02-24-2021 HPB Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 | 5:00 PM
Virtual Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
This Historic Preservation Board (HPB) meeting is conducted via telecommunication and is
compliant with provisions of the Brown Act and Executive Order N-29-20 issued by the
Governor.
The following Board Members are listed to permit them to appear electronically or
telephonically at the Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of February 24, 2021: Chair
Mike Foulkes, and Board Members Todd Walter, Susan Blake, and Laura Taylor Moore.
While members of the public will not be able to attend the meeting of the Campbell Historic
Preservation Board in person, the meeting will be live-streamed on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell.
Interested persons may also register to electronically participate in the meeting via Zoom at
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_rzSVSHyHSX65U42rjhaR1A. After registering,
you will receive a confirmation email. The complete agenda packet will be posted to the City's
Agenda Center website (http://bit.ly/campbellhpbagenda) by the Friday before the Wednesday
meeting. Please be advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing
described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Historic
Preservation Board at, or prior to, the Public Hearing by email to planning@campbellca.gov.
Questions may be addressed to Senior Planner Daniel Fama, Board Secretary, at (408) 866-2193
or danielf@campbellca.gov.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Board Members or the Board Secretary may request that agenized items be considered in a
different order than shown in the agenda or be postponed to a subsequent meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of January 27, 2021 (Roll Call Vote)
Meeting Minutes, 1/27/2021
Historic Preservation Board Agenda for February 24, 2021 Pg. 2
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
Board Members and/or staff may make announcements on matters related to historic
preservation and promotion.
2. 1940/1980 Hamilton Avenue – Application Materials (Informational Only)
The City has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to relocate the Folk
Victorian-style structure located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue to the neighboring property.
Project Plans
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 20 Alice Avenue – Modification of an Historic Resource Alteration Permit
(Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Public Hearing to consider the application of Michele Babb for a Modification (PLN-
2021-23) to a previously approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-
12) to allow removal of existing siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco
for an approved 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District
property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue.
Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Staff Report
OLD BUSINESS
4. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion
The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities to the Board.
Draft Mills Act FAQs
Suggested Mills Act Additions
Suggestions for a Revised List of Conditions for Approval
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of March 24,
2021, at 5:00 PM to be conducted via Zoom.
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@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2140.
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, January 27, 2021 | 5:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of January 27, 2021, was called to order at 5:14 p.m., via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit.
ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Michael Foulkes, Chair Laura Taylor Moore
Susan Blake
Todd Walter Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of October 28, 2020.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of October 28, 2020. (3-0-1-0; Commissioner Moore was absent)
ORAL REQUESTS
None
BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Member Blake advised that she had renewed the HPB app through NextDoor. She advised she has received some nice comments about the HPB app. She said that 11 of the 12 focus photo series has been incorporated into the app.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 2
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Advised that Director Paul Kermoyan would be retiring on April 1, 2021. He will
transition into full-time winemaking.
• Reported that the house at 1940 Hamilton Avenue, that was to be torn down to construct a new modern office building, is now instead going to be relocated onto the adjacent church property for use as an office building.
Member Blake asked when and where that structure would be placed on the church site. Planner Daniel Fama said those details are unknown at this time.
Member Walter said he thinks it may well end up on the vacant dirt area that used to have porta potties on it to serve the school on site. Member Blake said she is happy to see it moved, used, and saved.
Planner Daniel Fama said that staff would make the relocation as easy as possible for the church so the relocation of that structure can be done quickly. *** PUBLIC HEARING None ***
NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of 2021 Chair and Vice Chair (Roll Call Vote) The Board will elect the Chair and Vice Chair for 2021.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that he has served as Chair for a while now.
• Added that he is willing to continue as Chair if needed.
• Said that he is also willing to hand over the gavel to another HPB member.
• Suggested that the logical succession is for Laura Moore to become HPB Chair and Member Susan Blake, Vice Chair.
• Concluded that it is up to the Board as a whole how to proceed. Member Blake:
• Pointed out that due to COVID-19, HPB missed seven meetings in 2020.
• Admitted that she doesn’t feel the Chair Foulkes had the chance to do the job he is so well equipped to do in leading HPB.
• Suggested that he be nominated to serve as Chair for 2021 with Member Todd Walter
as Vice Chair.
• Said that the most important task for HPB in 2021 is to complete work on the updated Mills Act Ordinance.
• Stated her willingness to remain on the Mills Act Ad Hoc Subcommittee.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 3
• Added that she believes that the City Council will be in favor of the updated and improved Mills Act Ordinance and processes.
• Concluded that HPB and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee would likely not be able to accomplish too much else this year with the continued constraints of COVID. Member Walter:
• Concurred with the comments of Member Blake.
• Corrected that he hadn’t been serving as Vice Chair during 2020. That was Member Kendall prior to her resignation from the Board late in the year.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that he thinks Member Blake is right. HPB should singularly focus on completing the work in updating the Mills Act in 2021.
Member Blake:
• Said that she thought she had previously sent a series of suggested questions for the preparation of a FAQ (frequently asked questions) document. It had primary
categories and feedback from Member Moore. It represents a good starting point.
• Advised that she and Member Walter still have a lot of mechanical stuff to process.
• Admitted that they did not obtain great information from the County about the existing
Mills Act properties that report to the County annually.
Chair Foulkes said that Planner Fama had sent them out by email. Member Walter:
• Said that Member Blake sent comments and Member Moore responded with her input.
• Stated that they will be combined with the rest.
Member Blake said that is the next target task.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board nominated Member Foulkes to continue to serve as HPB Chair during 2021, and Member Walter to serve as Vice Chair, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Foulkes and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: Moore ABSTAIN: None
***
2. 2021 HPB Meeting Schedule (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
The Board will review and approve the proposed 2021 meeting schedule.
Chair Foulkes:
• Reiterated that HPB lost a lot of its meetings last year (2020).
• Added that HPB is now well adapted to conducting its meeting using Zoom.
• Said that a proposed list of meeting dates for 2021 have been provided.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 4
• Reported that there is just one cancellation, which is November, and the December meeting will be held earlier in the month than the fourth Wednesday.
• Asked if there were any conflicts with the dates proposed. Member Blake said no.
Member Walter said no.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution HPB2021-1 approving the 2021 HPB Meeting Schedule, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: Moore ABSTAIN: None
***
3. Commission Collaborative Discussion and 2021/2022 Work Plan Request
The Board will discuss the outcome of the December 14, 2020 Commission Collaborative meeting and develop a list of requested Work Plan item(s) for the upcoming fiscal year.
Chair Foulkes gave the following update:
• Reported that the first Commission Collaborative meeting occurred in December.
• Advised that there was good attendance by Chairs of the City’s Boards and
Commissions.
• Admitted that he can see the benefits of just having a dialog with the other representatives.
• Stated that some of them are now considering some joint projects.
• Stated that the formation of the Commission Collaborative will serve a beneficial purpose.
• Recounted that he had reported to the group about HPB’s app. Many in attendance
were excited to hear about that. Some felt that it is a great thing to put out there for your youth. Additionally, schools could use it as well.
• Said that HPB app will serve a good purpose. That’s part of the reason to put the app
out there.
• Asked Planner Fama if he has anything he’d like to add to this topic. Planner Daniel Fama:
• Responded that Chair Foulkes had done a good job describing that first meeting.
• Advised that the City Manager will accumulate work plan items from all Boards and Commissions and coordinate a memo for Council outlining them all.
• Stated that for HPB, the Mills Act Update will be one of those items.
• Asked that the Board let him know by email if they have any more proposed work plan items to add on.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 5
Member Blake:
• Reminded that the City has budgetary constraints during the ongoing COVID-19,
which may well affect the goals of the Boards and Commissions for this year.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that Mayor Gibbons did comment that budget considerations may need to be
taken. They are the inherent limitations of the moment. Member Walter advised that Member Moore is listening in as she was unsuccessful logging in to this meeting. The Commission Collaborative will be more directly impactful in putting Boards and Commissions together for jointly related shared projects or goals.
Member Blake:
• Mentioned that the Commission Collaborative was started under Mayor Landry’s tenure. Now Mayor Gibbons is continuing it onward.
• Said that it is important for Chairs and Representatives of the Board and Commissions meet together on occasion.
• Said she hopes this addresses Member Moore’s concerns.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that even during Covid-19, it would be possible for there to be Zoom meetings that bring together two Board and/or Commissions.
• Said that it could be on the Mills Act or another item we’re doing.
• Said that it is nice to occasionally have that discussion.
Member Walter said that Member Moore has indicated her agreement that it is really a
good thing that these leaders will be meeting. Member Moore:
• Said that she likes the idea of conducting quarterly meeting.
• Added it would be good for all to meet together with the Mayor.
• Stated that we all need to be more integrated. Right now, all Boards and Commissions
are doing their own thing.
Member Walter said it is important to meet in some capacity with others. Many in attendance at the December Collaborative meeting didn’t know about the HPB app.
Member Blake said it is a good idea.
Member Walter asked if the intent of tonight’s discussion on the Commission Collaborative to give our work plan ideas early and to meet periodically.
Chair Foulkes:
• Admitted that he cannot speak to budget constraints.
• Said that the Commission Collaborative can be a holistic method of outreach and
collaboration.
• Stated that these meetings can provide more of a pulse on what is going on.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 6
• Reiterated that Mayor Gibbons supports a big push on collaboration. She doesn’t want us all working in a vacuum.
• Concluded that when possible groups can work together where there is subject matter overlap. Member Walter asked if the staff liaisons for each Board and Commission routinely
provide Council with an update on the activities of each Board and Commission. He said that a lot of work initially considered by the Planning Commission ends up before the Council. Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that the Council is aware of the Planning items that go to them from the PC.
• Added that a lot of what the PC handles does not go before the Council.
• Said that with these Commission Collaborative meetings, the Mayor and Council will
have a better understanding of what’s going on.
• Stated that communication will evolve organically leading to better discussion.
Member Walter:
• Stated that the Mills Act revamp is his number-one priority.
• Admitted he’s not sure what else should be added by HPB.
• Asked if there would be any opportunity to bring up other items for our work plan. Member Blake:
• Suggested continuing with the survey review for additions to the HRI (Historic
Resource Inventory).
• Said that we didn’t get too far with that.
• Reminded that she previously recommended five properties from the potentials list
that might still have some potential to be added to the HRI.
• Advised that since that time, four of the five she had initially proposed have undergone drastic remodels that make them no longer qualified.
Chair Foulkes.
• Reiterated his suggestion that HPB should focus its efforts on the Mills Act Update.
• Added that perhaps, with the help of an intern, we may be able to refresh the HPB
app.
• Asked Planner Fama if staff needs anything else.
Planner Daniel Fama replied no. He added that the Mills Act hasn’t formally been included
in the work plan. ***
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 7
OLD BUSINESS 4. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion
The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities to the Board.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that Mills Act documents matter when taking on a big project.
• Added that Mills Act should be turned into something people are excited to take advantage of.
• Suggested turning oversight of existing Mills Act contracts to an HPB subcommittee.
Member Walter:
• Reminded that at the last HPB meeting, held in October, the Subcommittee had been given its marching orders. Member Blake would work on the FAQs and he would work
on the financial side, calculating the benefits of having a Mills Act Contract based on
value of property versus reduction in taxes. The idea of better understanding the tax savings achieved through a Mills Act Contract.
• Admitted that COVID-19 slowed them down in their efforts.
• Stated that they would provide what they have completed to Planner Fama and bring it forward at the next meeting.
• Suggested that by June, the draft update document should be review for Council
review, input and comment.
• Opined that the FAQ questions accumulated are as good as they can be. Chair Foulkes:
• Stated the importance of demonstrating to Council the value of having a Mills Act Contract.
• Added that it is equally important to ensure that restoration work done to a historic
home with a Mills Act Contract is done correctly.
• Pointed out that most of the cost of a Mills Act Contract is borne by the State rather than the City. We should be able to show them that these contracts are an investment in our community that doesn’t really cost us anything.
• Admitted that he has come to see that perhaps longer-term contracts may actually make sense. However, they must be project based. It shouldn’t be some discrete problem with a historic structure. Not age and/or shape that needs on-going work.
• Said there may be reason to offer short term, as well as long-term contracts. That
way more owners can take advantage of Mills Act tax savings for important applicable improvements.
• Added that once the qualified restoration efforts have been concluded that Mills Act
contract can go to someone else with applicable projects. Alternately, if a Mills Act
contract holder wants to reapply, they can propose another qualified repair(s).
