HPB Agenda Packet - 04-24-2019Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, April 24, 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 March 27, 2019
Meeting Minutes, 3/27/2019
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
2.167 Alice Avenue – Review of Field Changes
Referral from the Community Development Director requesting that the Historic
Preservation Board review field changes from an approved building permit on property
located at 167 Alice Avenue.
Staff Memorandum
3.ADU Standards for Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Properties
Request for the Historic Preservation Board to discuss potentially establishing special
standards for Accessory Dwelling Units on HRI properties.
Staff Memorandum
4.National Historic Preservation Month Commemoration
Discussion on Historic Preservation Board activities for commemoration of National
Historic Preservation Month.
Staff Memorandum
Historic Preservation Board Agenda for April 24, 2019 Pg. 2
OLD BUSINESS
5.Kennedy Tract Surveys
Discuss surveyed Kennedy Tract properties
Staff Memorandum
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of May 22, 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, March 27, 2019
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell
CALL TO ORDER
The Historic Preservation Board meeting of March 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
Susan Blake
Todd Walter
HPB Members Absent:
Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair
Laura Taylor Moore
Staff Members Present:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of HPB Minutes of February 27, 2019
Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Walter, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board minutes of the meeting of February 27, 2019, were approved as submitted. (3-0-
2; Board Members Kendall and Moore were absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (ITEMS NOT AGENDIZED)
Board Member Blake thanked Planner Daniel Fama for moving the Announcements portion of the regular HPB agenda from the end to the beginning as discussed at the
last meeting.
BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES AND REQUESTS
Planner Daniel Fama:
•Reported on 209 Railway Avenue for which the City is initiating Code Enforcement
action due to maintenance and occupancy concerns. The intent is to ensure the
Item 1
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 2 of 11
legal use of the building. There is a lot of work to be done. He stated that the desire is to preserve this structure.
Board Member Blake advised that the Public Works Director was trying to work with the
property owner to perhaps have the City purchase the site.
Planner Daniel Fama:
•Advised that is no longer the case. The City must now resort to the “hammer” of
Code Enforcement to legalize the building’s deteriorating conditions and improper
occupancy. He advised the Board that a citation with a fine of $1,000 has been issued to the owner.
•Reported that he had contacted the County Tax Assessor’s Office to try and get
copies of the annual Mills Act reports on Campbell properties. He said that he was advised by the County that they cannot provide those copies to anyone but the
property owner. The City Attorney agreed that the County’s position on this was
correct. As a result staff will send letters to each owner requiring them to provide the
City with a copy.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
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.
Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows:
•Advised said that although the scope of this item is more in the purview of the staff,the Community Development Director wanted the Historic Preservation Board to
give this an initial review as well.
•Reported that business owner, Pino Spanu is here today together with his architect.
Charles Sims, Contractor, European Rolling Shutters, San Jose:
•Said that he has lots of experience.
•Added that the retractable awning is made in San Jose of components made inGermany.
•Stated that the components provide full protection of the fabric, for which there is a
ten-year warranty.
•Showed awning cut sheets as well as a photo of Jake’s Restaurant in Saratoga with
the awning in place there.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 3 of 11
•Explained that when the awning is closed you just see the top bar, which is usually
brown or white in color, and about six-inches of fabric hanging down and hiding the
bar.
•Showed some renderings.
•Added that personally he likes the dark brown frame and feels it would go best with
the dark window frames at this location.
Board Member Walter asked if this restaurant would serve breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Pino Spanu said that they will serve dinner and brunch one or two days a week.
Board Member Walter asked Mr. Spanu, “You really need these awnings?”
Pino Spanu:
•Replied yes.
•Stated that this restaurant is really small and they lost covered patio space that usedto accommodate seating for 14 people.
•Added that he can’t accept reservations for outdoor seating if the weather is
questionable without having this awning.
•Reported that there is no space to store items after hours when they are closed.
Board Member Walter asked Planner Daniel Fama if the City is supportive of this
request.
Planner Daniel Fama said that Director Paul Kermoyan has indicated that he is amiable
to an awning as long as it is retractable and includes no sides.
Board Member Walter asked about the requirements to delineate outdoor space where
alcohol is being served. Must it be enclosed?
Planner Daniel Fama replied no. He added that Mr. Spanu will have to process a new
outdoor seating plan to show how the outdoor dining area will be delineated. He
concluded that alcohol service must be limited to the restaurant’s outdoor space and not
encroach onto the public sidewalk.
Board Member Walter asked if there would be seating in front (Campbell Ave).
Pino Spanu:
•Advised that Director Paul Kermoyan had asked if he could put one or two tables at
the front.
•Admitted that it doesn’t seem like there is enough space there now but he will see ifsufficient space is available.
•Cautioned that the space there would not be covered.
Board Member Blake asked if there would be signage on the front awning.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 4 of 11
Pino Spanu said he doesn’t know yet. He said the front awning is black metal. He’ll have to see what color of awning the Historic Preservation Board and staff recommend.
Planner Daniel Fama:
•Asked if the HPB is supportive of the proposed awning.
•Inquired, if so, is there a preference or recommendation of color, solid or striping
options.
•Advised that Director Paul Kermoyan is looking for feedback here.
Pino Spanu said that the material book is here with all of the fabric options.
Charles Sims said that the fabric offers a 20 year functional lifespan. The fabric might have to be changed in about 12 to 15 years from now.
Board Member Blake asked if the mounting bracket is available to look at in a diagram
format.
Charles Sims showed the diagram on the projected screen.
Board Member Blake:
•Said that she has some specific concerns about the east-facing side.
•Stated that it seems like the awning is going to cover significant part of those historic
windows when the awning is out.
•Admitted that she would be sorry to see that happen but also understands what Mr.Spanu wants to do.
•Inquired how the lights and heaters were going to be mounted.
•Asked how to protect the bricks from damage while mounting these awnings, lights
and heaters.
Charles Sims said he checked the spacing of the bricks to determine if the mounting
could be done into the grout rather than through the brick.
Board Member Walter said that it has to be anchored or it will fall out. It can’t be bolted into the grout.
Pino Spanu:
•Said the above windows would be seen from a distance. He made sure of that.
•Admitted that the windows are not in great shape.
•Reported that he is unable to clean the inside windows as they are very old.
•Stated that the proposed mounting is at about the nine-foot height.
•Reminded that the awning at the front is of a completely different design.
Board Member Walter said it seems per the plan that there are different heights between the front and side awnings. He suggested that they mimic each other in terms
of placement.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 5 of 11
Planner Daniel Fama said that staff would prefer the awnings at the same level both at the front and on the side, if possible.
Charles Sims said he recommends placement a bit higher than the window.
Pino Spanu questioned whether it might be possible to change the placement of the front awning.
Planner Daniel Fama replied no. It is placed where it is located to cover the beam that
is there.
Board Member Blake said it would be better to have more balance and symmetry.
Board Member Walter suggested two awnings of the same size with a space between
them. He asked if they would be anchoring to the pilaster.
Charles Sims replied yes, at about eight to 10-inches.
Board Member Walter suggested that they be placed as closely together as possible.
Pino Spanu said that this location was previous a café and he wants to transition to fine dining.
Board Member Walter suggested considering the use of three pieces instead of two and
placing them between pilasters.
Charles Sims said that would not allow for the use of their brackets and would leave a
big gap.
Board Member Blake said that as a result they would lose space for tables.
Charles Sims stated that he could guarantee the City would be pleased with these
awnings for 20 plus years.
Pino Spanu said that a restaurant has been operating in this space for the last 25 years. He needs to be able to run a business there.
Board Member Blake said she understands. She said she has no particular preference
of design or color of the awnings.
Board Member Walter agreed and said he would defer to others who know best.
Pino Spanu said that he would work closely with staff in making the best decision.
Charles Sims said that the height doesn’t matter to him in terms of installation placement. He will try to match the level of the front awning.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 6 of 11
Chair Foulkes:
•Reported that he went over to look at the building today and fears this awning will
really hurt the architecture of the building. They currently have a beautiful clean
façade and would be messing it up.
•Added that he does understand the needs of the business operating here.
•Admitted that he felt it would be a shame to lose the integrity of that side of the
building.
Planner Daniel Fama:
•Brought up the issues of lighting and heater fixtures.
•Advised that he had asked Pino Spanu to pick out his favorite fixtures to show toHPB.
•Said that starting with the lighting, Pino’s choice seems to be historically inspired.
Pino Spanu said that he is open to anything the City recommends as far as light fixtures. He just needs light so his diners can see their meals.
Board Member Walter asked if it is too dark in this area to simply use table lamps rather
than wall mounted. Can they put candles on the tables?
