005
GREEN Gloss
Ral 6005
GREY Gloss
Ral 7040
TAUPE Gloss
Ral 7030
BRONZE
Coarse
FULL RAL COLOR
RANGE / EXTRA COST
OPTIONAL
NOTE: ACTUAL FRAME COLOR MAY VARY FROM DIGITAL IMAGES
*Note: See each model technical page
for available frame colors.
ACRYLIC FABRIC COLLECTION
Fabric covers sewn with Tenara
thread.
BINDING
300 Charcoal / Charcoal
001 White
/ Linen
002 Blanco
/ Sable
405 Pearl
/ Dark Grey
305 Charcoal
/ Dark Grey
307 Charcoal
/ Bronze
Exterior Screen Fabric
Valance Plus
770 Bronze
/ Bronze
Exterior Screen Fabric
Valance Plus
14 % Open Screen Mesh
86-2043
Bronze
86 – 2175
Champagne
86 – 2044
White
86 – 2135
Sandy Beige
86 – 2053
Black
86 – 2012
Pepper
86 – 2171
Boulder
ITEM NO. 3
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Staff Report ∙ March 27, 2019
Staff-Initiated Appointment of an Historic Preservation Advisor to the Site and
Architectural Review Committee (SARC).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action:
1.Make a Motion, to appointment a Board Member to serve as the Historic Preservation
Advisor to the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC).
DISCUSSION
The Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) is a subcommittee of the Planning Commission charged with reviewing all applications for site and architectural approval prior to
consideration by the Planning Commission as a whole. The Campbell Municipal Code (Sections
21.33.070.B2 and 21.54.050.D) specifies that the SARC shall be advised by a "Historic
Preservation Advisor," selected among and by the Historic Preservation Board, to review
development applications involving properties listed on the Historic Resource Inventory.
The Board's appointment of a Historic Preservation Advisor is for a 12-month term. As such, the
Board will need to make a new appointment in March 2020.
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
ITEM NO. 4
To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: March 27, 2019
From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: Kennedy Tract Survey
Last year, the Historic Preservation Board took preliminary steps to identify potentially
historically significant properties in the Kennedy Tract neighborhood. Individual Board
Members were assigned individual streets to survey:
Moore: Catalpa Lane
Kendall: El Caminito Ave
Walter: Cherry Lane
Foulkes: Budd Avenue
Blake: California Street
Staff has collected the results of the surveys and placed them into a single spreadsheet (reference
Attachment 1). Due to the differing surveying methods not all information (i.e., architectural
style, unique features, and a recommendation) is provided for each property. Properties that were
specifically not recommended for consideration by a Board Member, as well as those properties
with contemporary construction, have been removed from the list. Photographs provided by Board Members, and those taken by the Planning Division intern, are also included.
As discussed previously, the Board should be ready to discuss the merits of the properties under
considerations at the Board meeting so that the list may be winnowed down to a manageable
number. Staff is also seeking further direction on next steps once a narrowed list of properties is developed.