• Stated that there is need for both short- and long-term contracts. It would offer flexibility.
• Added that each proposed restoration project has a different type of criteria/criterion. Member Walter asked if they could do short and long-term contracts based on specific projects.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 8
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Advised that the Mills Act Contract is issued for a minimum of 10 years.
• Said that there are cities that do limit to 10 or 15 years for a Mills Act contract.
• Said that if the desire is to close the contract at 10 years, HPB would need to issue a termination notice immediately upon issuance of that Mills Act Contract so that
contract would not renew each year for another 10 years, but rather end in 10 years
from the original issuance date. Chair Foulkes said that having differing durations would give the Mills Act program some flexibility.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reminded that per the current proposal a Mills Act Contract would currently renew each year for one additional year (totaling 10 years duration into the future).
Member Blake said that we need to work on that. Member Walter:
• Said that it would be the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Board, City and Council to oversee that.
• Added that the City’s Mills Act contracts need to be looked at as a group each year.
• Said that one option is that on day one of a contract that contract is terminated 10
years without any additional time being added each year. Chair Foulkes asked whether these contracts could revert to a year-to-year standard after 10 years. It is important that these contracts be properly curated. That is an on-going
need.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that is a challenging task.
• Said that efforts were taken to gather all materials associated with existing Mills Act contracts.
• Added that this information is needed in order to make the case for continuing and/or
expanding the Mills Act program.
Member Blake:
• Said that the existing contract owners have been asked to provide their documentation
and receipts for work done together with photographs for work done.
• Stated that any proposed short-term contract should have a beginning and ending date.
• Said that as to long-term contacts, we need to better define what long-term is and
what the holders would need to report out to the City. Member Walter:
• Reminded that right now contracts are for a minimum of 10 years. If HPB/City waits
to year nine, that contract would automatically renew again for another 10 years.
• Said that we would have to stop it (a new 10-year contract) on the first day of the 10-year period.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 9
Chair Foulkes asked if the City would be responsible for that. Planner Daniel Fama:
• Replied no. How it is currently structured by State Law, these contracts are expanded out another year for a total of 10 years forward at all times. Chair Foulkes said that some cities have time-certain contracts.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that some can be, but we need to have an established long-term contract.
• Added that it may be possible for us to do something administratively.
• Concluded that there must be a way to track those things. Chair Foulkes:
• Said that we need a “hammer.”
• Added that we need to explain the “honey” in having a contract.
• Stated the need to give a clear idea of what we look at when selecting a property for
a Mills Act contract.
• Opined that many on the inventory may get excited about the possibility of securing a Mills Act contract.
Member Blake suggested everyone look at the new primary categories that the Subcommittee has proposed. Chair Foulkes:
• Said that there currently seems to be a lapse between the financial benefits of having a contract versus the accountability of what is done with those tax savings.
• Stressed the need to better determine how to market the benefits of a Mills Act
contract so that more property owners of historic homes want to take advantage of it.
• Said they each will share what they have with Planner Fama and cover the material at the next HPB meeting. We can start by going over the FAQ and propose changes to the Mills Act itself.
• Stated the need to refine the material and make it work. It must be flexible and logical enough to follow.
• Asked if anyone has something they’d like to add to the agenda for the next meeting
on February 24, 2021.
Member Blake said no, not tonight. Member Walter replied no.
Member Walter asked staff about the status of recruitment for the fifth member of HPB to fill the seat vacated by Member Kendall. Planned Daniel Fama reported that the notice has been put out by the City Clerk’s Office.
As of yet he has not been informed as to whether there have been any applicants
submitted.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 10
Member Blake said that there are no responses that she has seen and suggested that staff ask the City Clerk about current status.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that he would inquire of the City Clerk if there are any interested parties.
• Added that it will be challenging to find the fifth member. As a CLG (Certified Local
Government) City, Campbell’s HPB is required to have one member on its Board that has either a construction or architectural background. This position to be filled is the opportunity to achieve that requirement. Member Blake offered to put information out on NextDoor about this position and the
required background for those interested in serving. Planner Daniel Fama said that would be great. *** ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 5:57 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for February 24, 2021, at 5:00 PM, using Zoom.
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-01 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING THE 2021
BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.030 (Reviewing authority), the reviewing authority for matters of historic preservation shall be the Historic
Preservation Board ("Board"), the Planning Commission, and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Board shall hold public hearings and meetings as necessary to conform to the requirements of the Campbell Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Board Resolution No. 2017-02, adopted on June 28, 2017, the
Board shall meet every fourth Wednesday at 5:00 PM; and WHEREAS, the November and December Board meetings conflict with nationally recognized holidays; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to cancel the November meeting and reschedule the December meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
hereby adopts the 2021 Board Meeting Schedule (Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 2021, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Board Members: Walter, Blake, and Foulkes
NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: Moore ABSTAIN: Board Members:
APPROVED: Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary
EXHIBIT A HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 2021 MEETING SCHEDULE
• February 24, 2021
• March 24, 2021
• April 28, 2021
• May 26, 2021
• June 23, 2021
• July 28, 2021
• August 25, 2021
• September 22, 2021
• October 27, 2021
• November 24, 2021 – Canceled
• December 8, 2021 – Rescheduled
• January 26, 2022
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
63$5&(/180%(5/276,=( 6) 2&&83$1&< %9%3)38%/,&)$&,/,7<352-(&7'$7$3(50,77('86(6&,7<&2817<67$7(25)('(5$/6758&785(638%/,&6&+22/',675,&7625$1<27+(538%/,&',675,&7:,7+,17+(&,7<*(1(5$/3/$1'(6,*1$7,210,1,080/27$5($ 6) ( )/225$5($5(02'(/(' 6) 3)38%/,&)$&,/,7<,167,787,21$/ 5(675220 /276,=( $&5(6 (;,67,1*)/225$5($ 6) 352326('1(:)/225$5($ 6) 727$/1(:)/225$5($ 6) $//2:$%/(+(,*+7
3(502675(675,&7,9($%877,1*=21(5320$;,080)/225$5($5$7,2)/225$5($5$7,2352326('635,1./(5('126(7%$&.5(48,5(0(176 3(502675(675,&7,9($%877,1*=21( )5217 +$0,/721$9(
)5217 /(,*+$9(
6,'(
5($5
352-(&7'(6&5,37,217+,6352-(&7,192/9(67+(5(/2&$7,212)$1(;,67,1*2)),&(%8,/',1*$7 +$0,/721$9(21727+(&+85&+
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¶65(63216,%,/,7<720$,17$,1&855(17'2&80(176216,7(,1&/8',1*$1<$33529('68%6(48(175(9,6,216727+(3(50,76(7$''(1'$6+23'5$:,1*6$1'68%0,77$/612 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
(;,67,1*%8,
/
'
,
1
*
(;,67,1*%8,
/
'
,
1
*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
(;,67,1*
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
(;,
6
7
,
1
*
6$1&78$5
<(;, 67, 1*
&2
9
(
5
(
'
:
$
/
.
(;,67
,
1
*
%8,/'
,
1
*
(;,67
,
1
*
%8,/'
,
1
*
(;,67
,
1
*
%8,/'
,
1
*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1
*
6
$
1
&
7
8
$
5
<U\KXNGTM°°YL
HRJM °YLHRJM °YLIU[XZ_GXJ °YLHRJM °YLIU\KXKJ°]GRQ °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM
°YLU\KXNGTM
°YLU\KXNGTM
°YLHRJM°YLHRJM °YL+)U )UTIXKZK9GTJ*OXZ*KTYK
°
:
X
K
K
Y
6UUR-XGYY)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY
'YVNGRZ)UTIXK
Z
K
*KTY
K
°
:
X
K
K
Y
)UTI
X
K
Z
K
-XGYY
)UTIXKZK-XGYY*OXZ )UTIXKZK
)UTIX
K
Z
K
*KTYK°:XKKY
-GZK*KTYK°:XKKY'YVN
G
R
Z
-XGYY)UT*KTY
K
°
:
X
K
K
Y
'YVNGRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTY
K
°
:
X
K
K
Y
)UTI
X
K
Z
K
-XGYY
-XGYY
)UTIXKZK*OXZ-XGYY
-XGYY
-XGYY)[XH,RU]KXY([YN
K
Y
°
:
X
K
K
Y
°
6
R
G
T
Z
K
X
Y
'YVNRZ
:XKKY6RGTZKX
Y
-XGYY,RU]KXY:XKKY6RGTZK
X
Y
-XGY
Y
-XGYY
'YVNG
R
Z
=UUJ°,KTIK:_V
°
(
U
Z
N
°
9
O
J
K
:_V
°
(
U
Z
N
°
9
O
J
K
:_V°(UZN°9OJK9OMT6UYZ
9OMT
+(92°6692 9OMT([Y9OMT)UTIXK
Z
K
)UTIXKZK
')°6G\KSKTZ,RU]KXY-XGYY-XGYY
?/+2*<'4<'4<'4
^^^^^^
^^^^^^
^
^^^^^^^^^^
^
^
^^^
^
^
^^^^^^^
^
^
^
^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^
^^^^^
^
^^^
^
^^^d n°')8+9(2/).='?+3+4: ° 8 )'2) )'2) )'2))'2))'2))'2)
)'2) 3'-='9.+89+:°);:° /4°/6
/4
°
/63'-='9.+ );:°>
);:°>9° m °=
9°4° m °+ 95;:. °=4° m °+ 4° m °+ 8# *# m 2#
458:.
4° m °+ 458:.
4° m °+ ,4*°
°
/
6 9°m °+9°4° m °+4° m °+
4° m °+
¬# m 2# 4° m °+
4°m
°
=
,4*°
$9,(:2)(;,67,1*+286(352326('72%(5(/2&$7('%9,(:)520&2857<$5'6,'(:$/.$1'(;,67,1*75((672%(5(029('&9,(:)520&2857<$5'6,'(:$/.'9,(:2)352326('6,7($1'&251(52)&+85&+%8,/',1*(9,(:2)&+85&+)5205($53$5.,1*/27)9,(:)520675((7'5,9(:$<$1'&251(52)&+85&+%8,/',1**9,(:2)&2857<$5')5207+(1257+($67+9,(:2)352326('6,7()5207+(6287+($67$%&)('*+758(1257+6+((75(9,6,216'$7(%UDG&R[$UFKLWHFW,QF/(('$3$,$ 0(5,',$1$9(18(68,7(6$1-26(&$ %5$'/(<-&2;1R&5(1,)7+,6'5$:,1*,6127[7+(1,766,=(+$6%((1$/7(5(':+,&+:,//$))(&77+(6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6'21276&$/('5$:,1*686(*5$3+,&6&$/(67+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(,1)250$7,21(1&/26('+(5(,1,67+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7%5$'&2;$5&+,7(&7,1&$5&+,7('(&761(&,/&$/,)251,)2(7$76$$6,7(3+2726&+85&+2)),&(5(/2&$7,21 +$0,/721$9(6$1-26(&$ 12 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
3+272/2&$7,216
(;,67,1*&29(5(':$/.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67
,
1
*
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*6$1&78$5<(;,67,1*&29(5(':$/.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*6$1&78$5<U\KXNGTM°°YLHRJM°YLHRJM°YLIU[XZ_GXJ °YLHRJM °YLIU\KXKJ°]GRQ °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM°YLHRJM°YLHRJM°YL+*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK')UTIXKZK6U9GTJ*OXZ-XGYY*KTYK°:XKKY6UUR-XGYY)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZKNRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTY6UUR'YVNGRZ)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK-XGYY*OXZ)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY-GZK*KTYK°:XKKY-XGYY'YVNGRZ-XGYY)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY'YVNGRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK'YVNGRZ)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK*OXZ)UTIXKZK-XGYY-XGYY-XGYY)[XH,RU]KXY([YNKY°:XKKY°6RGTZKXY'YVNRZ:XKKY6RGTZKXY-XGYY,RU]KXY:XKKY6RGTZKXY-XGYY-XGYY'YVNGRZ=UUJ°,KTIK:_V°(UZN°9OJK:_V°(UZN°9OJK:_V°(UZN°9OJK9OMT6UYZ9OMT+(92°66929OMT([Y9OMT)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK
')°6G\KSKTZ,RU]KXY-XGYY-XGYY ?/+2*9:56)2+'8)2+1++61++<'4<'4<'4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^d n°')8+9.+2*.+2*.+2*6;(2/)./-.='?+'9+3+4: 58° 8 6;+
9=+3 )'2) )'2) )'2) )'2))'2))'2))'2))'2))'2) 3'-='9.+89+:°);:°,*°°/6, /4°/6
/4°/6
/4°/6 354354
3'-='9.+83'-='9.+8
3'-='9.+ );:°> );:°>354
3'-='9° m °= 9° m °= 4° m °+ 95;:.4° m °+ 9° m °=4° m °+ 4° m °+ 8# *# m 2# 458:. 4° m °+ 458:. 4° m °+ ,4*° °/6,4* °/6,4*354 9°m °+9° m °=4° m °+4° m °+4° m °+¬# m 2# 4° m °+4° m °+ 4°m °= 29° m °=4°m °= 4° m °+ 2 4°m °=4°m °= 4°m °=56+4°/656+4°/6,4*° +$0,/721$9(18(3+$1720$9(18(/(,*+$9(18( 458:. ,4*354('9/9°5,°(+'8/4-9,4*° °/6,4*354 758(1257+1/(,*+$9(18(+$0,/721$9(18(3+$1720$9(18(3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
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
6,7(3/$1'(02/,7,21.(<127(612 127( ( 75((72%(5(029('
123
$5
.