Pino Spanu said he could put candles at each table but the area is dark without lighting.
Board Member Walter said that it would be important for Mr. Spanu to replicate fixtures
that match the age of the building. He said it would be up to the owner and the City to pick the most appropriate option.
Pino Spanu reiterated that he would take any suggestions.
Board Member Blake:
•Showed a photo from her phone of a light fixture located on the Farley Building (also
known as the First Bank of Campbell) at the corner of Central and Campbell.
Planner Daniel Fama said it seems the direction from HPB is that as there is not enough
existing lighting that any new fixtures are of a period design and color to match the age of the building.
Board Member Blake said, if possible, yes.
Chair Foulkes:
•Asked how many holes might have to be bored into these historic brick walls to
install the lighting fixtures, heating fixtures and retractable awnings?
•Said that while he can understand that use of removable awnings and heatingtowers is more difficult than what is proposed using mounted equipment is less good
for the building and community.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 7 of 11
Board Member Walter asked about the ability to put power outlets on the building but placed down lower to allow for plug-in lights.
Pino Spanu reiterated the plan to drill through grout rather than the bricks themselves.
Planner Daniel Fama questions whether Fire would even support heating fixtures beneath the awning itself.
Pino Spanu said that a restaurant would look funny without lights.
Board Member Walter reminded that this building wasn’t a restaurant originally. It was a bank. He suggested attaching lights to the front awning itself rather than the building
itself.
Pino Spanu:
•Said that he can also do something below the front awning. He needs lighting at the
entrance.
•Explained that he has older customers and there are a couple of steps there tonavigate upon arrival.
Planner Daniel Fama asked if the lighting placed under the awning would impact the
ability for that awning to retract.
Pino Spanu said it can do so.
Board Member Walter suggested that Mr. Pino Spanu work with staff to place light
fixtures beneath the overhang of the awning. He reiterated his preference that as little
drilling and/or mounting into the building itself be done.
Chair Foulkes said that it is important to make sure that the building fits within its historic
downtown.
Charles Sims said that in Europe awnings are used widely. They have not adapted as much yet in the United States. He said that is his opinion but then again he sells
awnings.
Board Member Walter said that the City is trying to preserve the integrity of this building
and limit any impacts created by permanently mounting fixtures onto the outside walls.
Planner Daniel Fama said that the heating fixtures at Socialight (now Flights) are
permanently mounted.
Board Member Blake said she prefers portable to permanently mounted.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 8 of 11
Planner Daniel Fama said that propane heaters are fine if there is a place to store the propane when the business is closed. Such storage cannot occur within this building.
Mr. Spanu doesn’t have space to securely store propane tanks.
Chair Foulkes asked if the other businesses Downtown have the place to store their propane heaters.
Planner Daniel Fama answered he is not sure all do have such storage available.
Board Member Walter asked about natural gas heaters instead of propane.
Planner Daniel Fama said he was not sure that Fire would allow such a heater beneath
a fabric awning.
Charles Sims said that as long as the heater is not pointed onto the awning it is safe.
Planner Daniel Fama:
•Said it seems there is a lot of concern amongst the Board about proposed
penetrations into this building’s exterior brick walls and the potential for damage as a
result.
•Stated that he would work with Mr. Spanu on alternative ways and on lighting itself.
•Asked that if the Board is strongly against it that they advise Director Paul Kermoyanof that fact.
Chair Foulkes:
•Said all three (awning, lights and heaters) are bad
•Stated that all three are integrated into one.
•Asked if other options exist besides these.
STAFF NOTE: Following this meeting the Community Development Director denied the awning request.
3.Appointment of a Historic Preservation Advisor to the Site and Architectural
Review Committee (SARC):
Request for the Historic Preservation Board to appoint a Board Member to serve as
Historic Preservation Advisor to the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC)
for a 12-month term.
Planner Daniel Fama said that the Board should select a Member to serve as the Advisor to the Site and Architectural Review Committee for a one year term.
Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Foulkes, seconded by Board
Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board appointed Todd Walter to serve as Historic Preservation Advisor to the Site and
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 9 of 11
Architectural Review Committee (SARC) for a one-year term. (3-0-2; Board Members Kendall and Moore were absent)
OLD BUSINESS
4.Kennedy Tract Surveys:
Discuss surveyed Kennedy Tract properties and next steps.
Planner Daniel Fama gave the following staff report:
•Advised that the Board would need to look at the homes to identify which might
warrant being considered as Structures of Merit.
•Reported that staff took photos of those homes for which there was not yet oneavailable.
•Suggested that the Board consider each home on the list one by one and make a
determination of “Yes”, “Maybe” or “No” as to whether to evaluate a home further.
Board Member Blake:
•Said that she has identified four homes on California Street for which she is
recommending further study.
•Reported that these four homes were constructed between 1947 and 1949 and aregood examples of the predominately style of this neighborhood. These homes were
constructed before the City of Campbell was incorporated.
•Added that each has a nice large Cedar tree in the front yard. All are in goodcondition.
•Concluded that they represent the area with architectural features such as a
diamond window.
Planner Daniel Fama said that there are four on California Street marked as “Yes”.
Chair Foulkes:
•Said it is important to consider other factors for establishing merit including perhaps
who originally lived there if they were noteworthy.
•Questioned how best to choose between similar types of homes without choosing
too many that are too similar.
Board Member Walter:
•Suggested starting with many and narrowing them down before a more detailed
history is drafted for the small list. Perhaps 50 to start and brought down to perhaps
three.
Board Member Blake:
•Said that some represent specific times in Campbell’s history.
•Added that the architect might not be known. The original owners may not beknown.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 10 of 11
•Stated that she was willing to go talk with property owners of her four proposed
California Street properties to learn more.
•Reported that she found one interesting home in the Campbell VillageNeighborhood. It’s a beautiful old farmhouse.
•Added that she recently noticed a great Eichler home that appears to remain in
original condition. While she’s not sure of the specific address this house is not far
from Peter Drive.
•Advised that Mayor Waterman has told her about a house on Ridgely that he
thought might have historic potential.
Board Member Walter suggested that when the potential list is narrowed down it would
be time for a true historic evaluation by a historian or architectural firm.
Chair Foulkes said that HPB is looking for original houses that have not been
adulterated.
Board Member Walter:
•Said that Board Member Blake’s four should be left on the list to go forward in being
considered.
•Suggested going through his list and narrow his list down to four or five properties.
•Stated that the next step would be further research.
Board Member Blake supported deleting some today from the larger list.
Board Member Walter started with 41 Cherry Lane.
Board Member Blake pointed out that this street, Cherry Lane, is the first part of the
Kennedy Tract to be finished.
Board Member Walter continued and the Board Members voted one by one while
looking at Google Street Views of each residence:
•41 Cherry Lane - Maybe
•55 Cherry Lane - No. New door and windows.
•66 Cherry Lane - No. Too much is new.
•78 Cherry Lane - Maybe
•100 Cherry Lane - No
•113 Cherry Lane - No
•114 Cherry Lane - No
•126 Cherry Lane - Maybe
•137 Cherry Lane - No
•149 Cherry Lane - No
•174 Cherry Lane - No
•184 Cherry Lane - No
•198 Cherry Lane - Maybe
•235 Cherry Lane - Maybe
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for March 27, 2019 Page 11 of 11
•261 Cherry Lane - No
•270 Cherry Lane - No
•275 Cherry Lane - No
Planner Daniel Fama said that at the next meeting the Board can consider the
properties from Catalpa Lane and El Caminito Avenue when Board Members Kendall
and Moore will be able to make their recommendations on their suggested properties. Board Member Blake suggested the Board give direction to the two absent Board Members to narrow their respective lists down.
Chair Foulkes suggested perhaps limiting recommendations to up to four properties per
Tract.
Planner Daniel Fama advised that he would add an item to the next HPB agenda to
discuss evaluating how best to accommodate Accessory Dwelling Units on historic
properties as part of the larger ADU Ordinance update currently under way.
ADJOURNMENT
The Historic Preservation Board meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to the next Regular
Historic Preservation Board meeting of April 24, 2019.
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison
ITEM NO 2
To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: April 24, 2019
From: Naz Pouya, Assistant Planner
Subject: Referral from the Community Development Director requesting that the Historic
Preservation Board review field changes from an approved building permit on property located at 167 Alice Avenue.
Project Site: The subject property is an approximately 7,400 square-foot lot, located on the northern
side of Alice Avenue, east of 3rd Street (reference Attachment 1 – Location Map). The site is
currently developed with a one-story California Bungalow style single-family residence, circa 1927.