Attachments
1.Kennedy Tract Survey
City of Campbell MEMORANDUM
Planning Division
Address Recommendation Architectural Style StoriesUnique FeatureYear builtPhoto45 El Caminito maybe Post-war Minimalist 1Siding, low roofline, shallow eaves,curved-top multipane window andfront door style not in keeping194761 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Shallow roofline and eaves, narrowporch, original shutters, brick added194777 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Shallow roofline and eaves, largecasment windows, small porch, pillarreplaced194789 El Caminito maybe Post-war Minimalist Split-levelShallow roofline and eaves, casmentwindows have been replaced1947103 El Caminito maybe Post-war Minimalist 1Front entry altered, large pillars,double glass doors, large multipanewindow has been replaced1947121 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Stucco, wide double-hung window,shallow roofline, shallow eaves,matching doghouse1947133 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Siding, large 16-pane window, shallowroofline and lack of eaves19471 of 11Attachment 1
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo151 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Siding, shallow eaves, large casement,original shutters, brick added1947163 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Awnings, shallow eaves, casementwindows1947207 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Large steel casement window, shalloweaves, masonite siding1948229 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 116 pane window, shallow eves, smallporch, window replaced to slider1948230 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 116-pane corner window, shalloweaves, small porch - enclosed, pllarreplaced 11-pane picture window,roofline cap has been added1951206 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Shallow eaves, small porch, pillars andfindows have been replaced, large 16-pane window1947170 El Caminito maybe Post-war Minimalist 12 car attached garage, shallow eves,but skylights have been added to theporch19522 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo156 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Shallow eaves, large picture window,steel casement windows1949130 El Caminito yes Post-war Minimalist 1Detached1cargarage,lackofroofoverhangs, steel casement windows,porch has been extended and pillarsenlarged, but otherwise generallyrepresentative of style1947110 El Caminito maybe Split-level 1 1/2 Appears rebuilt194766 El Caminito maybePost-war Minimalist/converted to Ranch?1Large fixed 20-pane wind with 2 12-pane double-hung windows, partiallack of overhangs, but appears to havean addition and the largest frontwindow is bowed, brick façade hasbeen added1947350 California Post WW2 1Symetrical, open design, distincticewindowpatterns, 2 huge Cedars infront yard, drive way on left side. 1947418 California Post WW2 1Almost a match with house above,note prominent diamond window, 2huge cedars in front yard, driveway onleft19473 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo322 California Post WW2 1Slight Variation of of above. Diamondwindow driveway on left1947294 California Post WW2 1Unique corner lot. House has manyorginal character defining features.Single story addition to back of garageon Catalpa 1948-4941 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, porch, stucco finish anddoor location195055 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, divided light windows,porch, brick wainscot and stucco finish195066 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, divided light windows,porch, brick wainscot and stuccofinish,glass block window19484 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo78 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Detached garage, door location,fireplace in front, steep roof pitch1948100 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, porch, small house, lowroof pitch, wood siding and stuccofinish1953113 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, small porch, small house,brick façade and stucco finish1949114 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, porch, attached garage,wood wainscot and stucco finish19525 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo126 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, porch, prominentfireplace, prominent window atcorner, detached garage, wood sidingthroughout, simple symmetricalwindows on1948137 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, small porch, doorlocation, built in shade devices, metalawnings, detached garage, stuccofinish, each detail1948149 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, small porch, doorlocation, divided light windows, stuccofinish throughout, detached garage,clean and well maintained. ExteriorFacelift?1947174 Cherry Maybe Ranch / Bungalow 1Door location is centered but windowsare asymmetrical, brick wainscot withstucco finish, bay window. LackingDetails19486 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo184 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, prominent window,attached garage, low roof pitch1947198 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, prominent windows,detached garage, low roof pitch, noporch1947235 Cherry Yes Ranch / Bungalow 1Asymmetry, small porch, small houseand quaint, wood siding throughout,detached garage, metal awnings1947261 Cherry Yes Colonial Revival 1Symmetrical, round columns withporch along the front of the house,detached garage,1949270 Cherry Maybe Ranch 1Asymmetry, porch, multiple fireplaces,attached garage, traditional ranchstyle, stone wainscot with stuccofinish19497 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo275 Cherry Maybe Ranch 1Asymmetrical, attached garage, brickwainscot with stucco finish, somedetailing1956206 Catalpa11952192 Catalpa11951191 Catalpa11953178 Catalpa11950177 Catalpa119538 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo162 Catalpa11952161 Catalpa11952150 Catalpa11952149 Catalpa11956136 Catalpa11952135 Catalpa119539 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo122 Catalpa21950121 Catalpa11952106 Catalpa11950105 Catalpa1195292 Catalpa1195291 Catalpa1195310 of 11
Address Recommendation Architectural Style Stories Unique Feature Year built Photo79 Catalpa1195470 Catalpa1195361 Catalpa2Uses up more property area in the block than compared to other properties1930Post-war Minimalist AKA G.I HouseRanch began in 1953May include split-lvels, but generally small (12 sq ft or less), floor-to-ceiling picture window, 1 or 2 car garage (attached or detached), lack of roof overhangs, small front porch, stucco, steel casement windows or double-hung with multi-fixed panes, shallow composite roofsAsymmetry, porch, stucco finish and door location, divided light windows, brick wainscot, glass block window, detached garage, fireplace in front11 of 11