HPB Mins 02/27/2019OV CA4fA
c.
fjk C'fiAR4
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.
Rnl I CAI 1
HPB Members Present:
Michael Foulkes, Chair
Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair
Susan Blake
Laura Taylor Moore
Todd Walter
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of January 23, 2019
HPB Members Absent:
None
Staff Members Present:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
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 faeade 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 facade 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 facade 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.
ChairFoulkes:
• 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 ther 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 me March 27, 2019.
PREPARED BY:
Corin hinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Michael Foulkes
aniel' 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 FACADE 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, fagade 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, fagade 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
PLN2019-09 — 360 E. Campbell Ave. — Modification
Page 2 of 4
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 fagade 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-8.1 c: 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.
Page 3 of 4
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2019-01
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 (CIVIC Sec. 21.42.060.13):
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 (CIVIC 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 (CIVIC 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
PLN2019-09 — 360 E. Campbell Ave. — Modification
Page 4 of 4
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
fagade 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:
MichaI",
e , Chair
ATTEST:
D iel 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
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 fagade 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).