The site is located in the Alice Avenue Historic District in the R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential)
Zoning District (reference Attachment 2 – Primary Record). In 1984, the property was among the original group of properties listed on the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory. In 1987, the
City Council designated Alice Avenue as a Historic District. The Percy and Miriam Skiff Dunlap
House is one of 39 homes in the Alice Avenue Historic District.
Background: On March 2, 2018 the property owners submitted a building permit application (BLD2018-300) for the following scope of work:
Replacement of all existing windows
Installation of new windows and doors
Replacement of electrical system
Interior remodel to convert family
room to master bedroom and
reconfigure and replace kitchen,bathroom, and laundry room
The building permit application was subject to the previous Historic Preservation Ordinance (effective until March 22, 2018) which included the following provision under Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.080 - “Procedure to authorize construction, demolition,
relocation, or material change of a landmark or in a historic district”:
A. Conditional use permit required.
1.Any exterior change in any structures, through alteration or construction, which isdetermined by the community development director to be inconsistent with the
architectural style and character of the structure(s) in an historic district, shall require the
granting of a conditional use permit as identified in this section.
Based on the building permit application plans and scope of work, the proposal was considered
to be consistent with the architectural style and character of the home so a Conditional Use
Permit was not required at the time. Staff approved a Zoning Clearance for the proposed
improvements and the building permit was issued on May 23, 2018 (reference Attachment 3 – Approved Plans).
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to receive direction from the HPB regarding aspects of
the project that were not constructed in accordance with the approved building permit plans. If
the improvements are considered inconsistent with the architectural style and character of the
City of CampbellMEMORANDUM
Planning Division
167 Alice Ave – Review of Field Changes
home, a Conditional Use Permit application will be required for consideration by the Planning
Commission after formal review by the HPB.
Mills Act Contract: On July 25, 2018 the HPB reviewed the property owner’s application for a
Mills Act contract and unanimously recommended approval to the City Council. On September
4, 2018 the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act contract
(reference Attachment 4 – Mills Act Contract) which as part of the maintenance plan includes improvements to the foundation, exterior stucco/paint, landscaping, and replacement of the roof
and windows among other items.
Discussion: On April 10, 2019 staff conducted an inspection of the completed improvements and
identified several deviations from the approved building permit plans described below.
Foundation: As shown below, the approved plans depict a typical wall/foundation
interface in which the wall protrudes slightly from the foundation creating a small lip
with a weep screed underneath (concealed metal piece to allow moisture to drain from the
stucco).
During staff’s inspection, the
contractor indicated the
drawings were incorrect. In
actuality, the foundation
protrudes out from the building wall as shown in the photo
below although much of the
foundation was previously
screened by landscaping.
The contractor also indicated that the installation of metal
flashing was required along the
top edge of the foundation to
prevent water from leaking
through to the basement (pictured on the following page).
Previous foundation conditions
Elevation and Cross Section from approved plans
167 Alice Ave – Review of Field Changes
Garden Window: The approved plans
included a new garden window
located on the side of the house along
the driveway (depicted in the crosssection on the previous page), whichwould replace an existing garden
window in the same location (pictured
to the right). The existing window was
not original to the home but staffdetermined its replacement would notdetract from the home’s original
character based on the window’s
location, size, and design. In addition,
the proposed garden window could bereplaced relatively easily, shouldfuture property owners prefer a
window more consistent with the
historic character of the home.
Instead of the garden window, a newbay window was installed (pictured tothe right and the following page) with
a roof and angled base. The contractor
explained this was the only option
available for a wood framed window.
New metal flashing at front of home and along driveway
New metal flashing
Previous conditions (with garden window)
New bay window
167 Alice Ave – Review of Field Changes
Roof Replacement: On March 19, 2018 aseparate building permit (BLD2018-353)
was issued to replace 10 square feet of
roofing like-for-like on the garage only. At
some point all existing composition roofing
material on the home and garage wasremoved and replaced (as visible in the
before and after photos on the previous
page). Neither permit included a complete
roof replacement for either of the structures.
Requested HPB Direction: Staff requests HPB direction on the following items:
Mills Act Contract: Has the work been performed in a manner consistent with the
standards described in the Mills Act Contract?
Foundation Flashing: Is the metal flashing and installation method used to protect the
home appropriate? Does the HPB recommend any methods to reduce the prominence of
the metal flashing and provide more consistency with the architectural style and character
of the home, such as painting to match the house, applying stucco texture to match the
house, and/or incorporating additional landscaping to screen the metal flashing?
Bay Window: Is the new bay window consistent with the architectural style and
character of the home? If not, does the HPB recommend replacement with a standard
window that matches the rest of the home or would a garden window be acceptable?
Roof Replacement: Is the new composition roofing material color acceptable?
Attachments
1.Location Map2.Primary Record3.Approved Plans
4.Mills Act Contract
New bay window
1ST STALICE AVE3RD STRINCON AVE
SUNNYSIDE AVE 2ND STProject Location Map
Project Location: 167 Alice Avenue
Planning File No.: BLD2018‐300 ±
0530265
Feet Community Development Department
Planning Division
Project Site
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #:Percy and Miriam Skiff Dunlap House
P1. Other Identifier: Campbell Historic District Property
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location
Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Secc. Address 167 Alice Ave.City Campbell Zip 95008 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ,mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., asappropriate) APN: 412-06-061
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials,
condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Historic Single-Family Residence. One story home with a stucco exterior surface. Hipped
gable roof with asphalt shingles and tar paper. The roof trim on the gable end of the
house has the edge of the roof projecting with boards attached at roofs edge. The eaves
of the roof are projecting with rafters exposed. Special features of the roof trim
include additional plain gable. There are two chimney’s, one of which is exterior and
against the wall of the house. The windows in front and along the sides of the house are
one sash fixed and two sash double hung and casement style windows. The window in front
and by the main door is a one sash window and transom with the two sash glass side
panels. The main door is composed of two panels on bottom with four panes of glass
centered on top. Straight cement stairs lead into a stoop in front. Building
ornamentation includes a decorative lamp by the main floor basement.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) 02- Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District
Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Front Façade, 07/09/07
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: Historic
Prehistoric
Both 1927
*P7. Owner and Address:
Mildred Uchytil, et al. & Linda J. Nicholas (April 1987)
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,affiliation, and address) Kevin Tokanaga Campbell Museum 51 N. Central Campbell, CA 95008
*P9. Date Recorded: April, 1986
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Inventory Update
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite
survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-78 Survey. Phone interview with Mrs. Henry (Mildred Pryor) Uchytil, owner (February 3, 1978), with Mr. Gilbert R. Newcomb, carpenter (December 15, 1977) by Tom M. King. Initial study taken by Hugh I. Schade (October 22, 1977).
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock
Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD TrinomialNRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)B1. Historic Name: Percy and Miriam Skiff Dunlap House
B2. Common Name: Percy and Miriam Skiff Dunlap House
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same
*B5. Architectural Style: California Bungalow (Stucco)*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Built, 1927.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features:Garage, Large fir tree in back
B9a. Architect: b. Builder: Gilbert Newcomb Dunlap Ford (Agency)
*B10. Significance: Theme Economic/Industrial Area
Period of Significance Property Type
Applicable Criteria
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
Alice Avenue was created in 1915 on a portion of the site of the fruit drying yards owned by the George E. Hyde Company, a canning and fruit dehydrating plant occupying 17 acres in Campbell. The land was originally owned and utilized by Flamming’s Fruit Dryer (1887); sold to Frank Buxton’s Dryer (1890, and again sold to Campbell Fruit Grower’s Union (1892) which owned and controlled the drying yards and packing house until its sale to George Hyde in 1909. The residential subdivision, “Hyde Residential Park” was built primarily for housing cannery workers, though George and Alice Hyde (the Street’s namesake) resided there too.
Mr. Gilbert Newcomb says he built a house on Alice Ave. as his own project. He also worked for many contractors on houses in area, including architect Ad Whiteside in 1924 for 9 months on the “new” J.C. Ainsley house at S. Bascom and Hamilton (3 carpenters-$8 per day), and for Mr. Walker Vaughn after World War II on several subdivisions.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
See P11
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: See P8
*Date of Evaluation: See P9
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: April 24, 2019
From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: ADU Standards for HRI Properties
Background: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are small living units ancillary to a
single-family home, colloquially known as "granny-flats," "mother-in-law-apartments,"
"in-law units," etc. There are three types of ADUs: (1) "Attached," which are constructed
as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) to the primary house; (2) "detached," which are
constructed as a separate structure from the primary house; and (3) "interior" which are created using the existing floor area of the primary house, as illustrated below:
Detached Attatched Interior
A key feature of State law as it pertains to construction of ADUs is that they cannot be subject to any form of discretionary planning review, such as a Historic Resource
Alteration Permit or Site and Architectural Review Permit, which is how the City typically
oversees architectural design. This means that the City's ability to control the design of
an ADU or its integration with a primary home is significantly diminished compared to
non-ADU structures and additions.