,1
*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*/(,*+$9(18((;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*&29(5(':$/.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*6$1&78$5<(;,67,1*&29(5(':$/.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*6$1&78$5<U\KXNGTM°°YLIU[XZ_GXJ °YLHRJM °YLIU\KXKJ°]GRQ °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM°YLHRJM°YLHRJM°YL+*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK')UTIXKZK6U9GTJ*OXZ-XGYY*KTYK°:XKKY6UUR-XGYY)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZKNRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTY6UUR'YVNGRZ)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK-XGYY*OXZ)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY-GZK*KTYK°:XKKY-XGYY'YVNGRZ-XGYY)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY'YVNGRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK'YVNGRZ)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK*OXZ)UTIXKZK-XGYY-XGYY-XGYY)[XH,RU]KXY([YNKY°:XKKY°6RGTZKXY'YVNRZ:XKKY6RGTZKXY-XGYY,RU]KXY:XKKY6RGTZKXY-XGYY-XGYY'YVNGRZ=UUJ°,KTIK:_V°(UZN°9OJK:_V°(UZN°9OJK:_V°(UZN°9OJK9OMT6UYZ9OMT+(92°66929OMT([Y9OMT)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK
')°6G\KSKTZ,RU]KXY-XGYY-XGYY ?/+2*9:56)2+'8)2+1++61++<'4<'4<'4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^d n°')8+9.+2*.+2*.+2*6;(2/)°./-.='?+'9+3+4: °58° +'? 8 °6;+°
°9=+°3° )'2) )'2) )'2) )'2))'2))'2))'2))'2))'2) 3'-='9.+89+:°);:°,*°°/6, /4°/6
/4°/6
/4°
/6 354354
3'-='9.+83'-='9.+8
3'-='9.+ );:°> );:°>354
3'-='9° m °= 9° m °= 4° m °+ 95;:.4° m °+ 9° m °=4° m °+ 4° m °+ 8# *# m 2# 458:. 4° m °+ 458:. 4° m °+ ,4*° °/6,4* °/6,4*354 9°m °+9° m °=4° m °+4° m °+4° m °+¬# m 2# 4° m °+4° m °+ 4°m °= 29° m °=4° °= 4° m °+ 2 4°m °=4°m °= 4°m °=56+4°/656+4°/6,4*° +$0,/721$9(18(3+$1720$9(18(/(,*+$9(18( 458:. ,4*354('9/9°5,°(+'8/4-9,4*° °/6,4*354 758(1257+1/(,*+$9(18(+$0,/721$9(18(3+$1720$9(18(3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
( 6$1&78$5< ( %8,/',1*352326('2)),&(%8,/',1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*9$1$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*67$//)(1&($72)),&(%$&.<$5' 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 67$//6 352326('3$5.,1* %<27+(56 67$//6 67$//6 ( %8,/',1* ( %8,/',1*
( %8,/',1 *6+((75(9,6,216'$7(%UDG&R[$UFKLWHFW,QF/(('$3$,$ 0(5,',$1$9(18(68,7(6$1-26(&$ %5$'/(<-&2;1R&5(1,)7+,6'5$:,1*,6127[7+(1,766,=(+$6%((1$/7(5(':+,&+:,//$))(&77+(6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6'21276&$/('5$:,1*686(*5$3+,&6&$/(67+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(,1)250$7,21(1&/26('+(5(,1,67+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7%5$'&2;$5&+,7(&7,1& $5&+,7 ('(&761(&,/&$/,)251,)2(7$76$$6,7(3/$1&+85&+2)),&(5(/2&$7,21 +$0,/721$9(6$1-26(&$ 12 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
6,7(3/$1.(<127(612 127( /$1'6&$3,1* *5$66/$:1 &21&5(7(5$03
'1 ( 6$1&78$5< ( %8,/',1* ( %8,/',1* ( %8,/',1* ( %8,/',1* ( %8,/',1*758(1257+$6+((75(9,6,216'$7(%UDG&R[$UFKLWHFW,QF/(('$3$,$ 0(5,',$1$9(18(68,7(6$1-26(&$ %5$'/(<-&2;1R&5(1,)7+,6'5$:,1*,6127[7+(1,766,=(+$6%((1$/7(5(':+,&+:,//$))(&77+(6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6'21276&$/('5$:,1*686(*5$3+,&6&$/(67+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(,1)250$7,21(1&/26('+(5(,1,67+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7%5$'&2;$5&+,7(&7,1&$5&+,7('(&761(&,/&$/,)251,)2(7$76$$&$0386)/2253/$1&+85&+2)),&(5(/2&$7,21 +$0,/721$9(6$1-26(&$
)/2253/$1'(02/,7,2112 '$7( '(6&5,37,21.(<127(612 127(
'1758(1257+
5(&(37,21&/&/
2)),&(
(175<
2)),&([$$3
2)),&(&/)3
&21)(5(1&(
%5($.5220
&23<&(17(5
/,%5$5<
6(1,250,1,67(5
62)),&(%$6(0(17$&&(66325&+ )/86+)/86+'15758(1257+
5(&(37,21
2)),&(
(175<
2)),&(
2)),&(
&21)(5(1&(
%5($.5220
&23<&(17(5
2)),&(
6(1,250,1,67(5
62)),&(67$,5%$6(0(17$&&(66$'$/,)7'(&.325&+67$,5[$$3)851$&(620(:+(5(6+((75(9,6,216'$7(%UDG&R[$UFKLWHFW,QF/(('$3$,$ 0(5,',$1$9(18(68,7(6$1-26(&$ %5$'/(<-&2;1R&5(1,)7+,6'5$:,1*,6127[7+(1,766,=(+$6%((1$/7(5(':+,&+:,//$))(&77+(6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6'21276&$/('5$:,1*686(*5$3+,&6&$/(67+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(,1)250$7,21(1&/26('+(5(,1,67+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7%5$'&2;$5&+,7(&7,1& $5&+,7 ('(&761(&,/&$/,)251,)2(7$76$$(1/$5*(')/2253/$1&+85&+2)),&(5(/2&$7,21 +$0,/721$9(6$1-26(&$ 12 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
)/2253/$1 1(:2)),&(%8,/',1*.(<127(612 127( 3$,17,17(5,25),1,6+7<3,&$/ 3$7&+$1'3$,17(;7(5,25),1,6+7<3,&$/ ( $'$/,)772%(5(029(' ,167$17+27:$7(5+($7(581'(56,1. ( $,5&21',7,21,1*&21'(16(581,7$1'3$'72%(5(/2&$7(' ( ',5(&79(17)851$&(6<67(072%(5(/2&$7('
)LUVW)ORRU ' 1HZ2IILFH%XLOGLQJ
'1123$5
.,
1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*/(,*+$9(18((;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*&29(5(':$/.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*6$1&78$5<(;,67,1*&29(5(':$/.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*6$1&78$5<U\KXNGTM°°YLIU[XZ_GXJ °YLHRJM °YLIU\KXKJ°]GRQ °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM °YLU\KXNGTM°YLHRJM°YLHRJM°YL+*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK')UTIXKZK6U9GTJ*OXZ-XGYY*KTYK°:XKKY6UUR-XGYY)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZKNRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTY6UUR'YVNGRZ)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK-XGYY*OXZ)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY-GZK*KTYK°:XKKY-XGYY'YVNGRZ-XGYY)UTIXKZK*KTYK°:XKKY'YVNGRZ*KTYK°:XKKY*KTYK°:XKKY)UTIXKZK'YVNGRZ)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK-XGYY)UTIXKZK*OXZ)UTIXKZK-XGYY-XGYY-XGYY)[XH,RU]KXY([YNKY°:XKKY°6RGTZKXY'YVNRZ:XKKY6RGTZKXY-XGYY,RU]KXY:XKKY6RGTZKXY-XGYY-XGYY'YVNGRZ=UUJ°,KTIK:_V°(UZN°9OJK:_V°(UZN°9OJK:_V°(UZN°9OJK9OMT6UYZ9OMT+(92°66929OMT([Y9OMT)UTIXKZK)UTIXKZK
')°6G\KSKTZ,RU]KXY-XGYY-XGYY ?/+2*9:56)2+'8)2+1++61++<'4<'4<'4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^d n°')8+9.+2*.+2*.+2*6;(2/)°./-.='?+'9+3+4: °58° +'? 8 °6;+°
°9=+°3° )'2) )'2) )'2) )'2))'2))'2))'2))'2))'2) 3'-='9.+89+:°);:°,*°°/6, /4°/6
/4°/6
/4°/6 354354
3'-='9.+83'-='9.+8
3'-='9.+ );:°> );:°>354
3'-='9° m °= 9° m °= 4° m °+ 95;:.4° m °+ 9° m °=4° m °+ 4° m °+ 8# *# m 2# 458:. 4° m °+ 458:. 4° m °+ ,4*° °/6,4* °/6,4*354 9°m °+9° m °=4° m °+4° m °+4° m °+¬# m 2# 4° m °+4° m °+ 4°m °= 29° m °=4°m °= 4° m °+ 2 4°m °=4°m °= 4°m °=56+4°/656+4°/6,4*° +$0,/721$9(18(3+$1720$9(18(/(,*+$9(18( 458:. ,4*354('9/9°5,°(+'8/4-9,4*° °/6,4*354 9(+,&/(&,5&8/$7,213$7+',5(&7,212)75$9(//(*(1'6+((75(9,6,216'$7(%UDG&R[$UFKLWHFW,QF/(('$3$,$ 0(5,',$1$9(18(68,7(6$1-26(&$ %5$'/(<-&2;1R&5(1,)7+,6'5$:,1*,6127[7+(1,766,=(+$6%((1$/7(5(':+,&+:,//$))(&77+(6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6'21276&$/('5$:,1*686(*5$3+,&6&$/(67+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(,1)250$7,21(1&/26('+(5(,1,67+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7%5$'&2;$5&+,7(&7,1&$5&+,7('(&761(&,/&$/,)251,)2(7$76$$),5(758&.$&&(66&+85&+2)),&(5(/2&$7,21 +$0,/721$9(6$1-26(&$ 12 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
6,7(3/$1
'112
3$5.
,1
*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*HRJM GRQ)UTIXKZKK°:XKKY*KTYK°:XKKYTYK°:XKKY-XGYY-XGYYXGYY,RU]KXY:XKKY9OMT)UTIXKZK
)°6G\KSKTZ,RU]KXY <'4^^^^^^^)'2) );:°> ;
;
;
;
;
;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;
;;758(1257+3523(57</,1(
352326('2)),&(%8,/',1*352326('3$5.,1* %<27+(56 ( %8,/',1*6+((75(9,6,216'$7(%UDG&R[$UFKLWHFW,QF/(('$3$,$ 0(5,',$1$9(18(68,7(6$1-26(&$ %5$'/(<-&2;1R&5(1,)7+,6'5$:,1*,6127[7+(1,766,=(+$6%((1$/7(5(':+,&+:,//$))(&77+(6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6'21276&$/('5$:,1*686(*5$3+,&6&$/(67+,6'5$:,1*$1'7+(,1)250$7,21(1&/26('+(5(,1,67+(3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&7%5$'&2;$5&+,7(&7,1&$5&+,7('(&761(&,/&$/,)251,)2(7$76$$75((6859(< 3527(&7,213/$1&+85&+2)),&(5(/2&$7,21 +$0,/721$9(6$1-26(&$ 12 '$7( '(6&5,37,21
75((3527(&7,213/$175((/2&$7,210$375((,19(1725<
Item No. 3
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Staff Report ∙ February 24, 2021
PLN-2021-23
Babb, M.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Michele Babb for a Modification
(PLN-2021-23) to a previously approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow removal of existing siding to be replaced with
stucco as part of the ongoing construction of an approximately 800 square-foot
rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known
as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue in the R-1-6-H
(Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action:
1.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), denying a Modification (PLN-2021-23) to a
previously approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board find that this project is Statutorily Exempt
under Section 15270(a) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to projects
which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is located on Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard (reference
Attachment 2 – Location Map). The property is developed with a single-family residence, a non-
landmark historic district resource constructed in 1939 in a vernacular style, commonly known as
the Mary Fablinger House. According to the City's current DPR form, the home was constructed for
Mary Fablinger, a Campbell Grammar School teacher (reference Attachment 3).