The City is currently in process of updating its ADU ordinance to reflect recent State
legislation and to generally relax the existing standards to promote the creation of
additional housing in the community. The Planning Commission held study sessions at
its March 12th and March 26th meetings to discuss potential changes to the ordinance (reference Attachment 1 – PC Staff Report). By the end of the second meeting, a
majority of the Commission came to a consensus on new standards that will be
recommended to the City Council as summarized in Attachment 2.
Based on the Planning Commission's direction, staff will be drafting a new ADU
ordinance. As part of this process, it would be advantageous to develop specific standards for construction of ADUs on HRI-listed properties in order to protect their
historic integrity. Although the Board does not have a formal role in preparation of the
draft ADU ordinance, staff is requesting the Board's input to develop these standards in
order to aid the Planning Commission's deliberation.
City of Campbell MEMORANDUM
Planning Division
ITEM NO. 3
Staff Memorandum ~ HPB Meeting of April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 3 ADU Standards for HRI Properties
Discussion: Based on a Listserv inquiry to other cities, staff has created a summary table of the various standards and requirements for historic properties developed by the
cities of Benicia, Pasadena, Glendale, Santa Barbara, and Santa Rosa (reference
Attachment 3). Based on this research, the following (non-mutually exclusive) options
may be considered. If individual Board Members have additional ideas, those may also
be shared at the meeting.
Prohibit ADUs on Structures of Merit, Landmark and/or District Properties:
This would be the most restrictive approach for governing ADUs on historic
properties, one which staff would recommend against. However, if the Board
feels strongly about this option, that preference may be communicated to the
Planning Commission (although it would unlikely be incorporated into the draftordinance).
o A softer version of this option would be to prohibit "attached" ADUs due to
the risk of diminishing the historic integrity of the historic home. This would
still allow homeowner to construct "detached" and "interior" ADUs.
Special Development Standards: A separate set of development standardscould be developed for HRI properties:
o Placement: The Commission's consensus would allow "detached" ADUs
to be placed in front of, to the side, or to the rear of the primary house. For
HRI properties, placement could be restricted to the rear of the primary
home (or be required not to be visible from the public right-of-way) so thatthe ADU would not disrupt the appearance of the historic home.
o Second-Story "Attached" ADU: "Attached" ADUs could be restricted to the
first-floor so as to prohibit second-story ADUs atop of a historic home. As
noted above, without the standard permitting tools, it would be very
difficult to ensure that a second-story addition complies with the Secretaryof the Interior Standards and/or the City's Historic Design Guidelines.
o "Attached" ADU Placement: "Attached" ADUs could also be restricted to
the rear of the home so that they would not change the outward
appearance of the historic home.
o 2-Story ADUs: The Commission's recommendation would allow a"detached" ADU placed atop of a detached garage on a property with a
two-story home. This allowance could result in a two-story structure being
visible from the street, again disrupting the appearance of the historic
home, which may warrant a prohibition for HRI properties.
o Maximum Size: "Detached" ADUs could be up to the State maximum of1,200 square-feet, subject to the applicable development standards (e.g.,
FAR/Lot Coverage). Although the Planning Commission did not feel it
necessary to constrain the size of an ADU, it might be warranted to ensure
that on a historic property that an ADU does not exceed the size of the
primary home (which tend to be smaller than contemporary homes).
Staff Memorandum ~ HPB Meeting of April 24, 2019 Page 3 of 3 ADU Standards for HRI Properties
Special Design Standards: Although the Planning Commission's consensuswould require design consistency with the primary house for "detached" ADUs in
certain circumstances, more specific design standards could be developed for
HRI properties to provide for a greater degree of design consistency (as the City
of Benicia has done).
Zoning Exception: The Historic Preservation Ordinances provides for a type ofVariance called a "Zoning Exception" to allow flexibility to design standards. This
section could be amended to make specific reference to construction of ADUs. If
the City does adopt stricter standards for HRI properties, a "Zoning Exception"
could provide case-by-case flexibility.
Attachments: 1.Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 12, 2019
2.ADU Recommendation Summary
3.Historic ADU Summary Table
To: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commissioners Date: March 12, 2019
From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Via: Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Update (PLN2017-375)
Planning Commission Study Session
BACKGROUND
Accessory dwelling units (ADU)—previously termed secondary dwelling units—have been allowed since the 1982 adoption of the Mello Act. The current regulatory environment was established with the passage Senate Bill (SB) 1069 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2299 in 2016. This
legislative package required local jurisdictions to adopt new ADU provisions to ease parking
requirements, increase unit sizes, remove fire sprinkler requirements, and simplify garage
conversions. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2216 on December 16, 2016 to incorporate new Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) consistent with State law.
A second round of legislation (SB 229 and AB 494) was signed into law in October 2017 that
clarified and further eased requirements for construction of ADUs, specifically:
•Clarifies an ADU can be created through the conversion of a garage, carport or coveredparking structure.
•Requires special districts and water corporations to charge a proportional fee scale based
upon the ADUs size or its number of plumbing fixtures.
•Requires ADUs be allowed in any zoning district where a single-family residence is
permitted.
•Reduces the maximum number of parking spaces for an ADU to one space.
•Allows replacement parking spaces to be located in any configuration, as a result, of a
parking structure conversion to an ADU.
•Authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and
comment on ADU ordinances.
•Defines the term "tandem parking" to mean two or more automobiles.
In response to this legislation, as well as an October 17, 2017 City Council appeal hearing
pertaining to a proposed "garage conversion", staff was directed to prepare an ordinance update
to make the necessary revisions. A narrowly tailored ordinance update was presented to the
Planning Commission on February 15, 2018. Many residents offered testimony regarding the
need to reduce the minimum lot size (which is not a State mandate). Some felt it should be reduced to 8,000 square-feet while others felt it should be reduced even lower. The Commission
asked staff to research the ADU policies of other area cities so they could understand how
neighboring communities addressed this issue.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 2
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
However, the Council requested that this matter be agenized for a public discussion so that specific direction could be provided to the Planning Commission on the minimum lot size requirement. The study session was held on June 5, 2018, wherein the Council provided
guidance that the 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size was too high, with some Council
Members commenting that no minimum should considered. The Council also asked to look at
other variables such as unit size and open space. Nevertheless, no specific direction was provided leaving staff with the responsibility of researching how best to address the most appropriate minimum lot size.
Following the Council meeting staff prepared a comprehensive rewrite of the ADU ordinance that was presented to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2018 (reference Attachment 1
–Staff Report). In response to public comment and Commission questions at the meeting, the
public hearing was continued so that staff could conduct research on various development
standards (e.g., setbacks, 2nd-story ADUs, etc.), an alternate affordable housing incentive, and
Junior ADUs. Staff indicated that a study session would be scheduled so that the Commission may form a consensus on standards and requirements to be incorporated into a revised ordinance.
Since that time, staff continues to process permit submittals for ADUs. In the last year, a dozen
applications were submitted, and since the beginning of this year, an additional seven
applications were received.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the potential standards and
restrictions that may be applied to construction of ADUs, as well as a discussion on a below-
market-rate (BMR) incentive, Junior ADU options, and potential creation of a broader ADU development policy.
Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size: At its June 5, 2018 study session, the Council indicated that the current 10,000 square-foot lot size is too high and was willing to reduce it and possibly eliminate it so long as there were "other controls" in place, such as Floor Area Ration (FAR), Lot Coverage,
Minimum Open Space, etc.
Options Descriptions
Option 1
No Minimum Lot Size
Simple elimination of the minimum lot size, as previously recommended by staff, would maximize the number of properties eligible to construct an ADU
Option 2
6,000 Square-
Foot Minimum Lot Size
If the Commission believes eliminating the minimum lot size is too permissive, establishment of a 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size could be
considered. This would create consistency with the City's residential zoning
districts, none of which have a minimum lot size of less than 6,000 square-
feet.
Staff Note: The disadvantage of this option would be similar to the current 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size. There will always be properties that do
not quite satisfy the minimum lot size, the owners of which inevitably will
claim to be disenfranchised.
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 3
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Maximum ADU Size: State law allows ADUs to be constructed up to 1,200 square-feet or 50% of the primary dwelling's living area if attached or interior, whichever is less. The City's current
standards comply with this limitation by tying the size of the ADU to the lot area as shown
below:
Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.)
10,000-10,999 700
11,000-11,999 800
12,000-12,999 900
13,000-13,999 1,000
14,000-14,999 1,100
15,000 or greater 1,200
However, with the elimination or reduction of the minimum lot size, the Commission must
consider whether the size of the ADU should continue to be tied to lot area in some manner, be
limited by some other metric, or simply be controlled by the development standards of the
zoning district:
Options Descriptions
Option 1(a)
Tiered by Lot
Size
If the Commission wishes to generally maintain the existing size limitation,
the current tiering could be expanded by including an additional tier that
would allow lots under 10,000 square-feet to have an ADU of no greater than 600 square-feet:
Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.)
>10,000 600
10,000-10,999 700
11,000-11,999 800
12,000-12,999 900
13,000-13,999 1,000
14,000-14,999 1,100
15,000 or greater 1,200
Option 1(b) Tiered by Lot
Size
The Commission could also establish a new tiering structure if the 15,000
square-foot top tier is deemed too high. For instance, the following table
would allow a maximum sized ADU (1,200 square-feet) on a 12,000 square-
foot lot and tier downward:
Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.)
> 6,000 500
6,000-6,999 600
7,000-7,999 700
8,000-8,999 800
9,000-9,999 900
10,000-10,999 1,000
11,000-11,999 1,100
12,000 or greater 1,200
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 4
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Options Descriptions
Staff Note: This option could also incorporate a smaller maximum size than
1,200 square-feet. For example, San Jose's top tier is 900 square-feet for lots
larger than 10,000 square-feet.
Option 2 State Maximum
Allow an ADU up to the State maximum of 1,200 square-feet, as may be
limited by the applicable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, and open
space requirements of the property's zoning district, irrespective of lot area.
Staff Note: Certain P-D (Planned Development) zoned properties in the South Downtown neighborhood do not have specific development standards,
which would effectively allow a maximum sized ADU (1,200 square feet)
irrespective of how large the primary dwelling is and/or whether other
structures exist on the property, such as a detached garage, unless specific
restrictions were established.
Option 3 Local Maximum
Similar to Option 2 (State Maximum), the City could establish its own local
maximum size irrespective of lot area. For example, Mountain View and Sunnyvale have a maximum size of 700 square-feet.
Staff Note: This option would be a return to the format that previously
existed prior to 2016 when the City imposed a flat maximum size of 640
square-feet.
Option 4
Proportional to Lot Area
Restrict the size of the ADU relative to the size of the lot. For instance,
Cupertino specifies the maximum size shall be no greater than 10% of the lot
area. Such an approach maintains a relationship between lot area and ADU
size, similar to Option 1 (Tiered Approach), but at a more granular scale.
Staff Note: Because the size of an ADU would be so closely linked to lot area, staff would likely have to require boundary surveys for many properties
to verify the exact lot size to determine the allowable ADU size, at the
homeowner's expense.
Option 5 Proportional to
Primary
Dwelling
Limit the size to the percentage of the primary dwelling's living area. For
instance, San Mateo County limits the maximum size to 750 square-feet or
35% of the primary dwelling's existing or proposed living area, whichever is
larger, up to a maximum of 1,200 square-feet (requiring a 3,428 square-foot primary dwelling to maximize the size of the ADU).
Staff Note: Similar to Option 4 (Proportional to Lot Area), staff would likely
need to require measured floor plans of the primary dwelling to verify the
existing size to determine the allowable ADU size, at the homeowner's
expense. This option may also be seen as unfair to homeowners with smaller homes who would be disadvantaged.
Primary Dwelling Type: Currently and as previously recommended by staff, the ability to construct an ADU would be limited to residential properties developed with a single detached
single-family dwelling as the property's "primary dwelling". However, if the Commission wished
to expand the ability to create an ADU, the definition of "primary dwelling" could be broadened,
as noted below:
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 5
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Options Descriptions
Option 1 Detached Single-
Family
As noted, only properties with a single detached single-family dwelling could
construct an ADU, excluding P-D (Planned Development) properties that
have already been developed with more than one primary dwelling unit.
Option 2
Detached Single-Family and Townhomes
In addition to single-family dwellings, attached townhome dwellings could
also be afforded the ability to create an interior ADU (i.e., due to lot size and
physical limitations such ADUs would need to be created from the existing
rooms).
Staff Note: Since all townhome developments are governed by CC&R
documents, the ability to create an interior ADU would be contingent on
securing Homeowner's Association (HOA) approval. State law does not
prohibit any such private restrictions from being enforced.
Setbacks: Another key consideration has been the establishment of new setback standards for
ADUs. Historically, the City has required that ADUs comply with the setback standards applicable to the primary dwelling. However, this has created a significant burden in the San Tomas Area due to the 20- to 25-foot rear setback and 8- to 10-foot side setback requirements
established by the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. For this reason, staff had previously
recommended establishment of uniform setbacks for detached ADUs based on those adopted in
Campbell Village Area Neighborhood Plan. In addition to reducing an existing constraint, it would also simplify the regulation of ADUs by creating City-wide uniformity.
However, some residents expressed concern that the recommended standards were still too
burdensome. The following table provides a comparison between current standards, the previous
recommended standards, and a more permissive alternate option based in part on community feedback. Note that more permissive setbacks would not apply to the properties subject to the Campbell Village Area Neighborhood Plan, which incorporates its own standards that would
supersede those adopted by a new ADU ordinance. The City Council would need to authorize an
Amendment to the Neighborhood Plan to create City-wide uniformity, which they have not done.
Development
Standard Current Standards Previous Staff
Recommendation
Alternate (Permissive)
Option
Setbacks
Front
The same standard as for the primary dwelling
The same standard as for the primary dwelling
Rear 10 feet 5 feet
Interior Sides 5 feet 5 feet
Street Side 12 feet 5 feet
Building Separation
Behind Distance equal to
building wall height of
the taller of the two
structures
10 feet 5 feet
Side 5 feet 5 feet
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 6
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff prepared various "fit plans" illustrating potential differences between the previous staff recommendation and the alternate option with regard to setbacks and building separation requirements. The fit plans are presented in four scenarios for
"typical" properties found in the San Tomas Area (which would see the most significant
changes) developed with average-sized homes. Two scenarios assume R-1-6 zoned, 6,000
square-foot lots (100-ft x 60-ft) and two others R-1-10 zoned, 10,000 square-foot lots (125-ft x 80-ft), with either attached or detached garages:
Scenario 1 – 6,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Attached Garage (reference Attachment 2)
Scenario 2 – 6,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Detached Garage (reference Attachment 3)
Scenario 3 – 10,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Attached Garage (reference Attachment 4)
Scenario 4 – 10,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Detached Garage (reference Attachment 5)
The fit plans reveal that for the 10,000 square-foot lots, either the previous staff recommendation
or the alternate option would allow a maximum sized ADU of up 1,200 square-feet with an
attached garage while maintaining consistency with the applicable FAR, lot coverage, and open space requirements. In other words, simply due to the size of a 10,000 square-foot lot, either set of standards would allow maximization of development, in both the attached or detached garage
scenarios.
However, on smaller 6,000 square-foot lots the effect of the lesser lot area is more pronounced than that of the development standards. For instance, the largest ADU that could reasonably be constructed on a property with a primary dwelling with an attached garage is approximately 800
square-feet simply due to the FAR and Lot Coverage requirements. Similarly, on properties with
detached garages, the need to maintain the minimum amount of open space (750 square-feet)
further reduces the effective maximum size of an ADU to approximately 500 square-feet.
Ultimately, the fit plan exercise demonstrates that the previous staff recommendations would not
create an undue burden on development ADUs, although the alternate standards would provide
greater flexibility in terms of ADU placement and configuration. However, a rear setback of 10-
feet may provide more a functional rear yard/patio area for the ADU than a 5-foot setback and also provide a greater sense of privacy for abutting properties. This option is contrary to public comment that contended that such a setback would create "dead space" behind the ADU.
Garage Size Restriction: Staff's previous recommendation would have placed a de-facto
restriction of 400 square-feet for a garage attached to an ADU. This proposal was intended to maintain a proportional relationship between an ADU and attached garage. Some cities have taken a similar or more restrictive approach, such as Mountain View who restricts garages to 200
square-feet, while others simply include uninhabitable area in the allowable ADU size
maximum.
However, some community members have argued that 400 square-feet is not sufficient to accommodate a two-car garage. Although staff disagrees with this assertion, the status quo has
not resulted in any indefinable harm such that a specific restriction may not be necessary. Even
without a specific restriction, the size of a garage would nonetheless be restrained by the FAR
and Lot Coverage maximums.