Background: At its meeting of July 22, 2020, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution
No. 2020-04 approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-110) to allow
construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to the Mary Fablinger House
(reference Attachment 4 – Staff Report). The addition is located entirely behind the structure with
the same shape and massing, extending along an existing building line (reference Attachment 5 –
Approved Project Plans). To maintain the historic integrity of the structure, the approval required
that the new siding be wider than the original as to maintain a differentiation between the old and
new portions of the house.
Proposal: The homeowners have submitted an application for a Modification to allow removal of
the existing siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco for the proposed addition rather
than siding. The applicant has provided a Written Description that explains the reasoning for this
request (reference Attachment 6).
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5
PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
ANALYSIS
Administrative Procedure: The project site is located in the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential /
Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District. Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code (CMC)
Section 21.33.080, an application for an Historic Resource Alteration Permit is required for any
alteration to a landmark or historic district property. Since an Historic Resource Alteration Permit
had already been approved, a change to the approved plans may be considered as a "modification"
to that previous approval.
CMC Sec. 21.56.060 specifies which types of changes to an approved permit may be approved by
staff ("minor") and which must be made by the original decision-making body ("major"). A change
may only be considered "minor" if the following criteria are satisfied. Otherwise, the change must
be considered "major" and cannot be approved by staff. Since the applicant's request conflicts with
the approved plans, as well as a condition of approval requiring siding material to be used, it is
considered a "major" change that must be considered by the Board.
1. Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the spirit and intent of the original
approval; and
2. Do not involve a feature of the project that was:
a. A basis for findings in a negative declaration or environmental impact report for the project,
b. A basis for conditions of approval for the project, or
c. A specific consideration by the decision-making body (e.g., the community development director,
planning commission or City Council) in granting the permit or approval.
Design/Historic Guidelines: Approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit and any
modification therein, requires the Board to find that the project complies with the Campbell
Municipal Code, the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines (hereon "Guidelines") and the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards1 (hereon "Standards"), such that the following findings may be
affirmatively established:
1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the
Municipal Code;
2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the
Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
3. 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; and
4. 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.
1 This is a reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines
for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. This document illustrates the practical
application of the treatment standards for historic properties.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5
PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
Removal of Existing Siding
With regard to removal of the existing siding
material, the Guidelines are quite clear about the need
to maintain existing building materials (excerpt,
right). Where existing materials must be removed, the
Guidelines also indicate that the materials should be
refurbished and incorporated into the finished project.
This guidance is generally consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Standards (reference
Attachment 7 – Excerpt). With respect to cladding
materials, the Standards indicates that "wood features
that are important in defining the overall historic
character of the building (such as siding, cornices,
brackets, window and door surrounds, and steps) and
their paints, finishes, and colors" should be identified,
retained, and preserved.
Moreover, the Standards recommend against
"altering wood features which are important in
defining the overall historic character of the building
so that, as a result, the character is diminished,"
"replacing historic wood features instead of repairing
or replacing only the deteriorated wood," or
"changing the type of finish, coating, or historic color
of wood features".
For additional context of this request, included as Attachment 8 is a 2017 historic assessment of
the property prepared for a previous proposal. This report describes the existing cladding materials:
The walls of the home are clad with a two-piece horizontal wood siding that consists of a dropped channel
board placed above a standard bevel lap board. At the front gable and along the porch beam frieze of the shed
roof, vertical boards with a shallow scalloped end have been placed to add visual interest. In the apex of the
front gable, within the vertical scalloped boards above the front bedroom window, is a small rectangular
wooden louvered attic vent. This front vent and the eyebrow roof ventilators appear to be original to the home;
the turbine attic ventilator was a later addition.
Based on the existing conditions and the property's location on Alice Avenue, the historic
assessment makes a determination as to the property's significance:
The house retains its integrity to the original form and construction, and would appear to be eligible
for the listing in a National Register district as a contributor under Criterion A, as it is consistent with
the historic development pattern of the neighborhood and period of significance, and contributes to
the setting of the local Alice Avenue Historic District.
In sum, the two primary guiding documents for the Board to consider both strongly discourage
removal of the existing siding material, particularly given its documented historical significance.
Moreover, if the existing siding were dilapidated, the Guidelines would require reuse of any
salvageable material and replacement with new material having a similar visual characteristic as the
existing material. In this regard, replacement with stucco would not be considered appropriate.
Therefore, staff cannot support removal of the existing siding as such an action would be contrary
to the aforementioned findings of approval.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5
PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
Use of Stucco for the Approved Addition
As noted, last year's Board approval for the addition was
contingent on the addition being clad in siding. Consistent with
both the Guidelines and Standards, this new siding was intended
to be wider than the original to clearly differentiate between the
original and new portions of the home. The applicant has indicated
a desire to use stucco for the new portion of the house, as well as
contending that the new siding would need to be custom made
because the off-the-shelf product would be double the size of the
existing material (arguably, the sample siding piece shown to staff
on a recent site visit does not look out of scale).
The Guidelines indicate that additions "should maintain a compatible relationship with the rest of
the home in size, scale, use of materials, craftsmanship, and overall visual appearance." Similarly,
the Standards state that "new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment." The Standards also indicate that "there is no formula or prescription for
designing a compatible new addition….nor is there generally only one possible design approach that
will meet the Standards" and that "there must be a balance between differentiation and compatibility
to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged."
This guidance provides a broader framework when considering new materials for an addition2.
Stucco and siding materials are often combined in new development, albeit not in such a linear
manner. However, the City's "best practice" has been to require new siding of a different width for
a reason. This approach provides the greatest level of architectural consistency while also clearly
delineating historic and new construction. Stuccoing the addition while maintaining the existing
siding could result in an awkward appearance—visible from Winchester Boulevard—that could
diminish the historic integrity of the house.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff has prepared a draft alternative placeholder resolution (reference Attachment 9) that may be
used to approve the applicant's request in whole or in part. The following alternatives may be
considered. In making a motion to approve an alternative, the Board should also identify the
reasoning for the decision so that it may be documented in the findings.
1. Approve the Request in Whole: This option would allow removal of the existing siding
and allow the whole house to be stuccoed.
2. Approve the Request in Part: This option would allow the addition to be stuccoed but
require the existing siding material to be retained.
3. Allow Removal and Replacement of the Siding: To address the applicant's concern about
insulation and heating, an option that could be considered would be to allow removal of the
existing siding and replacement with new siding. This would allow new insulation to be
installed in the existing walls while maintaining an "original" appearance.
2 The juxtaposition of a glass curtain wall with historic brick is an example of a stark material differences that still
may maintain historic integrity (see 178 Townsend St., San Francisco).
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5
PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Location Map
3. DPR Form
4. HPB Staff Report, dated July 22, 2020
5. Approved Project Plans
6. Written Description
7. Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Excerpt)
8. Historic Assessment (2017)
9. Alternate Resolution
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-02 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING A MODIFICATION
(PLN-2021-23) TO AN APPROVED TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2020-12) TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF EXISTING SIDING TO BE REPLACED WITH STUCCO AND/OR USE OF STUCCO FOR AN APPROVED 800 SQUARE-FOOT REAR
ADDITION TO AN ALICE AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MARY FABLINGER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 20 ALICE AVENUE IN THE R-1-6-H (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / HISTORIC OVERLAY) COMBINING ZONING DISTRICT.
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 PLN-2021-23:
1. The project site is a 7,371 square-foot single-family residential property located on Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard, within the Alice Avenue Historic District.
2. The project site is located within the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District as shown on the City of Campbell Zoning Map.
3. The project site is designated Low Density Residential on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The project site is developed with a single-family residence, a non-landmark historic district resource constructed in 1938 in a vernacular style, commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House.
5. At its meeting of July 22, 2020, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2020-04 approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition. Based on this action, the Community Development Director issued a Zoning Clearance for Building Permit No. BLD-2020-1014.
6. To maintain the historic integrity of the Mary Fablinger House, approval of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) required that the addition be clad in new siding wider than the original as to maintain a differentiation between the old and new portions of the house.
7. The Proposed Project is an application for a Modification (PLN-2021-23) to the
approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow removal of existing siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco for an approved 800 square-foot rear addition.
8. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1)) requires that any alteration to a landmark or historic district property
be reviewed through an Historic Resource Alteration Permit.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-02 Page 2 of 4 PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
9. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.56.060, an amendment to an approved project may be considered as a "minor" or "major" change based on the provided criteria. A "minor" change may be approved by the Community Development Director whereas a
"major" change must be considered by the decision-making body that originally
approved the permit in the same manner as the original permit or approval.
10. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.080, a request for an Historic Resource Alteration Permit—or a Modification in the case of the subject request—is considered by the Historic Preservation Board in a public hearing conducted in compliance with CMC
Chapter 21.64. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Board shall provide a
recommendation for approval or denial to the decision-making body.
11. A recommendation for denial by the Historic Preservation Board, based on the inability to affirmatively establish the findings provided in CMC Section 21.33.080.C, precludes the issuance of a Zoning Clearance by the Community Development
Director in that the proposal would not comply with all applicable standards and
provisions for the category of use in the zoning district of the subject parcel, as specified by CMC Section 21.40.030. Such a determination is final and not appealable pursuant to CMC Section 21.62.020.D.
12. The administrative remedy for denial of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is
submittal for a Tier 2 Historic Resource Alteration Permit pursuant to CMC Section
21.33.090.
13. With regard to existing building materials, the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines provides the following guidance:
a. The existing materials and the method in which they are applied substantially
relate the period historical style and character of that building. It is important
to identify, retain, and preserve these character defining materials whenever possible. Materials such as brick, stone, wood clapboard siding, stucco, shingle siding, along with design elements such as brackets, cornices, shutters, columns, and balustrades, collectively provide the fabric of that
building and reveal a great deal about the local traditions and cultural values
during that period of the community’s development.
b. If it is necessary to remove significant materials and architectural features, it is important to remove them carefully and refurbish them so they can be reincorporated into the finished project. If the elements must be replaced it is
recommended that similar methods and materials be used so the
replacement elements closely match the original.
14. With regard to existing building materials, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards provides the following guidance:
a. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-02 Page 3 of 4 PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
b. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
c. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken
in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
15. The Proposed Project would result in both the loss of existing building material (siding) and a replacement material (stucco) not having a similar visual characteristic as the existing material. Further, use of stucco rather than siding as cladding for the
approved addition would not maintain a compatible relationship with the rest of the
home.
16. The Proposed Project would not 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.
Policy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing
character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics
Policy LUT-20.1b: Building Patterns: Ensure that new development is designed to blend in with
the existing building patterns of the neighborhood. For example, if the majority of the garages on the street are at the rear of the site, the new building should be designed to accommodate a rear garage.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and
concludes that:
Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080):
1. The proposed action is not consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
2. The proposed action is not consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including,
but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
3. The proposed action will have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district;
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-02 Page 4 of 4 PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
4. The proposed action is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows:
a. The proposed action will not 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 not avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource.
c. Deteriorated historic features will not be repaired rather than replaced to the
greatest extent possible.
d. New additions will not be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
5. This project is Statutorily Exempt under Section 15270(a) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board denies approval of
a Modification (PLN-2021-23) to an approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit
(PLN-2020-12) recommending that the Community Development Director deny issuance of a Zoning Clearance to allow removal of existing siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco for an approved 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice
Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members:
ABSENT: Board Members:
ABSTAIN: Board Members:
APPROVED: Mike Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary
188 This map is based on GIS Information and reflects the most current
information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for reference
purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors.