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 7
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Options Descriptions
Option 1 No Restriction
Maintain the status quo of allowing attached garages to be as large as the
FAR and Lot Coverage would allow.
Option 2 Specific
Restriction
The Commission may recommend a specific size restriction for an attached
garage, such as staff's recommendation for 400 square-feet or a smaller or
larger size, as the Planning Commission deems appropriate.
Height: Historically, and in previous draft ordinances, the City has permitted ADUs at a
maximum height of 14-feet consistent with the standard for other detached structures such as
garages and workshops. However, as reflected in the development standard comparison table (reference Attachment 6), the height maximum can be increased. Generally speaking, increased height provides greater interior volume that can make an ADU feel "roomier," and also allow for
more sunlight due to higher window placement. Of course, a taller structure is also more evident
from neighboring properties.
Options Descriptions
Option 1 Current Standard Maintain the maximum 14-foot height standard.
Option 2 Taller Height
An increase in building height could be permitted and tied to a proportionally
greater side and rear setbacks, in the same manner that the City controls the
height other structures. Consistent with other cities, staff would encourage a
maximum height of no greater than 16- to 18-feet.
Option 3
Relative to
Primary Dwelling
The height of the ADU could be restricted by requiring the roof pitch to match
the predominant roof pitch of the primary dwelling. In this manner, the
maximum height would be defined by the building's width in combination with the roof pitch to create a proportional relationship between the dwellings.
Second-Story: Some Commissioners expressed openness to allowing a second-story option for an ADU. The following (not-mutually exclusive) options may be considered, however, it must be
noted that State law prohibits establishment of a setback greater than 5-feet for an ADU "that is
constructed above a garage".
Options Descriptions
Option 1
Existing Second-
Story Area
The least impactful option would be to allow an ADU to be created from a
primary dwelling's existing second-story living area. Since the second-story
would already be in existence, it would comply with the applicable setbacks
such that the State's 5-foot restriction would not be applicable.
Staff Note: State law requires these ADUs to have "independent exterior access from the existing residence" such that an exterior stairway up to the
ADU would be required.
Option 2 New Second-
Story Area
An ADU could be permitted as a second-story addition to an existing primary dwelling. However, to bypass the State's 5-foot setback maximum, the
allowance for a second-story ADU addition would have to be restricted to
areas not above a garage. As noted above, an exterior stairway would also be
required.
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 8
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Options Descriptions
Option 3
Detached above Garage
An ADU could be allowed above an existing or proposed detached garage at
a five-foot setback. A corresponding height maximum would also need to be
established, somewhere in the range of 22- to 28-feet. The height could be
restricted by the height of the primary dwelling such that this option may only
be utilized on a property with a two-story primary dwelling.
Staff Note: An exterior stairway would generally be required, unless
sufficient space exists inside the garage to allow creation of an interior
stairway.
Option 4 (Not Allowed)
The Commission may recommend that ADUs on second-stories continue to
be prohibited.
Placement: As compared to accessory structures, the City has not generally limited the placement
of an ADU relative to the lot or the primary dwelling. This means that an ADU can be
constructed in front of, to the side, or behind the primary dwelling so long as the setback and separation standards are complied with. Staff's previous recommendations would have required that ADUs be located to the side or rear of the primary dwelling. This was intended to minimize
visibility of the ADU as to maintain the "ancillary" nature of the ADU as well as to achieve a
consistent development pattern along the street.
Options Descriptions
Option 1 No Restriction
Since there is not an identified example where placement of an ADU has been
found to be problematic, continuing the status quo may be appropriate in
order to provide maximum flexibility to homeowners.
Option 2
Behind and/or
Side of the
Primary Dwelling
Staff's previous recommendation would prohibit an ADU from being placed
in front of the primary dwelling. A stricter version of this option would
require the ADU to be placed behind the primary dwelling to significantly
minimize its visibility. However, such a restriction could limit the ability of a homeowner to create an ADU if the primary dwelling is unusually sited on
the property.
Option 3 Rear Half of the
Lot
A third option would be restricting the placement of an ADU to the rear half of the lot in the same manner the City governs detached garages and
workshops. This would establish a spatial relationship between the lot and
ADU rather than to the primary dwelling.
Design Requirements: Staff had previously recommended elimination of design standards for
detached ADUs for various reasons as noted in the November 27, 2018 staff report (reference
Attachment 1). However, Commissioner Ching raised a valid point that if ADUs are to be allowed in the front of the house, then there probably is a need for design requirements if the
City wishes to avoid poorly-designed ADUs. As such, a decision on potential design standards is
directly related to the allowable placement of an ADU.
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 9
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Options Descriptions
Option 1 (a) No Standards
Citywide
If ADUs are limited to the rear of lot and/or the primary dwelling, design
standards could be eliminated entirely.
Option 1 (b)
No Standards
Select Areas
The City only regulates the design of homes in certain neighborhoods (i.e.,
San Tomas, Campbell Village, and Downtown). In other neighborhoods, a
property owner may design their home however they wish so long as it
complies with applicable setbacks, FAR, etc. In this regard, design requirements could be eliminated only those neighborhoods where the City
does not regulate design.
Option 2
Match the
Primary Dwelling
If ADUs are continued to be allowed in front of and/or the side of the primary dwelling, design standards could be established. Since design standards
should be objectively defined, they would effectively require duplicating the
appearance of the primary dwelling in terms of building form, roof pitch
colors, and materials.
Staff Note: This approach would significantly limit the ability of homeowners to utilize lower-cost prefabricated structures or design for the
future in anticipation of construction of a new primary dwelling.
Parking: SB 229 and AB 494 reduced the maximum number of parking spaces for a detached
ADU to one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is less (except for certain limited
circumstances where no parking is required). Currently, the City requires one space per bedroom,
which requires the City to revise its parking requirement in some manner.
Options Descriptions
Option 1
Eliminate the Parking Requirement
Since State law allows an existing or new driveway to satisfy the parking
requirement, a parking requirement is now largely hypothetical. As most
properties have a driveway, creation of an ADU would not generally require creation of an actual parking space unless a homeowner desired one. As such, eliminating the parking requirement outright may be seen as simply
acknowledging this reality.
Option 2 Conform to State
Law
As staff had previously recommended, the Commission may recommend
modifying the parking requirement to one space per unit or bedroom,
whichever is less, consistent with the maximum allowed by State law.
Option 3
Require Parking in Limited
Circumstances
A compromise option could be to require parking only when the primary
dwelling does not have its requisite two parking stalls, as Cupertino has
implemented. Thus, if the primary dwelling has no parking or only one space
the homeowner would either need to bring the primary dwelling into compliance or provide a parking space for the ADU.
Staff Note: This approach may be viewed as inconsistent with Legislature's
intent that cities treat ADUs as normal residential land use. In this regard, if
the City would allow an addition without regard to existing parking,
construction of an ADU should be given the same consideration
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 10
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Additional Discussion Areas
Junior ADU: State Law provides for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU), which are quasi-
independent living units created from a bedroom within an existing residence. A JADU is
differentiated from an ADU by the lack of a private bathroom, but is required to have a small
kitchenette. Further, State law limits the size of an ADU to no more than 500 square-feet and prohibits imposition of a parking requirement (reference Attachment 7 – HCD FAQ).
In effect, a JADU provides homeowners the ability to take on a roommate with a greater degree
of privacy without having to construct a fully independent dwelling. In the context of providing additional housing options, JADUs do not have a discernable downside in as much as they provide for greater housing choices.
Options Descriptions
Option 1
Prohibit ADUs
State law does not require cities to allow JADUs. If the Commission does not
believe that they are necessary they do not need to be allowed.
Option 2
Allow either an ADU and JADU
If the Commission wishes to allow JADUs, the Commission may recommend
that either a JADU or an ADU be permitted, but not both. Of the cities that have allowed JADUs, nearly all have taken this approach.
Option 3 Allow both an ADU and JADU
The City may allow creation of both a JADU and ADU on the same property to maximize the degree of housing choice. Staff's inquiries have revealed the cities of Santa Rosa, Encinitas, and Sausalito have implemented this option.
Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Incentive: The draft ordinance previously considered by the Planning Commission would have tied the allowable size of an ADU to a below-market-rate
(BMR) incentive. Under the proposed standard, a homeowner would have been allowed a 700
square-foot (1 bedroom/1 bathroom) ADU by right. However, allowance for a larger ADU, up to
1,200 square-feet (2 bedrooms/2 bathrooms), would have been predicated on the homeowner voluntary deed restricting the ADU as a "lower-income" BMR unit.
At the public hearing, residents and some members of the Planning Commission expressed
concern that restricting the rental rates as a BMR unit would make constructing an ADU cost
prohibitive. There was also a concern that income restrictions for occupants of a BMR ADU could potentially displace family members in certain situations.
As requested, staff performed research on the financial implications of this approach. This
research involved a return-on-investment comparison between construction of a market-rate 700
square-foot (1-bedroom) ADU to an 1,200 square-foot (2-bedroom) BMR ("lower-income") ADU, taking into account prevailing construction cost, market- and below-market-rate rental
rates, and estimated loan cost amortized over 15 years (i.e., the typical term for a home equity
loan).1 Based on this analysis, it is evident that even taking into account the higher amount of
rent permitted for a larger size 2-bedroom ADU unit, the delta between construction/financing
and restricted BMR rent would result in an ongoing monthly loss for the period of financing.
1This research involved identifying comparable ADUs for rental comparison, contacting various construction companies for estimated per/sq. ft. construction cost which was compared to the City's permit valuations, and accounting for various "soft cost" including design, permit, school, and park fees. Financing cost assumed home
equity loans of $200,000 and $300,000 for a 700 sq. ft. and 1,200 sq. ft. ADU, respectively, at a 6.5% interest rate.
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 11
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
Metric 700 SF (1-Bed)
Market-Rate ADU
1,200 SF (2-Bed)
BMR Unit
Construction Cost $210,000 $336,000
Monthly Rent $2,500 $1,470
Average Monthly Financing Cost $1,575 $2,200
Monthly Gain/(Loss) $925 $(720)
As an alternative, the Commission may wish to consider linking a BMR incentive to the existing
owner-occupancy requirement. Currently and as previously proposed, a homeowner may only rent either the primary dwelling or the ADU at any given time. The other dwelling unit must
either be owner-occupied or remain unoccupied. The intent of this restriction is to maintain an
ADU as an accessory component of the primary dwelling, not to facilitate speculative
development. However, the ability to be relieved from this restriction would provide
homeowners the ability to retain their property should they need to move, which otherwise would not generally be possible.2 Elimination of this restriction would then be advantageous to
the homeowner by providing flexibility that had not previously existed while creating a BMR
unit that could potentially count towards the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
obligation. This approach has several advantages over staff's previous recommendation:
•Is entirely voluntary without imposition of a new restriction(s);
•May be requested by a homeowner any time, not just at time of building permit issuance,
allowing greater flexibility;
•Can be applied to existing and future ADUs; and
•Would be more financially viable since the market-rate rent of the primary dwelling
would effectively subsidize the affordable BMR rent for the ADU.
The City of Santa Rosa has recently implemented this incentive program with some success. In the year since it has been in effect, the City has executed six 30-year affordability contracts. The
primary downside would be the increased oversight obligation necessary to ensure compliance
with the applicable occupancy restrictions for both contracted properties and non-contracted
properties alike.
In terms of the concern that family members could be potentially forced to vacate a BMR unit if
their income should exceed the State limit, Santa Rosa staff did indicate that their contracts have
an opt-out clause should the homeowner wish to terminate the contract and resume occupancy of
the property. However, such a provision would prevent the BMR ADUs from counting as
affordable housing units for the City's RHNA obligation.
ADU Development Policy: Creation of ADUs will generally be a minor component of housing
production since their construction reflects the financial capacity of individual property owners.
Although numerous homeowners may wish to construct an ADU, many will be unable to do so
simply because of the cost of construction. In comparison, larger projects benefit from economies of scale that allow developers to construct housing at a lower cost-basis than
individual homeowners.
2 Peterson, K. (2018) Backdoor Revolution. Portland, OR: Accessory Dwelling Strategies, LLC.
Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 12
PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units.
As such, the Commission may wish to consider exploring whether new multi-unit projects over a certain size (e.g., 5-10 homes or more) should be required to include ADUs, in either an ordinance or adopted policy. Some developers, such as Lennar (Next Gen – Home within a
Home), have already begun to do this. Such an approach would effectively double the number of
housing units produced with new subdivision projects without. In addition to increasing the value
of the new housing projects (a positive from a developer's perspective), the potential rental income from an ADU may also facilitate mortgage financing since prospective buyers may be able to point to future rent as a source of income.
A variation of this concept, should a regulatory requirement be deemed too burdensome, would be to require certain housing projects to make the new units "ADU ready," such that the homes designed and outfitted with the requisite infrastructure (i.e., plumbing, electrical, etc.) to
accommodate an ADU. In this manner, even if a developer opts not to construct an ADU with
the initial construction, a future homeowner could create the ADU at a significantly lower cost.
Fire Sprinkler Requirements: To lessen the cost of construction for ADUs, State law specifies that "accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not
required for the primary residence". Unfortunately, that language has not been entirely effective
in relieving property owners from being required to provide fire sprinklers in new ADUs by the
County Fire District, who has taken a conservative interpretation of this provision. However, since the fire sprinkler requirements are adopted locally the City may modify them for further clarity. The key component of this issue is the ability for Fire to access or serve the ADU. A
future ordinance should include language that clearly explains when fire sprinklers are or are not
required.
Park Impact Fees: Currently, construction of an ADU incurs payment of a one-time park impact fee about approximately $7,500. Whether this fee remains appropriate—or whether it should be
applied to JADUs—will be discussed as part of the comprehensive park fee study that is
currently underway. It anticipated that the City Council will adopt a new park fee program before
the end of the fiscal year.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 27, 2018
2.Fit Plan Scenario 1 – 6,000 SF Lot w/ Attached Garage
3.Fit Plan Scenario 2 – 6,000 SF Lot w/ Detached Garage4.Fit Plan Scenario 3 – 10,000 SF Lot w/ Attached Garage5.Fit Plan Scenario 4 – 10,000 SF Lot w/ Detached Garage
6. Development Standards Comparison
7. JADU Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
ADU PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION SUMMARY (MARCH 26, 2019)
•Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot size.
•Maximum ADU Size: Up to the State maximum of 1,200 SF, as restricted by the FAR/Lot
Coverage maximums (and not to exceed 50% of the living area of the primary dwelling unit for
an attached/interior ADU, per State law).
•Primary Unit Type: Allowed only in association with detached single-family homes.
•Placement: No restriction; may be in front, to the side, or the rear of the main house, subject to
design standards, as noted below.
•Setbacks/Building Separation:
Property
Line Setbacks
Front The same standard as for the primary dwelling unit
Interior Side (each) 5 feet
Street Side 12 feet
Rear 5 feet
Separation from Primary Dwelling
Unit
If located behind the primary dwelling unit 10 feet
If located to the side of the
primary dwelling unit 5 feet
•Garage Size Limit: No limit (other than restricted by the FAR/Lot Coverage maximums).
•Maximum Height: Not exceed the height/# of stories of the main home.
•Second-Story: (1) Allow an ADU to be created from existing second-story space; (2) allow an
ADU as a second-story addition, but not above an attached garage; and (3) allow an ADU above
a detached garage on a property with an existing/proposed 2-story home (not to exceed the
height of the house). Exterior stairway to the ADU will be required.
•Design Requirement: Require design consistency with the main house only if the ADU is located
in front of or to the side of the main house. Also include privacy requirement for 2-story ADUs.
•Parking: One parking space per ADU, the maximum allowed by State law (main home does not
need to be parking compliant).
•Junior ADUs: Allow both a JADU and ADU on the same property.
•Owner Occupancy: Maintain an owner occupancy requirement.
•BMR Incentive: No clear resolution.
•ADU Development Policy: Require subdivisions with 5+ homes to include 20% of the units as
“ADU-ready”.
Attachment 2
City
(Ordinance Link) STANDARDS
Benicia
(BMC Sec. 17.70.060)
6.In the H historic overlay district, an accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the following additional
requirements:
a.Detached accessory dwellings and building additions shall be located behind the primary dwelling
and shall not exceed the height or footprint of the primary dwelling.
b.An attached accessory dwelling unit shall not result in a rooftop addition or any increase in building
height.
c.A building addition for an attached accessory dwelling unit shall be inset or separated by a connector
that is offset at least 18 inches from the parallel side or rear building wall to distinguish it from the
primary dwelling. A building addition for an attached ADU shall not extend beyond the side wall of the
primary dwelling.
d.Exterior building and trim materials shall be horizontal wood siding or shingles. However, if stucco is
the predominant finish for the primary residence, then a stucco exterior may also be applied to the
accessory dwelling. Synthetic stucco (e.g., EIFS or DryVit) is prohibited.
e.The exterior walls of an accessory dwelling shall utilize the same base and trim colors as the primary
residence.
f.The roof shall utilize the same material and color as the primary residence and shall match the
primary residence in overall appearance.
g.Gutters shall not be constructed of plastic or PVC materials and shall apply a similar profile as gutters
located on the primary residence.
h.Windows shall be taller than they are wide or shall match the proportions of the primary dwelling’s
windows. Windows in small spaces, such as bathroom windows, may be horizontally oriented.
i.Window pane divisions shall be true or simulated divided lites (muntins applied to both the interior
and exterior of the glass).
j.Window frames shall be painted or factory-finished. No metallic finishes such as silver or bronze
anodized aluminum are permitted.
k.Dormers shall not face an adjoining side yard.