Location Map - 20 Alice Ave
2,257Campbell IT, GIS Services
376
1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet
3760
Scale
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: Mary Fablinger 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 Sec ; B.M. c. Address 20 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., as appropriate) APN: 412-04-052 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Historic Single-Family Residence. This channel rustic clad Vernacular residence has a rectangular floor plan. Covered with composition shingles, the hipped roof has a small gabled awning. The eaves are overhanging with exposed rafter tails. The façade includes a detail within the front gable of vertical scalloped boards. The partial porch is recessed and its shed roof is supported by square posts. There is a continuation of the scalloped detail on the frieze of the porch. The side and one front window are all one-over-one double-hung, while the front gable has new vinyl-clad fixed window. The building is intact and in good condition with a detached single garage and light landscaping. *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 1939 *P7. Owner and Address: Scott Brooks, Et Al *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) G. Laffey, Archives & Architecture 3553 Surber Dr. San Jose, CA 95130 *P9. Date Recorded: September 1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Inventory Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Phone interview, Martin C. Shadle, owner (February 13, 1978) by Tom M. King. Initial notes taken by Tom M. King (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
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP 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
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name: Mary Fablinger House
B2. Common Name: Mary Fablinger House
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Built, 1939.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage
B9a. Architect: Samuel E. Barth, not an Architect b. Builder: Joseph Astrita
*B10. Significance: Theme 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.
House built for Mary Fablinger, Campbell Grammar School teacher. John Brown’s son-in-law, who
we called “Grandpa” Fablinger, was a Custodian for Campbell High School (1947-September 31,
1976). Martin C. Schadle worked for Navy as aircraft Inspector. Then service station for 28
years. Mary Fablinger was 6th or 7th grade teacher of Mr. Martin C. Schadle. Parents of Martin
C. Schadle bought the house and he has lived there since 1947.
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.)
Item No. 4
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Staff Report ∙ JULY 22, 2020
PLN-2020-12
Keyhankhadiv,
B.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Barzin Keyhankhadiv for a Tier
1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow construction of
an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic
District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20
Alice Avenue in the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay)
Combining Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Historic Preservation Board take following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit (PLN-2020-12).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board find that this project is Categorically
Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: R-1-6-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay)
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre)
Net Lot Area: 7,371 square-feet
Gross Lot Area: 8,621 square-feet
Density: 5.2 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max. Allowed)
Building Height: 14 ¼ feet 28 feet (Max. Allowed)
Building Square Footage:
Existing Living Area: 944 square feet
Proposed Living Area: 804 square feet
1,748 square feet (Total House Size)
Detached Garage: 257 square feet
2,005 square feet (Total Building Area)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .27 (2,005 sq. ft) .45 (3,316 sq. ft.) (Max. Allowed)
Building (Lot) Coverage: 28% (2,063 sq. ft.) 40% (2,948 sq. ft.) (Max. Allowed)
Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces (Min. Required)
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 3
PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
Setbacks: Proposed Required
Front (north): 28 feet 20 feet
Side (west): 5 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
Side (east): 17 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
Rear (south): 44 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is located on Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard (reference
Attachment 2 – Location Map). The property is developed with a single-family residence, a non-
landmark historic district resource constructed in 1939 in a vernacular style, commonly known as
the Mary Fablinger House. According to the City's current DPR form, the home was constructed for
Mary Fablinger, a Campbell Grammar School teacher (reference Attachment 3).
Background: On November 28, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit
with an Historic Exception to allow a 950 square-foot addition and a new detached garage for the
subject property.1 This approval expired without a building permit being issued.
Proposal: The applicant has applied for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-
110) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to Mary Fablinger
House. The addition would accommodate two additional bedrooms and bathrooms, as well as a
walk-in laundry room (reference Attachment 4 – Project Plans).
ANALYSIS
Zoning District: The project site is located in the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic
Overlay) Combining Zoning District. As indicated under 'Project Data', the proposed addition
conforms to applicable development standards. Additionally, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code
Section 21.33.080, an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is required for
any alteration to a landmark or historic district property.
General Plan: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential
(less than 6 units per gross acre). The proposed project would be consistent with the following
General Plan Land Use policies and strategies by respecting the built environment and maintaining
the historic integrity of an historic structure.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial
additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development
pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and
neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics
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-20.1b: Building Patterns: Ensure that new development is designed to blend in with the existing
building patterns of the neighborhood. For example, if the majority of the garages on the
street are at the rear of the site, the new building should be designed to accommodate a
rear garage.
1 The former Historic Preservation Ordinance required a Conditional Use Permit for any alterations to a landmark or
historic district structure.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 3
PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
Design/Historic Guidelines: Approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit requires the
Board to find that the project complies with the Campbell Municipal Code and the Historic Design
Guidelines (http://bit.ly/CampbellHDG), and would not have a "significant impact" on the historic
resource. Additionally, the project must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards such
that the decision-making body can affirmatively find:
(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.
The proposed addition would be located entirely behind the structure with the same shape and
massing, extending along an existing building line. Materially, the addition would incorporate
matching roofing, wood siding, trim, and windows as the existing residence. However, to maintain
the historic integrity of the structure, the plans indicate that the new siding will be wider than the
original as to maintain a differentiation between old and new. In total, the proposed addition would
not adversely impact the existing structure in keeping with the Historic Design Guidelines and
Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Location Map
3. DPR Form
4. Project Plans
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
20 ALICE AVE., CAMPBELL, CA 95008APN: 412-04-052ADDITION & REMODELING FOR:xxxxxxxx
“”’
February 9, 2021
Re: 20 Alice Ave., Campbell CA 95008
Dear City of Campbell Historic Committee Members:
I write this letter in response to Daniel Farma’s request for a written statement
explaining why I would like to replace the existing panel siding on my home with stucco.
I have paid the application fee, and Daniel has agreed to publish a newspaper
advertisement.
The reasons that I would like to replace the existing panel with stucco are as follows:
1. Heating and Cooling Issues: The original part of my home was built in 1939
without any installation in the walls. The walls consist of the plaster walls,
frame, and the panel siding is hung directly on the frame with chicken wife.
There is no insulation between the plaster walls, home frame, and the home
siding. As a result, the home is very difficult to keep warm in the winter and
very difficult to keep cool in the summer. Last summer, I had to send my
son to live with his father for a week because it was so hot that the new air
conditioner which I installed about a year ago could not keep the home cool
enough to sleep comfortably. There were months this past summer where
it would cost me approximately $400 to cool my approximately 900 square
foot home. The home is not energy efficient and this is not good for the
environment. In fact, PG&E has sent me notices about my energy usage,
but to date, there has been nothing that I have been able to do to remedy
this situation. However, during construction of the addition to my home,
my contractor, Reza, of Aria Build and Construction, informed me that if I
were to add stucco on the existing siding of the home, it would significantly
impact the heating and cooling situation by creating an additional level of
insulation on the exterior of the home.
2. Adding Insulation to the Existing Walls Would Cause Significant Damage at
Significant Expense. Because the interior of the existing home is plaster and
the exterior is frame, chicken wire and panel siding, the only place that I am
currently able to put insulation in the existing portion of the home is the
attic. To add insulation to the walls of the home would require destroying
the plaster walls and spending tens of thousands of additional dollars in
demolition and repairs. Also, I already had insulation installed in the attic
when I moved into the home in 2018 and doing so provided little if any
noticeable relief with the heating and cooling situation.
3. Decreased Value of Home: The original part of my home was built in 1939
and the wood panel is no longer being constructed. The closest wood panel
that my contractor could find is nearly double in size and would be an eye
sore for anyone viewing the home from the street (my home can be seen
from Winchester) and any future buyer, and as such, would significantly
decrease the value of the home and Alice community. On the other hand,
adding stucco to the home will align with many of the other homes on the
street and add value to the entire Alice community. Furthermore, other
than adding stucco to the siding, I intend to fully keep the farmhouse style
of the home with the round edge panels and shutters, and my contractor
has confirmed that this is possible to do.
4. Significant Additional Unforeseen Cost: The only way we can move
forward with putting panel siding on the outside of my home is to have it
custom made. At the time that I applied for the permit and received
approval from the Historic Committee to proceed with my building plans,
neither my contractor nor I were aware that we would need to have the
paneling custom made. This is a significant unforeseen cost to my
contractor.
5. Additional Delays in Completing Addition: Having the panel custom made
will also result in significant delays to the completion of the addition itself,
continuing to make our living situation untenable. I applied for the permit
to build the home in September of 2019. Due to significant delays, partially
due to covid‐19 delays during the permitting and approval process, it has
been over a year and a half since my initial application and, although my
contractor has made quick and significant progress over the last couple of
months since I received the building permit, the home addition has not
been completed and is not yet livable. My fiancé and I have four children
and a dog, and five or us are currently living in the existing two‐bedroom,
one bathroom home, while we wait for the addition to be completed. My
21‐year old daughter is moving home in April to live with us (because of the
continued covid‐19 remote learning situation), making our living situation‐‐if
the addition is not completed before April‐‐even more untenable. My
fiancé and I have been sleeping on the living room couch this entire time as
we wait for the addition to be completed. We really would like to be able to
complete the addition as soon as possible, so that we can please move into
the new additional space. We request to move forward with the stucco,
which can be started immediately, to avoid the additional delays associated
with waiting for the custom siding to be made.
Based on the foregoing five reasons, I am requesting permission to add stucco siding to
my existing home and addition.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and time.
Sincerely,
Michele Babb
PRESERVATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Identifying, retaining, and preserving wood features that are
important in defining the overall historic character of the building
(such as siding, cornices, brackets, window and door surrounds,
and steps) and their paints, finishes, and colors.
Altering wood features which are important in defining the overall
historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character
is diminished.
Replacing historic wood features instead of repairing or replacing
only the deteriorated wood.
Changing the type of finish, coating, or historic color of wood fea
tures
[4] Hand scraping
to remove peeling paint from wood
siding in preparation for repainting is an
important part of regularly-scheduled
maintenance.
WOOD 37
PRESERVATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Stabilizing deteriorated or damaged wood as a preliminary mea
sure, when necessary, prior to undertaking preservation work.
Failing to stabilize deteriorated or damaged wood until additional
work is undertaken, thereby allowing further damage to occur to the
historic building.
Protecting and maintaining wood features by ensuring that his
toric drainage features that divert rainwater from wood surfaces
(such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are intact and
functioning properly. Finding and eliminating sources of moisture
that may damage wood features, such as clogged gutters and
downspouts, leaky roofs, or moisture-retaining soil that touches
wood around the foundation.
Failing to identify and treat the causes of wood deterioration, such
as faulty flashing, leaking gutters, cracks and holes in siding, dete
riorated caulking in joints and seams, plant material growing too
close to wood surfaces, or insect or fungal infestation.
Finding and eliminating sources of moisture that may damage
wood features, such as clogged gutters and downspouts, leaky
roofs, or moisture-retaining soil that touches wood around the
foundation.
Applying chemical preservatives or paint to wood features that are
subject to weathering, such as exposed beam ends, outriggers, or
rafter tails.
Using chemical preservatives (such as creosote) which, unless they
were used historically, can change the appearance of wood features.
[5] Rotted wood shingles have been replaced in
kind with matching wood shingles.
38 WOOD
PRESERVATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Implementing an integrated pest management plan to identify Stripping paint or other coatings from wood features without
appropriate preventive measures to guard against insect damage, recoating.
such as installing termite guards, fumigating, and treating with
chemicals. Retaining coatings (such as paint) that protect the
wood from moisture and ultraviolet light. Paint removal should be
considered only when there is paint surface deterioration and as
part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting
or applying other appropriate coatings
Removing damaged or deteriorated paint to the next sound layer Using potentially-damaging paint-removal methods on wood sur
using the gentlest method possible (e.g., hand scraping and hand faces, such as open-flame torches, orbital sanders, abrasive meth
sanding) prior to repainting. ods (including sandblasting, other media blasting, or high-pressure
water), or caustic paint-removers.
Removing paint that is firmly adhered to wood surfaces.
Using chemical strippers primarily to supplement other methods Failing to neutralize the wood thoroughly after using chemical paint
such as hand scraping, hand sanding, and thermal devices. removers so that new paint may not adhere.
Removing paint from detachable wood features by soaking them in
a caustic solution which can roughen the surface, split the wood, or
result in staining from residual acid leaching out through the wood.
Using biodegradable or environmentally-safe cleaning or paint-
removal products.
Using paint-removal methods that employ a poultice to which
paint adheres, when possible, to neatly and safely remove old
lead paint.