Attachment 3
City
(Ordinance Link) STANDARDS
Pasadena
(PMC Sec.17.50.275)
4.Historic Districts. Accessory dwelling units are prohibited in historic districts (e.g., National Register,
Landmark, etc.) unless the accessory dwelling unit is one of the following:
a.A converted accessory dwelling unit; or
b.A newly constructed accessory dwelling unit that is not visible from the public right-of-way.
5.Individually Designated Historic Properties.
a.Newly constructed accessory dwelling units are prohibited on individually designated historic
properties.
b.Converted accessory dwelling units are permitted on individually designated historic properties.
D. Development standards. Except as identified in this Subsection, accessory dwelling units shall comply
with all of the development standards (e.g., encroachment plane, floor area, height, lot coverage,
setbacks, etc.) that apply to the primary residence.
1.Converted Accessory Dwelling Units.
…
e.Windows and doors for historic properties. Windows and doors (including opening and garage
doors) for historic properties that are original to the structure are required to be retained,
unless this requirement prevents creation of the accessory dwelling unit.
Glendale
(GMC Sec. 30.34.080)
6.For properties listed, or identified on a historic survey as potentially eligible on the California Register of
Historic Places, Glendale Register of Historic Properties, or any property in an adopted or nominated historic
district overlay zone, any exterior changes to an existing property to create an accessory dwelling unit shall
not be visible from the public street or sidewalk right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property and shall
not alter any defining historical characteristic.
City
(Ordinance Link) STANDARDS
Santa Barbara
(SBC 30.185.040)
8.Design Style. New detached or attached accessory dwelling units shall be compatible with the design of
the primary residential unit regarding style, fenestration, materials, colors and details if the accessory
dwelling unit meets any of the following:
…
d.Located on a site on which there is a historical resource listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or the California Register of Historic Places, or designated as a City of Santa Barbara Landmark or
Structure of Merit, or located in a designated historic district; or
9.Privacy Standards. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit where any portion of the proposed
construction is either: two or more stories tall, or 17 feet or taller in building height, shall comply with the
following:
…
…An applicant may propose an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet these design criteria subject to
approval by the Single Family Design Board or Historic Landmarks Commission, as appropriate.
U. Protection for Historic Resources. No accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be
permitted if the proposal would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places, or
designated as a City of Santa Barbara Landmark or Structure of Merit, or located in a designated historic
district. The Community Development Director shall make this determination by reviewing the proposal for
compliance with appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
City
(Ordinance Link) STANDARDS
Santa Rosa
(SRC Sec. 20-42.130)
B.
…
3. Shall not be allowed on, or adjacent to, real property that is listed in the California Register of
Historic Places.
Standards for Historic Preservation Districts.
a. Applicability. The requirements outlined below shall apply to new accessory dwelling units within
the Historic (-H) Combining District.
b. Development standards.
(1) Through photographs, color and material boards, architectural elevations, and other means,
the applicant shall demonstrate the consistency of the proposed design of accessory dwelling
unit’s colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features and details, with that of the
time period of the residence’s construction and/or adjacent historic structures.
(2) For properties that are identified as a contributor to the District, through the preparation of
a historic resource survey by a qualified professional, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
proposed accessory dwelling unit will not negatively impact historic resources on the property,
and will be consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties
as applicable.
ITEM NO 4
To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: April 24, 2019
From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: National Historic Preservation Month Commemoration
As the Board is aware, May is National History Preservation Month. The California Office of
Historic Preservation (OHP) invites California cities to make the month of May an opportunity
for discovering, honoring, and sharing the unique heritage of our local communities. The Board
may discuss what types of activities it may wish to engage in to commemorate National History Preservation Month.
City of Campbell MEMORANDUM
Planning Division
ITEM NO 5
To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: April 24, 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
At the March 27th meeting, the Board reviewed the Cherry Lane properties identified by Board
Member Walter. As noted in the Meeting Minutes, only five of these properties were selected by
the Board for further review (41, 78, 126, 198, and 235). Board Member Blake also identified
four properties on California for further review (350, 418, 322, and 294). The Board additionally
requested that Board Member Kendell narrow down her list of El Caminito properties. She subsequently directed staff to remove 45, 66, 103, 110, 162, 170, and 230. The Kennedy Tract
spreadsheet has been updated to reflect these changes. Lastly, staff performed a permit search on
the remaining California and Cherry properties, which have also been noted.
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 further winnowed down.
Attachments
1.Revised Kennedy Tract Survey
City of Campbell MEMORANDUM
Planning Division
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
61 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Shallow roofline and
eaves, narrow porch,
original shutters, brick
added
1947
77 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Shallow roofline and
eaves, large casement
windows, small porch,
pillar replaced
1947
121 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Stucco, wide double-
hung window, shallow
roofline, shallow eaves,
matching doghouse
1947
130 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Detached 1 car garage,
lack of roof overhangs,
steel casement windows,
porch has been extended
and pillars enlarged, but
otherwise generally
representative of style
1947
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
133 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Siding, large 16-pane
window, shallow roofline
and lack of eaves
1947
151 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Siding, shallow eaves,
large casement, original
shutters, brick added
1947
156 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Shallow eaves, large
picture window, steel
casement windows
1949
206 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Shallow eaves, small
porch, pillars and
findows have been
replaced, large 16-pane
window
1947
207 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
Large steel casement
window, shallow eaves,
masonite siding
1948
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
229 El
Caminito Post-war
Minimalist 1
16 pane window, shallow
eves, small porch,
window replaced to
slider
1948
350
California Maybe Post WW2 1
Symetrical, open design,
distinctice
windowpatterns, 2 huge
Cedars in front yard,
drive way on left side.
1947
418
California Maybe Post WW2 1
Almost a match with
house above, note
prominent diamond
window, 2 huge cedars in
front yard, driveway on
left
1947
Addition and
remodel (2019) –
Underway
Reroof (2003)
Bathroom
Addition (2001)
322
California Maybe Post WW2 1
Slight Variation of of
above. Diamond window
driveway on left
1947
ADU off
detached rear
garage (2012)
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
294
California Maybe Post WW2 1
Unique corner lot. House
has many orginal
character defining
features. Single story
addition to back of
garage on Catalpa
1948-49
Reroof (2009)
Repair fireplace
(2009)
41 Cherry Maybe Ranch /
Bungalow 1
Asymmetry, porch,
stucco finish and door
location
1950
78 Cherry Maybe Ranch /
Bungalow 1
Detached garage, door
location, fireplace in
front, steep roof pitch
1948
Major Addition
(2002)
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
126
Cherry Maybe Ranch /
Bungalow 1
Asymmetry, porch,
prominent fireplace,
prominent window at
corner, detached garage,
wood siding throughout,
simple symmetrical
windows on
1948
Repair Chimney
(2015)
Demo porch at
rear (2016)
New roof (2016)
198
Cherry Maybe Ranch /
Bungalow 1
Asymmetry, prominent
windows, detached
garage, low roof pitch,
no
porch
1947
Repair chimney
(2007)
Bathroom
Addition (2011)
235
Cherry Maybe Ranch /
Bungalow 1
Asymmetry, small porch,
small house and quaint,
wood siding throughout,
detached garage, metal
awnings
1947
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
206
Catalpa 1 1952
192
Catalpa 1 1951
191
Catalpa 1 1953
178
Catalpa 1 1950
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
177
Catalpa 1 1953
162
Catalpa 1 1952
161
Catalpa 1 1952
150
Catalpa 1 1952
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
149
Catalpa 1 1956
136
Catalpa 1 1952
135
Catalpa 1 1953
122
Catalpa 2 1950
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
121
Catalpa 1 1952
106
Catalpa 1 1950
105
Catalpa 1 1952
92 Catalpa 1 1952
Address Status Style Stories Unique Feature Year
built Photo Notes
91 Catalpa 1 1953
79 Catalpa 1 1954
70 Catalpa 1 1953
Post-war Minimalist AKA G.I House: May 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 roofs
Ranch: Asymmetry, porch, stucco finish and door location, divided light windows, brick wainscot, glass block window, detached garage, fireplace in
front