Using a thermal device to remove paint from wood features without
first checking for and removing any flammable debris behind them.
Using thermal devices (such as infrared heaters) carefully to
remove paint when it is so deteriorated that total removal is nec
essary prior to repainting.
Using thermal devices without limiting the amount of time the
wood feature is exposed to heat.
WOOD 39
PRESERVATION
WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
Using coatings that encapsulate lead paint, when possible, where
the paint is not required to be removed to meet environmental
regulations.
Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted
wood following proper surface preparation.
Failing to follow manufacturers’ product and application instruc
tions when repainting wood features.
Repainting historically-painted wood features with colors that are
appropriate to the building or district.
Using paint colors on historically-painted wood features that are not
appropriate to the building or district.
Protecting adjacent materials when working on wood features. Failing to protect adjacent materials when working on wood fea
tures.
Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to determine whether
more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to wood
features, will be necessary.
Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of
wood features.
Repairing wood by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise
reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods.
Removing wood that could be stabilized, repaired, and conserved,
or using untested consolidants, improper repair techniques, or
unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to historic
materials.
The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the greatest degree of intervention generally recommended within the treatment
Preservation, and should only be considered after protection, stabilization, and repair concerns have been addressed.
Limited Replacement in Kind
Replacing in kind (i.e., with wood, but not necessarily the same
species) extensively deteriorated or missing components of wood
features when there are surviving prototypes, such as brackets,
molding, or sections of siding, or when the replacement can be
based on documentary or physical evidence. The new work should
match the old in material, design, scale, color, and finish
Replacing an entire wood feature, such as a column or stairway,
when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing components
is appropriate.
Using replacement material that does not match the historic wood
feature.
40 WOOD
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA
Historic Review and Project Summary
Prepared for
Birch Tree Property Solutions, LLC 9000 Crow Canyon Road, Suite S #303
Danville, CA 94506
145 Corte Madera Town Center # 404, Corte Madera, CA 94925 North Bay
Phone: 415.924.7059, South Bay Phone: 650.941.8048
Website: www.msandovalarchitect.com, Email:msa@msandovalarchitects.com
May 17, 2017
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M.Sandoval Architects, Inc.Date: May 17, 2017 Page 1
Figure 1: Drawing of the proposed new room addition to the Historic Mary Fablingner House as viewed from Alice Avenue.
BACKGROUND
The Mary Fablinger House (circ. 1939) is located at 20 Alice Avenue and typifies many of the modest
rustic clad vernacular, single story residences built within the Santa Clara Valley from 1930’s through the
late 1940’s. This small two-bedroom home was designed on a simple rectangular floor plan with a recessed porch covered with a composition shingle.
Along the southern property line, a narrow paved alleyway connects South First Street to Winchester
Boulevard to the west. A small detached garage structure with a shallow-sloped, asymmetrical gable roof is placed at the rear of the home; next to the neighboring west property line. A few feet beyond the rear
wall of this structure is a large pepper tree (approximately 28 inches in circumference), seems to be the
only significant tree remaining on this relatively flat, narrow, rectangular-shaped lot.
The walls of the home are clad with a two-piece horizontal wood siding that consists of a dropped channel
board placed above a standard bevel lap board. At the front gable and along the porch beam frieze of the shed roof, vertical boards with a shallow scalloped end have been placed to add visual interest. In the apex of the front gable, within the vertical scalloped boards above the front bedroom window, is a small
rectangular wooden louvered attic vent. This front vent and the eyebrow roof ventilators appear to be original to the home; the turbine attic ventilator was a later addition.
The original roof construction of the home appears to have been redwood shingle applied over roof felt
that was attached to spaced 1 x 6 wood sheathing; ½-inch plywood sheathing was applied over the original roof sheathing at the time the composition shingle roof was installed. All tail rafters are exposed
to view with solid roof sheathing with tongue and groove-milled decking placed between. All roof gutters
have a cyma reversa or ogee profile and connecting rectangular downspouts attached to the building with diamond-shaped galvanized straps that seem to be original.
Fenestration includes one-over-one, double-hung wooden windows of various sizes with a fixed picture
window placed in the living room wall at the front entry porch. Unfortunately, all of the original wood sash windows had been replaced with newer manufactured retrofit vinyl windows. All window trim,
including the applied backband molding edge trim and sills within each opening, appears to be original.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 2
Fixed wooden louvered shutters have been placed at each side of the two front windows facing the street. Both the main entrance door and rear door are not original to the home.
One brick masonry fireplace, is located along the east façade and centered in the wall between two one-over-one windows in the living room. The chimney has been stepped inwardly from its masonry brick
base, and rises past the roofline (separating the roof at the eave line), and is capped with a terracotta flue
at the top.
On the primary north street elevation, the house is accessed through a covered entry porch that’s situated
in front of the living room picture window. The scored concrete porch is a small, rectangular, and painted
red, and has a scored brick edge boarder. At the rear elevation of the home, the door leading from the utility space to the back yard has been placed in the center of the wall. Attached to the right side of the
door jamb is a narrow elongated mulled one-over-one double- hung window. Continuing along the face of
this wall towards the driveway, is the corner window of the eating nook. To the left of the rear door and centered within the wall another one-over-one double-hung window of similar size serves to provide the
cross-ventilation air flow to the back bedroom space. Below the door is small square concrete stoop with steps that lead to the narrow concrete walkway that terminates at the asphalt driveway. To the left side of the driveway and extending towards the street is a narrow concrete walk. At the right, a concrete curb
defines the landscape area that separates the neighboring property to the east.
SIGNIFICANCE
The Mary Fablinger House is within the original Hyde Residence Park, which consist of 48 lots created
along Alice Avenue in 1915. “The neighborhood’s vernacular architecture reflects the made-in-Campbell pride that typified the town sprit when it was a fruit canning and packing center.”1
The California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) found that the district might be eligible for
the National Register but had not yet been adequately documented. The house retains its integrity to the original form and construction, and would appear to be eligible for the listing in a National Register
district as a contributor under Criterion A, as it is consistent with the historic development pattern of the
neighborhood and period of significance, and contributes to the setting of the local Alice Avenue Historic District.2
ALICE AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT3
According to the 2003 historic context statement for the Alice Avenue Historic District prepared by
Archives and Architecture, Alice Avenue, comprises a single residential street which is located in Campbell, California at the south of the city’s downtown core. The neighborhood that is associated with this street developed between 1915 and 1975, with most of the development occurring between 1917
through 1940. In the 1970s, when the City of Campbell first began to survey their heritage resources, most of the
properties on Alice Avenue were identified as having historical value. When Campbell formalized its inventory of historical resources in the mid-1980s, the neighborhood was found to have significance as an identifiable district; many of the properties were recorded at that time on State of California historic
recordation forms. In 1987, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) reviewed the
1 DPR53A Continuation Sheet, prepared September 1998 (Page 2) 2 Ibid 3 Archives and Architecture, Alice Avenue Historic Context Statement, Prepared as part of the 2003 Campbell Historic Resource
Inventory Update for the City of Campbell Community Development Department, December 11, 2003
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 3
documentation and indicated that the potential existed for the establishment of a historic district that could be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This register of about 77,000 properties across the
United States, maintained by the National Park Service, is the Nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation, and includes properties significant in American history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture. Although OHP saw the potential for a historic district, the State Historic
Preservation Officer also indicated in the evaluation that a context statement had yet to be developed for the district.
Subsequent to the mid-1980s historic district survey, the Campbell City Council designated under
Ordinance 1640, the Alice Avenue Historic District which identified the properties located on both sides of Alice Avenue from Winchester Boulevard to South First Street, and included three additional small
parcels on South Third and South First Streets that were included in the original 1915 subdivision, but
developed under later lot splits.
BACKGROUND
THE HYDE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY: 1915–1923
On both sides of the drying yard, the immediately adjacent areas were subdivided into housing lots in 1904, the Sunnyside tract to the south and the Curtis subdivision to the north.
Figure 2: Aerial view from 1945 taken of the Geo. E. Hyde fruit canning facility and the homes built within the area at the time. Photograph courtesy of the Campbell
History Museum. THE HYDE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY: 1915–1923
On both sides of the drying yard, the immediately adjacent areas were subdivided into housing lots in 1904, the Sunnyside tract to the south and the Curtis subdivision to the north.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 4
In the summer of 1915, the Hyde Improvement Company (HICo) had the area between the Sunnyside and Curtis tracts surveyed and recorded with the County of Santa Clara as Hyde Residence Park, 48 house lots
between Winchester Boulevard and First Street. The President of HICo was Ralph H. Hyde, a real estate broker and son of George E. Hyde.
A few days later after the tract map was recorded, on Friday, July 2, 1915, members of the Hyde
Investment Company (HICo) held an afternoon reception to officially open the tract lots for sale. Some initial work had been done to prepare the tract, but the lots were not truly ready to be built upon. The
report of the opening of the tract in the July 9, 1915, Campbell Press reported that a nursery occupied the
west end of the tract. The sidewalks, curbing, and street were laid out, but could not be completed until the nursery trees were removed. The HICo promised that the trees could be removed immediately if the
lots were sold.
Deed records indicate that Ralph Hyde and his investment company did not own Hyde Residential Park outright at the time the lots were first offered for sale. Local businessmen, such as Ralph’s father and
father-in-law, held most of the lots in trust. When Ralph Hyde paid off a note, he offered those lots for sale to the public.
Ralph H. Hyde purchased the first lot from the HICo on July 14, 1915. At the beginning of 1917, Hyde
began to build on his lot, and on March 27, 1917, the family moved into 227 Alice Avenue, the first house completed on the street. Alice Avenue, also frequently referred to as Alice Way, was named after Ralph’s mother, Alice Hyde.
On July 27, 1915, Hyde deeded one lot to Santa Clara County, which allowed First Street to be extended to Sunnyside Avenue to the south; this work was completed a short time later.
Housing materials were in short supply during World War I, and Hyde did not sell another lot in Hyde
Residence Park until Walter B. Jones purchased a lot on June 14, 1920. Jones was a boyhood friend of George Hyde when they grew up in Benicia, California. Jones and his wife Annie Hall Jones lived in San
Francisco until 1917, when they moved to Campbell and rented a house on Sunnyside Avenue from
George Hyde. Mr. Jones ordered an Aladdin pre-cut house, which arrived by train and was assembled at 51 Alice Ave.
FIRST ALICE AVENUE BUILDING BOOM: 1923–1924
The building boom of 1923 and 1924 in Campbell and throughout Santa Clara County resulted in six new houses on Alice Avenue (59, 86, 99, 119, 146, and 177 Alice Ave.).
SECOND ALICE AVENUE BUILDING BOOM: 1927-1931
A second housing boom in 1927 saw seven new houses appear along the street (50, 76, 81, 116, 167, 199, 226 Alice Ave.). A Sanborn map corrected to July 1928 shows the 16 houses that had been built. A
garage house also appears at 158 Alice Ave., but it is not yet known who built or resided in that house. Three more houses (35 and 69 Alice Ave., 235 S. First St.) were built before the economic effects of the depression of the 1930s put a temporary halt to new house construction.
PRE-WAR PERIOD: 1937–1941
Building resumed in 1937, when Maud Hyde jumpstarted construction activity by having built the only
speculative house on the block, at 158 Alice Ave., by contractor William H. O’Neill. Sixteen houses (20,
21, 30, 38, 58, 133,136, 158, 166, 176, 186, 189, 198, and 204 Alice Ave., 189 and 190 S. Third St.) were built in the pre-war period from 1937 until 1941.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 5
In the early years on Alice Avenue, before 1927, the garage was sometimes built first, and the property owners lived in it a season or two until funds and materials for the house proper could be saved. Based on
many building announcements in the Campbell Press during this period, this practice was prevalent throughout downtown Campbell.
Sometimes a lot with only a garage would be sold before the house could be built. For instance, this ad
appeared in the Campbell Press on March 9, 1923: “In Hyde’s residence tract, a lot with nice double garage suitably arranged for housekeeping. Inquire at Miller’s Store, Campbell, Calif.” Mrs. Grace Miller
had purchased the lot at 199 Alice Ave. in August 1922, built the garage, and then sold the lot the
following spring. Another garage arranged for housekeeping was built at 59 Alice Ave. in 1924. Marion Jones married Clarence Plumm in June 1924, and the couple built a garage home on the lot adjoining
Marion’s parents. The house remained in its original condition until a subsequent owner expanded it in
1976.
The architectural styles evident in the Alice Avenue neighborhood consist of conventional, modest
residential designs typical of single-family construction from the early- to mid-twentieth century. None of the houses exhibits extraordinarily high-style architectural design; however, many of the buildings feature distinctive characteristics of recognized styles. Some of the houses are more vernacular in nature, with
very limited stylistic elements. The houses in the Alice Avenue neighborhood include examples of the Craftsman Bungalow, Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, Spanish Eclectic, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch styles.
When Alice Avenue was opened in 1915, Campbell was about to build a new schoolhouse, a six-room schoolhouse on Fourth Street near Rincon Avenue designed by architect Frank D. Wolfe. It replaced
earlier schoolhouses built in 1889 and 1896. The 1916 grammar school was quickly outgrown in 1921
when the Hamilton, San Tomas, Meridian, and Campbell schools merged into the Campbell Union School District. Designed by architect William H. Weeks, the Campbell Union Grammar School (CUGS),
at the northeast corner of Campbell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard, was dedicated in February 1923.
With the opening of the new school, nearby Alice Avenue became a convenient place for faculty houses. Marion Jones Plumm Trowbridge arrived before the school did. She moved to 51 Alice Ave. with her
parents in 1920. Mrs. Trowbridge would teach fifth grade for many years. Next was the school district superintendent, Ira Abbott, who moved to Campbell from Livermore when he was hired in August 1924. He spent a few years living on the school grounds before he built his house at 116 Alice Ave. In the
building boom of the late 1930s, four members of his faculty had houses erected in the neighborhood. The
house at 20 Alice Avenue was built by Joseph Astrite and was designed by Samuel E. Barth for Mary Fablinger, who taught history and eighth grade.
Mary Fablinger and Frances Swane were granddaughters of the abolitionist John Brown.4 Their parents were James and Ellen Brown Fablinger who came to Campbell in 1901. John Brown’s son-in-law who went by the name of “Grampa” Fablinger, worked as a Custodian for Campbell High School (1947-
September 31, 1976). The house would be bought by the parents of Martin C. Schadle in 1947, who was in Mary’s 6th or 7th grade class when she taught at the school. Martin would work for the Navy as an
aircraft inspector and would eventually run the local gas station on Campbell Avenue for another 28
years.
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION
4 Watson, Jeanette. Campbell: The Orchard City. Campbell, CA: Campbell Museum Historical Association, 1989, Page 298.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 6
The design for this project is intended to follow the federally adopted Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995).
These Standards apply to historic buildings of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. They apply
to both the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction.
They stipulate the following requirements:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their
own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials
shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that
if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property owner wishes to expand the current size of the home to include two additional bedrooms and baths, a new kitchen with connecting great room, and a new two-car garage. The proposed new area
of the room addition including the garage and covered porch would add another 1,621 square feet to this
750 square foot, two-bedroom home. The maximum buildable floor areas allowed for this 7,373 square foot lot is 3,317 square feet. This single-story addition is proposed to be placed at the rear of the home to
lessen the visual impact of the new addition as viewed from Alice Avenue. The owner intends to
significantly remodel the interior of the home and replace all of the existing plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems. The existing 261 square substandard detached garage structure located along the east
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 7
property line is proposed to be removed and replaced with a two-car garage that is to access the paved alleyway that runs along the south property line.
Figure 3: Drawings of existing floor plan of the home.
Figure 4: Drawings of existing exterior elevations home.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 8
Figure 5: Drawings of proposed new room addition floor plan.
Figure 6: Drawings of the proposed new room addition exterior elevations.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 9
The owner is also proposing to make modest adjustments to the positioning of the two windows found on the home’s east façade, serving the kitchen area, by repositioning them to fit the new remodeled interior
of the home.
In addition to the remodeling work, the applicant is also planning to perform all required restoration work
to the exterior of the building including site and landscape improvements that are either currently pictured
on the site plan or must be developed and submitted at the time the applicant applies for the project’s building permit application.
DESIGN GOALS
The underlining goals for this project were to develop a design that incorporated both the pertinent preservation recommendations found in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the economic
interests and design program objectives of the new property owner in a realistic and technically feasible
manner.
METHODOLOGY
Applicable Standards specific to the construction work under consideration are as follows:
• Standard 1 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, states, “a property shall
be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the
defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.” Therefore, the addition should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building.
• Standard 9 states, “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”
• Standard 10 continues, “New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
In developing the final design for the room addition and remodeling improvements to this small historic
home, it was critical to fully incorporate the above Standards into our final design solution. If not properly conceived and designed, new additions to historic buildings may cause significant and
irreversible changes in the appearance and character of the historic building, potentially destroying or
obscuring historic architectural features as a consequence. These additions also have the tendency to confuse the public, making it sometimes impossible to differentiate the old and genuinely historic
building form from the new.
To meet the overall goals objectives of these Standards referenced above, we approached the design with the following objectives in mind:
1. Preserve significant historic materials, features, and form; 2. Create a cohesive design that would be compatible in form, style, character, and scale to the original home; and
3. Differentiate the new addition from the existing historic structure.
In an effort to minimize the physical and visual impact of the new addition on the existing historic
building, we placed the addition at the rear of the home. Doing so preserves the building's original historic
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 10
form and the relationship to its site and setting, as viewed from the primary street elevation (Alice Avenue).
We wanted to maintain the building's original character, vernacular, roof shape, materials, and general rhythm, including proportional scale and size of the new windows and doors so that they maintained a
compatible visual balance with the original home. We also wanted to clearly delineate the new from the
old by utilizing a horizontal lap board siding product that is of a similar dimensional scale but does not replicate the upper board profile material found on the exterior of the home. We have extended the wall
plane of the great room to the east and added a vertical transition board on the west side of the home
(between the old and new board siding) to further visually distinguish the new addition from the original historic fabric of the existing building.
As is recommended in Standard 10, the new addition is constructed in a manner that could allow its
removal in the future, without irreversibly damaging or impairing the essential form, character, and integrity of this historic property.
Figure 7: Site plan showing the new room addition and new garage access from the paved alleyway that runs along the property line to the south. PROPOSED SITE WORK
Except for removing the existing substandard detached garage along the east neighboring property line
and the portion of the existing asphalt driveway and concrete walks and incorporating the proposed walks and new concrete driveway, fences, and general landscape enhancements illustrated in the drawings, the applicant is proposing no significant changes to the site. The existing mature 28-inch pepper tree located
within the rear yard and the original driveway connection to Alice Avenue are to remain. The existing driveway, although no longer extending along the entire side of the home, is to be used to accommodate additional onsite parking for the home.
As mentioned earlier, with the exception of the two existing windows that are to be modified, the owner will maintain the current widows along the three exterior elevations of the home that are not affected by
the new room addition. In short, the new addition to the home is intended to maintain a desirable
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 11
compatibility to the home’s architectural style, mass, and building form, and the repairs are meant to protect and preserve the important historical and modest features of the home.
PROPOSED MATERIALS
As mentioned above, all proposed exterior building materials, including design elements and eave projections, are to be compatible in their general scale, detailing, and application with the original home.
BUILDING MASSING
It is recommended that the overall form, materials and features of an original historic roof be preserved
and maintained. This includes maintaining the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the
primary street elevation. Roof overhangs and roof forms contribute immensely to the perception of the building’s original historic scale and feel. New additions are recommended to be subordinate in nature
and should be, whenever possible, single-story and ideally placed on a secondary side or rear elevation of the building. In this way, new additions appear less visible as viewed from the public street and help to preserve the building's original historic form and relationship to its site and setting.
Since the new addition is proposed to be single-story, and utilize similar forms and materials found on the existing home, and placed at the rear of the home, the new room addition should continue to maintain a compatible relationship without compromising the existing integrity or historic character of the home.
WINDOWS
Standard 6 recommends the following regarding replacement of historic features: “Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of
a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.” In addition the City of Campbell Design Guidelines for
Historic Buildings also contains language specific to historic windows: “For a remodel/addition, where the architectural style of the original residence is being retained, maintain proportions, detailing, and
materials of original windows.”5
As stated earlier, all of the original wood sash windows have been replaced with manufactured one-over-one double-hung vinyl windows. The original wood trim and sills remain but must be repaired because of
deterioration of the wood beneath the paint. The intention of the restoration efforts is to repair all
damaged exterior wood trim, horizontal board siding, and other existing design elements. If these items found on the original historic home’s exterior are discovered to be unsound, the applicant will replace
them with new material or products that match the visual appearance and dimensional characteristics of
the material or product that is to be replaced.
CONCLUSION
It is my belief that the proposed project provides a sensitive approach for the enlargement of this small home without altering the structure’s existing historical character-defining features and general building form as viewed from the primary street view. Since the intention of the proposed work is to follow the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
5 City of Campbell Guidelines for Historic Residential Buildings, May 2006 (Page 26)
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 12
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, it should fit well with the other neighboring historic homes within Campbell’s Alice Avenue Historic District.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Reference Sources
Watson, Jeanette. Campbell: The Orchard City. Campbell, CA: Campbell Museum Historical Association, 1989.
Laffey, Glory Anne. DPR523 forms for the 1996 Campbell Historic Resources Inventory Update.
Laffey, Glory Anne, Context Statement for the City of Campbell, 1998.
Archives and Architecture, Alice Avenue Context Statement prepared as part of the 2003 Campbell
Historic Resources Inventory Update, 12/11/03.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee, Field Guide to American Houses: New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1986
Carley, Rachael, Illustrated by Ray Skibinski and Ed Lam: The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic
Architecture: Round Table Press, Owl Books, Henry and Company, New York, 1997.
National Register of Historic Places, National Parks Service, How to apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Technical Bulletin No. 15, 1997.
California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and the National Register: A Comparison,
Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 2006.
Internet Resources
California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. “How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Places,” http://oph.parks.ca.gov (Accessed May 5, 2017).
Mary Brown and Her Daughters: A Legacy of Equality and Cooperation in Santa Clara County, 1880 – 1920 researched and published by Alice Keesey Mecoy, October 2011, http://www.historynet.com/john-
browns-family-a-living-legacy.htm (Accessed May 5, 2017).
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 14
PHOTOGRAPHS OF 20 ALICE AVENUE
Above: Primary view of the north exterior of the home from Alice Avenue. Below: View of east exterior elevation taken from the existing driveway.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 15
Above: View of the south exterior elevation of the home. Below: View of the front entry porch shed roof with scalloped board end detailing.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 16
Above: View of the existing nonconforming detached garage structure that is proposed to be removed. Below: Rear view of the structure showing the uplift damaged to the slab foundation and rear wall caused by the existing tree stump roots.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 17
Above: Interior view of the existing detached garage structure’s substandard construction.
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 18
Above: Legal Description
THE HISTORIC MARY FABLINGER HOUSE
-Historic Review and Project Summary
20 Alice Avenue, Campbell, California M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. Date: May 17, 2017 Page 19
Above: Assessor’s Map of 20 Alice Avenue
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-02 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A
MODIFICATION (PLN-2021-23) TO AN APPROVED TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2020-12) TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF EXISTING SIDING TO BE REPLACED WITH STUCCO AND/OR USE OF STUCCO FOR AN APPROVED
800 SQUARE-FOOT REAR ADDITION TO AN ALICE AVENUE
HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MARY FABLINGER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 20 ALICE AVENUE IN THE R-1-6-H (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / HISTORIC OVERLAY) COMBINING ZONING DISTRICT.
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 PLN-2021-23:
1. The project site is a 7,371 square-foot single-family residential property located on Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard, within the Alice Avenue Historic District.
2. The project site is located within the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District as shown on the City of Campbell Zoning Map.
3. The project site is designated Low Density Residential on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The project site is developed with a single-family residence, a non-landmark historic district resource constructed in 1938 in a vernacular style, commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House.
5. At its meeting of July 22, 2020, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2020-04 approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition. Based on this action, the Community Development Director issued a Zoning Clearance for Building Permit No. BLD-2020-1014.
6. To maintain the historic integrity of the Mary Fablinger House, approval of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) required that the addition be clad in new siding wider than the original as to maintain a differentiation between the old and new portions of the house.
7. The Proposed Project is an application for a Modification (PLN-2021-23) to the
approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow removal of existing siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco for an approved 800 square-foot rear addition.
8. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1)) requires that any alteration to a landmark or historic district property
be reviewed through an Historic Resource Alteration Permit.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-02 Page 2 of 4 PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
9. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.56.060, an amendment to an approved project may be considered as a "minor" or "major" change based on the provided criteria. A "minor" change may be approved by the Community Development Director whereas a
"major" change must be considered by the decision-making body that originally
approved the permit in the same manner as the original permit or approval.
10. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.080, a request for an Historic Resource Alteration Permit—or a Modification in the case of the subject request—is considered by the Historic Preservation Board in a public hearing conducted in compliance with CMC
Chapter 21.64. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Board shall provide a
recommendation for approval or denial to the decision-making body.
11. A recommendation for approval by the Historic Preservation Board, based on the ability to affirmatively establish the findings provided in CMC Section 21.33.080.C, requires the issuance of a Zoning Clearance by the Community Development Director
in that the proposal would comply with all applicable standards and provisions for the
category of use in the zoning district of the subject parcel, as specified by CMC Section 21.40.030. Such a determination is final and not appealable pursuant to CMC Section 21.62.020.D.
12. With regard to existing building materials, the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines
provides the following guidance:
a. The existing materials and the method in which they are applied substantially relate the period historical style and character of that building. It is important to identify, retain, and preserve these character defining materials whenever possible. Materials such as brick, stone, wood clapboard siding, stucco,
shingle siding, along with design elements such as brackets, cornices,
shutters, columns, and balustrades, collectively provide the fabric of that building and reveal a great deal about the local traditions and cultural values during that period of the community’s development.
b. If it is necessary to remove significant materials and architectural features, it
is important to remove them carefully and refurbish them so they can be
reincorporated into the finished project. If the elements must be replaced it is recommended that similar methods and materials be used so the replacement elements closely match the original.
13. With regard to existing building materials, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
provides the following guidance:
a. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features
shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
b. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-02 Page 3 of 4 PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
c. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken
in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
14. [PLACE HOLDER FINDING]
15. [PLACE HOLDER FINDING]
16. 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.
Policy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics
Policy LUT-20.1b: Building Patterns: Ensure that new development is designed to blend in with the existing building patterns of the neighborhood. For example, if the majority of the garages on the street are at the rear of the site, the new building should be designed to accommodate a rear garage.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that:
Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080):
1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the
applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
3. 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;
4. 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.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-02 Page 4 of 4 PLN-2021-23 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
b. The proposed action will avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource.
c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the
greatest extent possible.
d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
5. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board approves a
Modification (PLN-2021-23) to an approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit
(PLN-2020-12) recommending that the Community Development Director issue a Zoning Clearance to allow removal of existing siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco for an approved 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2021, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members:
ABSTAIN: Board Members:
APPROVED:
Mike Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST:
Daniel Fama, Secretary
EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Modification (PLN-2021-23) to an Historic Resource Alteration Permit
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public
Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply
with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Modification (PLN-2021-23) to a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow removal of existing
siding to be replaced with stucco and/or use of stucco for an approved 800 square-
foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue.
2. Previous Conditions of Approval: The conditions of approval contained herein shall be considered additional to those provided by Historic Preservation Board
Resolution No. 2020-04.
3. Siding Application: The new siding material shall…
Mills Act FAQ Draft Suggestions
TW Revision 2/15/21
TW changes/additions = Italic
Who may apply for a Mills Act contract? Any property owner whose home is listed on the
City’s Historic Resource Inventory.
What is the Historic Resource Inventory? The City of Campbell’s Historic Resource Inventory
includes City Council designated historic properties that are of important historical value to the
City.
How does a property owner get onto the Historic Resource Inventory (discussion)
What are the benefits of having a Mills Act contract on the home? Substantial property tax
reduction. Mills Act contract follows the property. The contract can be transferred to a change
in ownership if contract is in effect.
How can an applicant find out how much tax savings they will receive (discussion)
When can a property owner apply for a Mills Act contract? (discussion)
How long does the contract last? (discussion, one or two tiered)
Are there any drawbacks to having the Mills Act contract? (discussion)
What is the application fee? $1,500.
Do additions qualify under the Mills Act? No.
Do solar panels qualify under the Mills Act? No.
What does qualify under the Mills Act? Various exterior maintenance and repair projects. An
applicant can review the proposed list within a sample contract from the City.
Are there any guidelines available? Yes, the City of Campbell Historic Design Guidelines For
Residential Buildings, available on line through the Planning Department.
How are Mills Act contacts monitored? Property owners are required to submit yearly
documentation with copies of receipts for work completed to Santa Clara County and the City
of Campbell. The City will make on site visits at least four times during every 10-year interval.
Page 1 of 4
City of Campbell
Suggested Mills Act Additions
Date: Rev 2.15.21
To: HPB members and Daniel Fama
From: Mills Act Subcommittee – Susan Blake and Todd Walter
3.18.20 - The subcommittee reviewed a number of different Mills Act programs throughout California Cities and
the following are items this subcommittee suggests to be included in the revised City of Campbell Mills Act
Program.
2.15.21 – Based on our board meeting of 9.29.20 the board members provided input which is included in the
following document.
1. Fees: Although the fee should be developed by the city most fees we found were around $1,000 and one as
high as $4,000. Some cities required an annual fee to manage the contract per property. Campbell may want
to include a fee for the 5 yr inspection or other city required services to maintain each Mills Act contract.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, a fee should be included but there was discussion if the current fee of $1,500
was too high, adequate or too low. It was tabled to discuss another day.
2. Application deadline: Many cities had one or two times a year when the Mills Act application was due. We
suggest implementing a similar approach but Campbell will need to review their typical staffing requirements
to determine what time each year would be the most appropriate for a due date, along with how this will
impact time for HPB and City Council to review the application.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, a deadline would be appropriate. It was suggested maybe two a year.
3. FAQ: Many cities had FAQ and we suggest including this in the program to assist owners. One specific item to
include is a statement that depending how long the applicant has owned the property their prop 13 taxes will
be lower than the Mills Act calculation therefore, applying for this program is not warranted.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees with this suggestion and the subcommittee will work up a list of
FAQ for review.
4. Contract Duration: Most cities listed a 10 year contract with the automatic renewal so that the contract was
always a 10 year duration. One city set the limit to 15 years max. Campbell and their legal team should
review this item and determine what is appropriate that still meets the Mills Act requirements.
9.29.20 HPB Response: This topic is an ongoing discussion. Some members feel the duration should be
based on the project list submitted by the applicant so there is a sunset on the contract. Further discussion
will be needed to finalize this item.
5. HRI/Register: All cities required the property to be designated in order to apply for the Mills Act.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees with this requirement.
Page 2 of 4
6. Approval process: Most cities require the application to be submitted to planning for review. Once planning
completed their review and found it was acceptable there was a public hearing to review the application. This
occurred either at the historic commission or some cities had this occur at the city council level with no
historic commission review. Some cities required a pre-inspection with the applicant and the city within a few
weeks after the application is submitted. This appears to assist the owner and the city to determine if the
proposed scope of work meets the Mills Act intent and the cities intent prior to reviewing or approving the
application. We feel the pre-inspection is a good idea and will assist everyone by setting a base line of what
the property looks like and the most appropriate items to be rehabilitated. It also makes sense to continue
with our current process which requires the applicant to submit to the planning department, they review for
completeness and accuracy, then HPB reviews via a public hearing and then the final recommendation goes to
city council for their review.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees with this suggestions and the pre-inspection process.
7. Requirements/Conditions of Approval: Most cities cite the work to be done shall follow the Secretary of
Interiors Standards and they did not list specific elements like the Campbell application. Most cities also
indicate the work shall cover health and safety items such as foundations, roofing, electrical, plumbing and
mechanical but not in any great detail. We suggest following this similar approach and remove our current
project specific list from the application.
Some cities also included a requirement regarding the max value of the property. Houses could not exceed
$1.5m and commercial properties could not exceed $3m. We may or may not want to include such similar
language.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees and sub-committee to work up a list but not too specific for further
review by HPB.
8. Rehabilitation / Maintenance Plan: All cities had some sort of a requirement to include a plan indicating the
proposed work, when it will be completed and a professional cost estimate. Some cities also require photos
of the structure and the areas of proposed work. They also required a site plan and some required proof that
all previous and current permits were closed.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees with this suggestion.
9. Priority consideration: Most cities indicated the following would be the priority for consideration and we
suggest following these items as well.
1. Structure in danger of deterioration or structural upgrades requiring substantial rehabilitation.
2. Financial assistance.
3. Additions do not qualify for program, so do not submit this type of work.
4. _____________________________________________________________________________
5. _____________________________________________________________________________
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees. Need to work on the final consideration list for HPB and City
Council to review. Include Life/Safety issues as a consideration. Subcommittee to work up initial list to
review.
Page 3 of 4
10. Oversite/Accountability: As noted above some cities require a pre-inspection as part of the application
process. Most cities require annual reports from the owner and periodic inspections at 5 year intervals. One
city required inspections every 2 years up to 10 years and then every 5 years after the first 10 years. We
suggest a pre-inspection, annual reports with photos and receipts for completed work and inspections every
5 years.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees and the contract should include a pre-inspection, annual
documents from the applicant and a 5 year inspection at a minimum.
11. What features does the contract cover (exterior / interior): All cities stated the Secretary of Interiors
Standards is the basis of the program and includes exterior and interior. We need to discuss if we agree the
interior should be included? Some cities stated that landscape was included but not costly rehabilitation.
We have a heritage tree program so we can address trees under this program and not include it in the
application process unless we feel the cost of the repairs and maintenance of the trees should be allowed in
the Mills Act? Again, we should discuss if we feel this is appropriate to include in our program.
9.29.20 HPB Response: HPB suggested we include the Heritage trees to the program and the contract
should address the exterior of the structure only. Interior features should only be considered if they
constitute a Life/Safety related issue.
12. Is an architectural/engineering report required: One city required this report if structural repairs were
included in the application. We suggest the applicant include a letter stating if any structural repairs are
included and they would submit plans and calculations to the building department as required to receive a
permit if their Mills Act application was approved. This way they do not have to spend more money up front
to have an engineer prepare a report, unless the applicant has an engineer reviewing their property prior to
the application and request they provide a simple letter stating what they found. Then the applicant can
include this document in their application.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, HPB agrees but it was suggested that the report is only required if the
applicant is selected then they would provide the report. This way they are not spending additional money
if they are not selected.
13. Maximum number of contracts awarded per year: Some cities set a limit on the number of contracts they
would approve each year. This is open to discussion if Campbell should or needs to add this provision to the
program. Currently there are less than 10 contracts and not many owners have submitted an application
over the years so limiting contracts per year may not be necessary.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, a cap would be ideal but since we have so little now it may be a decision by
the city council on how money will be allowed.
14. Pre-application workshop requirement: Once city required the owners who were planning to submit an
application attend a 2 hour workshop. We do not suggest adding this to our program, but the information
that would be provided at this workshop may be useful if we provided it on our website so potential
applicants can review.
9.29.20 HPB Response: No, not necessary.
Page 4 of 4
15. Electronic submittal: Some cities had an online application process and others required the application to be
submitted via a thumb drive, DVD or other similar electronic process. We suggest implementing the latter so
Campbell can be “Green” and the documents would already be archived and easy to access.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, agreed.
16. Application package check-off list: Most cities include an application check list to assist the applicants in
preparing and submitting the correct documents. We agree a check list should be included in our application.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, this makes sense.
17. Attachments: Once the above items have been discussed and we agree with the broad picture changes we
can then discuss detailed items such as the proper forms and attachments we want to include in the revised
application.
9.29.20 HPB Response: Yes, makes sense.
18. Other:
1. Should we include language that the applicant should spend roughly equal to or exceed the property tax
savings?
2. ?
3. ?
9.29.20 HPB Response: Suggest reviewing potential costs and savings on a typical application to see what
the true costs are. This would also help the city council understand the benefits of this program to home
owners and the city.
End of Document
Suggestions for revised List of Conditions for Approval DRAFT
Revised 2/15/21
TW changes = Italic
Two Primary Categories
1. Structural Integrity 2. Exterior Architectural Integrity
Examples: Examples:
Foundations Windows and doors replacement or repairs
Roofing Porches (what about them?)
Seismic Retrofit Fences and gates (should we? Historic item?)
Dry Rot Garages
Drainage Driveways (should we? Historic item?)
Stairs and steps Siding
Plumbing and electrical Painting
Bearing or structural walls Wood trim repair and painting
Chimney repair Waterproofing of siding, windows, etc…
Reframing of damaged walls, posts,
porches, garages or other similar structures or features
Secondary Category
Examples:
Insulation
Heating and Air Conditioning
Protected trees ( *Tree Ordinance) (discussion)
Interior work that constitutes a Life/Safety issue