Loading...
03-24-2021 HPB Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, March 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 March 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/j/89179887423?pwd=aE9ucWxkcXpqakNVeDNKeUJ1R0VrZz09. 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 February 24, 2021 (Roll Call Vote) ➢ Meeting Minutes, 2/24/2021 Historic Preservation Board Agenda for March 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. NEW BUSINESS 2. Certified Local Government Annual Report (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Review and approve the 2019-2020 Certified Local Government Annual Report. ➢ Staff Report PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 119 Alice Avenue – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Public Hearing to consider the application of Tony Rowe for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue in the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner ➢ 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. Staff will also discuss the process for reviewing pending Mills Act applications. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of April 28, 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, February 24, 2021 | 5:00 PM Zoom Meeting CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of February 24, 2021, was called to order 5:30 p.m. (30 minutes late on account of a City Hall evacuation), via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Michael Foulkes, Chair None Todd Walter, Vice Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore (arrived during Item 3) Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of January 27, 2021. Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Walter, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of January 27, 2021. (3-0-1; Member Moore was absent for this vote) ORAL REQUESTS None Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 2 BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Foulkes asked if there were any Board or Staff Announcements. Member Blake: • Advised that she had promoted the Historic App on Nextdoor and has received positive responses as well as having seen people walking around using it. • Reported that she had inspected and cleaned all of the historic plaques and found all to be in good order. 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. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reported that staff had previously included a report on the Victorian House being relocated off of 1940 Hamilton Avenue. • Advised that this structure will be moved onto the adjacent church property. The application for that action has been submitted. Member Blake: • Stated that she was very pleased with this outcome. • Pointed out that this structure is a part of the history of our city. • Added that this action represents a good example of adaptive reuse. Well done. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reported that staff had found a brass plaque inscribed for the Gilman House, which is at the corner of Grant Avenue and North First Street. • Reminded that the building is occupied by a chiropractic office. He took the plaque and gave it to the chiropractor/property owner. It has since been installed. Member Blake reported that she saw that it had been installed. Chair Foulkes said he was glad they were able to use it. Member Blake: • Said that there is a lot of history on that house being moved from 1940 Hamilton to the neighboring property at 1980 Hamilton. • Stated that the area used to be known as the Hamilton District. • Advised that Member Moore has a lot of researched information. Chair Foulkes asked staff what the potential is to update the Historic App with refreshed information as well as additional content. Could that topic be added to an HPB agenda? Planner Daniel Fama: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 3 • Reported to the Board that he has provided the two priority items of the HPB, including refreshing the app, to the Community Development Director who in turn will forward it on to the City Manager. • Advised that it is up to the City Council to decide the work plan priorities for the City. Member Blake said she spoke with Mayor Gibbons on Tuesday (February 23rd) and understands that there are considerable problems with the City’s budget due to the Covid-19 pandemic. *** 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. Planner Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that this applicant is seeking a Modification to a previously approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit, approved by HPB last year. • Added that this addition is located at the rear of the property, along the existing building line as applicable within the guidelines. • Reminded that the plans reviewed and approved showed siding that is wider for use on the addition than the siding the original portion of the house has in place. That difference is required to clearly delineate the addition from the original house. • Reported that he had conducted a site visit where the applicant asked to be able to go from siding to stucco for the whole building, original and addition. • Pointed out that this project must comply with the City’s Historic Guidelines as well as the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior. • Informed the Board that staff cannot make the findings to support this request and recommends denial. • Added that he has provided a resolution for denial, but in order to give the Board some flexibility should they choose to go a different route and allow some form of modification, he has also provided an alternate resolution for approval. • Explained that the applicant wants to insulate her house. That is one reason for this requested change. • Reported that another option for this owner to consider would be to remove the siding, install the insulation, then return the original siding to the original parts of the house. • Concluded that staff’s recommendation remains denial. Chair Foulkes said he hadn’t realized that there were several resolution options. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 4 Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, 20 Alice Avenue: • Advised that she had previously submitted a letter listing her reasons for wanting to go with stucco rather than siding. • Reported that her contractor suggested stucco over keeping the existing siding. • Advised that her heating and cooling bills are about $400 per month and that’s for an 800 square foot home. • Added that her contractor recommended the use of stucco on top of the existing siding to create additional insulation that should help improve heating and cooling efficiency. • Reiterated that the siding would not be removed but rather would have a stucco layer installed on top of the siding. • Stated that her second alternative is to go completely with stucco. That would involve removing all siding. • Said that blown-in insulation costs tens-of-thousands of dollars. • Added that the installation of blown-in insulation could result in damage to the interiors. • Pointed out that she has kept the vintage features of the interior. • Admitted that she is also worried about electrical and/or plumbing impacts resulting from the installation of blown in insulation. That could result in significant impact to the existing home. • Reported that this house is located next to Winchester Boulevard. Next to the salon. • Added that you can see her house from Winchester. • Advised that the only wood siding found for this project is double wide and thicker than the original siding. It is double the size of the existing panel. • Opined that use of siding that different would create an eyesore. • Said another option might be custom siding but that would result in substantial costs. • Admitted that she didn’t know that the siding needed wouldn’t be found. She didn’t anticipate that problem. • Added that this is the first residential addition she has ever done let alone on a 1939- era home. • Stated that when she bought this home it had no insulation, appliances, furnace or air-conditioning in place. She also had to redo the electrical. • Reported that for the last year and a half, they have not been living in the original portion of the house. They are a couple with four children currently living in a two-bedroom, one bath home. • Stated the need for no additional delays or expense. • Pointed out that she intends to keep the outside appearance the same including the shutters and the awning at the front of the house. • Stated that covering the existing wood siding with stucco will help to increase energy efficiency and reduce heating and cooling costs for the home. • Asked the Board to consider her request and her rationale for her requested change to the approved plan. • Reminded that this project started in September 2019. James McKenny: • Stated that Alice is a beautiful street. • Pointed out that there are a lot of stucco homes along Alice. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 5 • Said that it would not be out of line for the street to allow them to use stucco on this home for the reasons stated. Chair Foulkes: • Stated the Board’s appreciation for their explanation. • Reported for the record that Board Member Moore has joined the meeting. • Asked the Board if there are any questions for the applicant. Member Blake: • Stated that she cannot support replaced the original wood siding with stucco. • Added that she can offer a potential solution to these owners. • Reported that she too has a historic house with the same type of siding. She can advise them that there could be insulation installed that doesn’t involve removing any of the original siding or damaging interior walls. Her home was built in the 1870’s and she was able to successfully use that insulation. • Explained that that holes are drilled into the siding in between the studs. Once the insulation is blown in, the holes are sealed up and are invisible. • Added that the material used is blue jean material. It’s installation significantly reduced noise from street traffic as heard from within her home. • Identified her insulation contractor as Universal Insulation & Building, a Campbell company located on Dell Avenue. • Stated that she is happy to talk to the owners about it and hopes they may find this a helpful solution. • Assured that this process could save time, money, and the original appearance of the house itself. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, 20 Alice Avenue: • Said the information is helpful. • Added that another option is to have custom siding created for the addition that better compliments the original siding while still being different from it. Member Blake reiterated the need to keep the existing original siding. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, 20 Alice Avenue: • Reminded that the addition is 800 square feet and the siding found by her contractor is both wider and thicker than the original. • Opined that it will look weird. • Concluded that if they are required to go with costly custom siding, they have cost concerns. Member Blake asked if they couldn’t find a siding that is a little smaller than the original instead for the addition. James McKenny said that what they have shown to the Board this evening is what their contractor has told them he could find for this project. Member Walter: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 6 • Stated he could not support replacing the existing original siding with stucco on this historic home. • Pointed out that the other houses on Alice that are stucco where built with stucco and not changed later. • Questioned the contractor’s inability to locate siding material to better compliment the original siding of the home. • Stressed that the Board does not want the siding for the addition to “match” the home exactly. Rather it needs to look different so as to clearly demonstrate what is the addition and what is the original home. • Asked if the siding found is 12-inch width. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, said it is 8-inch width. Planner Daniel Fama explained that the hand in the photo holding a piece of the sample siding up against the original front siding is his. Member Walter asked if the sample is one panel with a grove or two panels abutting. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, displayed the panel sample to the Board. James McKenny said it has a grove. It is one panel made to look like two panels. Member Walter suggested one wide panel instead or try to find a panel that is smaller than the original siding for use on the addition. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, asked the Board if they would want it that different. Member Walter: • Reiterated that this is a historic home. • Stressed that the Board doesn’t want the addition to “match” the original exactly. • Added that the intent of that difference is to have the addition look different but complimentary to the original home. • Concluded that stucco would change the appearance of the entire home and addition. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, 20 Alice Avenue: • Stated that under the historic rationale, she has done all that she could to keep her house. • Admitted that she is embarrassed by the appearance difference between her home and others in the immediate neighborhood. James McKenny: • Pointed out that the house next door is a more modern looking home. • Stated that it doesn’t seem to be the original build. Member Moore: • Said she too has an old house with wide-board siding. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 7 • Advised that she has found those boards at Economy Lumber when needed. • Admitted she is surprised that the contractor didn’t find anything closer. • Concluded it is probably fine. Besides, who would even see it as the addition is at the back. Member Blake added that the property is gated for privacy. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, said you can see the addition over the fence and from Winchester. This siding sample represents a significant difference from original siding and would look odd together on the same house. Member Walter: • Reiterated that the blown insulation requires very small holes be drilled into siding. Those holes are patched up after and won’t be seen. • Pointed out that a switch to stucco is a three-step process that accordingly takes longer to install. • Advised that he is an architect. Stucco can experience settling resulting in cracking. • Stated that use of blown insulation to achieve energy efficiency for this original portion of the home is a better solution. It will provide sound control and other advantages while retaining the home’s original appearance. Chair Foulkes closed the Public Hearing for Item 3. Chair Foulkes asked if there is any further discussion by the Board. Member Walter said he had nothing to add. Member Blake said the same. Member Moore asked Michele Babb why not find other material. Michele Babb said that perhaps she could use some form of paneling in a material other than wood. She would prefer a different type of siding to match and not to be an eyesore. Member Moore asked Member Walter what would be complimentary. Member Walter: • Replied, wood. He added that there are other types of wood siding available that don’t have to be custom made so as to be cost effective. • Advised he is not a big fan of stucco. While it can go on easy, it can look like a box with windows on it. • Added stucco doesn’t look very charming. • Reiterated that the difference in materials, per the Secretary of the Interior, is that the addition to a historic structure should use materials that are complimentary but not the exact same size and shape to differentiate the addition from the original home. Chair Foulkes: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 8 • Stated his appreciation for Member Blake’s recommendation for blown in insulation. • Said he has had that done to a house he owns. It was a one-day job. It is actually more cost effective. • Advised that this contractor may not be too familiar with material sourcing. • Reported that he has two 1800’s era homes. • Supported the use of cost-effective board siding to require less labor. • Reiterated that the addition cannot match the original house exactly. It must be complimentary but not perfectly matched. • Reminded that when this Board originally approved this modification that requirement was discussed. Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, said she may need to revisit materials with her contractor. Chair Foulkes: • Pointed out that some good solutions have been provided by the Board that would help this project to fulfill the guidelines for adding to a historic home. • Added that the Board is sensitive to the costs of maintaining older historic homes. • Stated that alternatives recommended would be both cost effective and quick to accomplish. • Said he also owns a stucco home. It needs repair every couple of years because the stucco cracks. A wood sided house lasts for decades with paint as needed. • Said he can appreciate Ms. Babb’s time and the issues she has been going through to get this project completed for her family. The Board has offered solutions that may be better and cheaper. Some contractors may not be familiar with older historic homes. Member Blake told Michele Babb, Applicant and Property Owner, that she is welcome to contact her regarding blown insulation. Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2021-01 denying a requested 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 on property located at 20 Alice Avenue, after the HPB provided the applicant with a number of affordable material referrals that could help manage costs while keeping the existing siding on the old portion of the house and find an appropriate but differently sized siding for the exterior of the new addition, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None Abstain: None Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 9 *** 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 Member Walter: • Pointed out that three documents from the Subcommittee have been provided including a draft FAQ, primary categories and suggested Mills Act additions. Member Blake: • Discussed the Draft FAQs. • Pointed out that Member Walter’s additions appear in italics. • Listed out the questions from the draft. o Who may apply? o What is HRI? o How can a property owner get their property on the HRI? o What are the benefits of a Mills Act Contract? o How can an applicant find out how much in tax savings they will receive with a Mills Act Contract? (Member Walter suggested this item be delayed for later as further calculations are required) o When does a property owner apply for a Mills Act Contract? (the subcommittee is thinking once or twice per year) o How long does a Mills Act Contract last? (the subcommittee is recommending two tiers). Chair Foulkes agreed that a couple of times per year is better than one at a time. That would create more competition/applications for properties that are the worthiest of a Mills Act Contract. Planner Daniel Fama said that term-limited Mills Act Contracts can be accommodated by staff in terms of monitoring any imposed deadlines. Member Blake said the intent of issuing Mills Act Contracts is to help save the HRI inventory in City of Campbell. It’s not just 10 years. Chair Foulkes: • Stated that there are so few Mills Act Contracts, it is important to save as many HRI properties as possible by strategically issuing these contracts. We want to save more houses. • Said that there may be more Mills Act Contracts issued for one-time huge expenses such as a shake shingle roof that is quite costly to meet modern safety regulations for wood-shake shingle roofs. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 10 • Added that it doesn’t seem logical to have a Mills Act Contract held just for routine maintenance that all homeowners must do as property owners. Member Moore: • Stated that there is no need for a limit. • Pointed out that there are not many more potentials left. • Reiterated the need to save our HRI inventory. • Pointed out that she has changed the roof on her historic home. • Added that she will likely have to do so again. • Admitted that it is only thanks to Proposition 13 that she can do so, or she would need a Mills Act Contract herself. Member Walter said the qualified uses of a Mills Act Contract, be it for a roof versus routine maintenance, leads to the question, “Who gets it?” Member Moore: • Said that the maintenance of an historic home is on-going. • Stated it is constant. • Added it is a multitude of projects. Member Blake said another FAQ is whether there are any drawbacks to a Mills Act Contract? Member Moore suggested that the State’s Mills Act Contract person be invited to come to Campbell once a year. Member Blake said she has a contact in Sacramento who has indicated a willingness to come down to Campbell. Member Moore suggested that someone come from Sacramento once a year to conduct meeting(s) with Campbell’s holders of Mills Act Contracts. At those meetings, the contract holders can share resources and contacts with one another. Member Blake read the next FAQ which is, “What is the cost to apply for a Mils Act Contract? (She added that the current application fee is $1,500). Member Walter agreed that $1,500 is the current fee but the Subcommittee has not decided yet if it would remain that or change. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reported that a comprehensive fee analysis for all of the City’s application types was done. • Advised that the process of determining fees is to take into consideration the resources required to perform the service(s). That includes staff time and cost. Member Walter suggested perhaps not including a specific amount on the FAQ but rather suggest those interested check with the City. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 11 Chair Foulkes: • Stated he wants the FAQs to get people excited about applying for a Mills Act Contract. • Added the FAQs should include the fee. Member Blake: • The next FAQ question, what work would be qualified? o Asked if additions should be qualified under the Mills Act Contract. (No) o What about solar? (No) o Stressed the need to clarify what qualifies. Is it mostly various exterior maintenance and replacement? • The next FAQ question, how is the Mills Act Contract monitored? o There are yearly reports due to the City and to the County Tax Assessor. • Asked Chair Foulkes if that is enough information. Chair Foulkes responded yes. Member Walter said that the FAQs draft is not final. He asked if there are any additional questions to add to the FAQs. There were none offered. Member Walter: • Said the next item for review and feedback is the Suggested Revised Conditions of Approval. • Said that there are two primary categories: o Structural Integrity o Exterior Architectural Integrity • Added that the specifics of what is included in secondary category/ies o Heating and air conditioning o Protected trees Chair Foulkes advised that he pays as much for maintenance of the heritage trees as building maintenance. Planner Daniel Fama said that if the Ordinance included landscaping that might be possible, but it doesn’t. Tree maintenance is too far outside maintenance of the structure itself. Member Moore recounted how a 200-year-old Laurel tree was butchered. It was a travesty. Member Walter agreed that right now landscaping is not included. Member Moore said she is looking at heritage trees only. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 12 Member Walter said that per the Secretary of the Interior, trees might be considered if they are constituting life-safety-security concerns. It would be on a case-by-case basis. Member Moore agreed that some properties are unique and could be considered on a case-by-case basis. Member Walter said that all properties are unique and can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Member Walter: • Listed the suggested Mills Act Contract additions as follows: o Fees – yes o Application Deadline – twice per year o FAQ (just went over) o Contract Duration (limited duration, sunset date, continued) o HRI – yes o Approval Process – yes, to include a pre-submittal inspection. o Approval o Maintenance Plan o Priority Consideration o Oversight – yes, pre inspection, annual documentation, five years as minimum contract o What Covered? Add heritage trees if there are life-safety issues o Interior Report? If selected, but not before. o Maximum Number of Contracts – Defer to the City Council o Pre-Application Workshop? Not necessary. o Electronic Submittal? Yes o Checklist o Attachments o Potential Costs and Savings • Said that further work is required in calculating the tax saving benefits of a Mills Act Contract. • Stated that the question remaining now is, “Do we move forward and work up each section?” • Perhaps that question needs to be reviewed with Council and/or legal Counsel. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that in the broader context, work on the Mills Act Contract needs to go forward to the City Council for consideration when establishing the next Work Plan. • Added there still needs to be an audit completed using the existing materials secured for the existing contracts. • Stated with that financial research completed, we can go to Council with an update on the Mills Act program. At that time HPB can seek authorization to create a more comprehensive Mills Act Contract. • Cautioned that right now, the Council is busy with budgetary issues and planning. Member Blake asked staff when the work plan items are finalized. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 13 Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that work plans are a part of the budget process so perhaps by May. • Reported that Director Paul Kermoyan is retiring on April 1st. The recruitment for candidates for that position ended on Friday, February 19th. The new director will have a say in this process. Member Walter asked if the Board should put this on hold and come back to do audit review. Planner Daniel Fama agreed that the audit review is the holdup. Chair Foulkes said it will be complicated to unwind that information. It would be good for Planner Fama to have help with that. Member Walter: • Said the Subcommittee would update the docs with the feedback from tonight’s meeting. • Stated that after that, the Subcommittee could turn to the audit and determine how they can help staff with that. • Concluded that they will follow Daniel’s lead on how they can best help him on the way. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that creating a standardized format would benefit in creating an excel sheet for each property including dates and costs for specific expenses. • Added that research can include looking at permit records to determine cost for any work done that required permits. • Stated that the next big step would be site inspections. They had been previously anticipated, but Covid-19 put a stop to that task. Member Walter: • Pointed out that Yvonne Kendall’s application packet was well done. We can look at that. • Offered to help develop the excel spreadsheet on that property and then we can use that for reviewing other houses. • Added that he would volunteer to set up the spreadsheet with the help of his CPA brother. Member Blake: • Reported that one of the four homes she was assigned for is on Catalpa. • Advised that she assisted that property owner with putting together his financial report for his Mills Act Contract. • Stated that paperwork was well done as well. • Added that she did a walk-thru of that home. Planner Daniel Fama asked if she had taken any pictures during the tour of the Catalpa home. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 14 Member Blake replied no, it would have been overstepping to do so. She assured that she has no doubts with what she saw during her tour of that home. Member Walter: • Said that the City can ask for photos since we currently cannot do on-site inspections. • Stated those pictures would be most helpful. • Advised he would email a excel format that will include the topics wanted in spreadsheet format. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that offer sounds good. • Reported that we currently have two pending Mills Act applications. o 51 Alice Ave – submitted and fees paid o 73 S. First St – originally submitted and withdrawn. Recently resubmitted with fee payment pending. • Stated that reviewing those two applications will have to review under the context of what we have in place today. • Added that the Board is not bound by past decisions in evaluating these two new applications. • Asked for Subcommittee assistance in reviewing the application materials as he is not an expert on historic structures. Both Member Blake and Walter agreed to provide that assistance. Chair Foulkes: • Pointed out that Los Angeles County has “teeth” in their Mills Act Ordinance. • Stated that there can be penalties (12 ½ percent) of the tax benefit if the contract is not met. Member Walter said that provision is already in the contract. Member Blake stated that if a property has Proposition 13, they don’t need a Mills Act Contract. Chair Foulkes agreed that there is no benefit for a Mills Act Contract for a property that already has Proposition 13. Member Walter pointed out that Proposition 13 is still in effect. Planner Daniel Fama added that after 10 to 15 years, a Mills Act Contract is no longer helpful or valuable to the holder. Chair Foulkes thanked the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee members for their work. It was a lot of work and we’ve made great progress. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 15 Member Moore suggested an historic plaque for the Zaring-Hamilton structure with the history research gathered included. Kerry with the Campbell Historical Museum would like information included there as well. Member Blake said she wants to know when the Victorian structure will be moved from its lot onto the adjacent church property. She wants to watch that house move. *** ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 7:24 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for March 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. 2021-02 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: Walter, Blake, Moore, and Foulkes NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: ABSTAIN: Board Members: APPROVED: Mike Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary Item No. 1 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ March 24, 2021 PLN-2020-17 Rowe, T. Public Hearing to consider the application of Tony Rowe for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 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), recommending approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17). 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: 13,275 sq. ft. Gross Lot Area: 16,245 sq. ft.1 Density: 2.7 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max. Allowed) Gross Floor Area: Existing Proposed Basement 210 sq. ft. 1,094 sq. ft. 1st Floor 1,715 sq. ft. 2,657 sq. ft 2nd Floor 480 sq. ft. 527 sq. ft. Accessory Structure: 959 sq. ft. 705 sq. ft. 3,364 sq. ft. 4,983 sq. ft. Development Standards: Proposed Required Building Height: 23 feet 35 feet Maximum (2½ stories) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .29 (3,889 sq. ft.2) .45 Maximum (5,973 sq. ft.) 1 Inclusive of 2,970 sq. ft. of right-of-way (2,250 sq. ft. from Alice Ave. and 720 sq. ft. from the rear alley). 2 Floor area ratio does not include the basement area (1,094 sq. ft.). Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue Building (Lot) Coverage: 31% (4,140 sq. ft.) 40% Maximum (5,310 sq. ft.) Parking: 2 Spaces (1 Covered3) 2 Spaces (1 Covered) Required Proposed Required Setbacks: Residence Front (south): 26 feet, 6 inches 20 feet Interior Side (west) 1st Floor: 6 feet 5 feet, 11 inches (> of 5 feet or ½ wall4) Interior Side (west) 2nd Floor: 33 feet, 11 inches 13 feet (> of 5-feet or ½ wall) Interior Side (east) 1st Floor: 15 feet 5 feet, 4 inches (> of 5 feet or ½ wall) Interior Side (east) 2nd Floor: 29 feet, 10 inches 13 feet, 5 inches (>of 5 feet or ½ wall) Rear (east): 50 feet 5 feet, 8 inches (>of 5 feet or ½ wall) DISCUSSION Project Site: The project site is located on the north side of Alice Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and S. Third Street (reference Attachment 2 – Location Map). The property is developed with a two-story single-family residence, originally constructed in 1923, commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House. In 1950, the kitchen and porch were remodeled (reference Attachment 3 – Primary Record) and in 2003, a 488 square-foot family room and pantry addition were added to the rear of the first floor. The architectural style of the home is described as a Bungalow with Craftsman style influence which, for the subject property, is characterized by a prominent brick fireplace, gable and shed roofs, attic dormer, broad eaves with projecting rafter tails, barge rafters supported by knee bracers, wood bevel horizontal board siding, and glazed doors and windows with asymmetrical muntin patterns. Figure 1: 119 Alice Avenue (Primary Residence) At the rear of the property there is a large detached accessory structure which has been altered over the years to include a large covered patio on the south elevation (house facing) and small additions to the west and east elevations. Permits for the alterations to the accessory structure were unable to be located. Background: On August 12, 2019, the Historic Preservation Board (hereinafter ‘Board’) reviewed preliminary plans and provided feedback on a first- and second-story addition to the primary residence. The conceptual plans indicated an intent to add 1,108 square-feet (after removing 585 square-feet) to the first floor and 1,225 square-feet to the second floor (after removing 250 square- feet). In review of the proposal, members of the Board expressed concern with the size of the home in relation to other homes in the neighborhood and the applicant’s intent to raise a ridgeline to 3 The existing covered parking area has a non-conforming stall depth (15-feet existing vs. 20-feet required). 4 The west building wall is asymmetrical; for purposes of setbacks the most conservative measurements were applied. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue obscure the roof over the rear addition. Members of the Board expressed a desire for the first 10-feet of the home along both side elevations be remain intact and indicated general support of the project recognizing it would serve to clean up several previous remodels to the residence. Proposal: The applicant has applied for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) (hereinafter ‘Tier 1 Permit’) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of a 254 square-foot addition from a detached accessory structure. Recognizing that most of the new floor area would occur underground (884 square-feet) and at the rear and side of the home on the first floor (942 square- feet), the proposal may be considered less impactful than the preliminary proposal previously considered by the Board (see ‘Background’). While 47-square feet would be added to the second-floor, this area would also occur to the side and rear of the home, serving to widen an unusually narrow staircase and provide a closet for a new bedroom converted from a prior master bedroom (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 project conforms to all applicable development standards. Administrative Procedure: Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.080, an application for a Tier 1 Permit is required for any alteration to a landmark or historic district property. Action by the Board on this item will serve as a recommendation to the Community Development Director who will decide on the permit. The Historic Preservation Board’s recommendation serves to establish standards which satisfy the required findings to grant a Tier 1 Permit, which the Community Development Director applies when issuing a zoning clearance on the permit request. In its review of a Tier 1 Permit, the Board should focus its review on the impact the proposal will have on the Historic Resource and the District at large. General Plan: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (less than 6 units per gross acre). In consideration of the applicant’s proposal, the Board should review the following General Plan Land Use policies and strategies: Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible. 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. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 4 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue Design/Historic Guidelines: In recommending approval of a Tier 1 Permit the Board must 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. To assist in this evaluation, the City contracted with the City’s Architectural Advisor Mark Sandoval, AIA, to review the proposal and prepare a brief analysis of the project’s architecture (reference Attachment 5 – Architectural Design Review Report). While the report prepared by Mark Sandoval concluded that the drawings were ‘incomplete and inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards’, it should be noted that the comments were prepared in response to a previous set of drawings. Accordingly, the plans before the Board seek to address the comments raised by Mark Sandoval, and the following discussion provides a side-by-side comparison between the recommendations made by Mark Sandoval and the changes made by the applicant. Front (South) Elevation: In review of the previous plans, Mark Sandoval recommended the retention of the existing French door opening on the second floor and the removal of a small window proposed at the ground level that would have been in conflict with a built-out bookshelf in that area (see Figure 3). Consistent with Mark Sandoval’s direction, the revised plans keep the front elevation intact, while adding a one-story addition to the rear/side of the home (see Figure 4). Recognizing the addition will be over 44-feet back from the right-of-way, architecturally compatible with the primary residence, and obscured by vegetation and lattice fencing (see Figure 1) it is not anticipated that the addition will be impactful, or highly visible, when viewed from the street. Figure 2: Existing Front Elevation Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 5 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue Figures 3 & 4: Mark Sandoval Comments & Proposed Front Elevation Right (East) Elevation: In consideration of proposed alterations to the East elevation, Mark Sandoval recommended the applicant retain the existing living room door and sidelight windows and use a siding material that would clearly differentiate the new addition from the older portions of the home. Figure 5: Existing East Elevation Figures 6 & 7: Mark Sandoval Comments & Proposed East Elevation The revised drawings reflect the retention of the living room door and sidelight windows as recommended, proposes to match existing siding (in conflict with the recommendation), and substantially scale back changes to the first and second floor, leaving most of the existing residence unchanged. The applicant has proposed to remove four windows and a double-wide door on the first floor toward the rear of the home and install four double-hung windows without grids (one on the second floor) and a single-wide door. While Mark Sandoval’s did not highlight a concern with the removal of these windows and doors5, the Board may wish to consider whether any of these features should be retained or reused elsewhere on site (reference Attachment 4 - Project Plans; Sheets A2.7 & A2.7). Left (West) Elevation: The proposed changes to the west elevation would arguably be the most significant recognizing approximately 40-linear feet of the west elevation would be altered to 5 The door and two of the windows were part of the 2003 addition and not original to the home. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 6 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue accommodate a 942-square foot first story addition to side and rear of the home. While it is the applicant’s intention to match existing siding (rather than have it differentiated from the rest of the home) the addition would not include exposed rafter tails, thereby offering a minor distinction from the historic portion of the home. In consideration of this approach, the Board should consider whether proposed siding should be differentiated to a greater extent, as recommended by Mark Sandoval, and, if so, by what approach (e.g., wider boards, different siding material, distinct paint color or finish). Recognizing several historic windows would be removed to accommodate the addition, the Board should also consider whether any of these windows, particularly those which have grids, should be retained, and installed on the new west elevation or elsewhere on the property. Figure 8: Existing West Elevation Figures 9 & 10: Mark Sandoval Comments & Proposed West Elevation The second-story addition, which would serve to widen a staircase and provide a closet for a new bedroom, would be visible on the west and rear elevation of the building (although not shaded on the plans). For the new bedroom to meet egress requirements, the existing windows would need to be resized (not shown). Recognizing an identical set of windows occurs on the east elevation, the Board should discuss whether it would be preferable to add an egress window to the front or rear of the roof instead. Figures 11 & 12: Second-Story Bedroom Windows Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 7 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue Rear (South) Elevation: While Mark Sandoval’s report does not discuss changes to the rear elevation, it should be noted that the Secretary of Interior Standard Guidelines recommend that additions be placed ‘on the rear or on another secondary elevation’ to help ensure the addition is subordinate to the historic building. In this regard, the overall approach taken by the applicant is largely successful – minimizing impacts to the front of the home. The placement of the addition notwithstanding, the changes to the rear elevation would retain the same character and form of the primary residence. Recognizing four of the windows proposed for removal on this elevation are likely original, the Board should consider whether any of these windows should be retained and reused on the property (such as relocating the window with grids on the ground floor to the second floor where a window of a similar size has been proposed). Figures 13 & 14: Existing vs. Proposed Rear Elevation Consistent with the approach taken with elevations, the rear addition would not try to replicate the rafter tail or window grid details of the original home. The applicant would, however, intend to match the door and window frame designs, and mimic the board siding that is historic to the property. Basement: As part of the scope of work, the applicant has proposed a significant expansion to an existing basement. While more costly to build, adding or expanding a basement is a generally a preferred method of adding floor area to an historic resource as it is usually less impactful. In this case, the proposed basement expansion would not raise or otherwise change the foundation of the home but would result in two small lightwells being added to the front and rear/side of the home. While the lightwells would generally not be noticeable, they would be surrounded by wrought iron fencing which would be visible interior to the property. While staff has not identified a concern with the expansion of the basement, the Board may consider requiring a third-party inspector to be present onsite during key stages of the work to limit potential damage during excavation and shoring activities. Detached Accessory Structure: As previously indicated, there is a large detached accessory structure at the rear of the property which has been altered over the years. The applicant’s proposal is to remove an unpermitted addition to this structure from the west elevation. While the proposed changes to the accessory structure were not considered by Mark Sandoval, recognizing the proposal seeks to remove an unpermitted addition the change does not present a significant concern for staff. The original siding and window on the east elevation of this accessory structure remain and are intended to be retained and restored to their original condition. DISCUSSION ITEMS The following list summarizes specific questions raised throughout the project analysis for discussion and consideration by the Board (staff feedback in response to each point has been provided in italics). Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 8 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 1. Should new lapboard siding be better differentiated from historic siding?  The recommended conditions would require new siding to be at a minimum of a half- inch, and a maximum of one-inch, wider or narrower than the existing siding found on the front elevation of the building. Alternatively, the siding may be a maximum of one-eighth inch thinner, or one-quarter inch thicker, than the existing siding on the front elevation of the building. The recommended condition further provides the Community Development the discretion to allow proposed siding to match the siding of recent additions (i.e. 1950 or 2003 addition). 2. Should an egress window be added to the side or rear of the new bedroom instead of resizing existing windows?  The recommended conditions reflect a requirement to add the new egress window on the rear elevation and require the removal of the proposed closet in this area. 3. Should any of the existing windows or doors be preserved and reused onsite?  The recommended conditions reflect a requirement to preserve and reuse all windows with grids onsite on their respective elevations to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Should a third-party inspector be present onsite during key construction activities?  The recommended conditions reflect a requirement to have a third-party inspector present onsite during key stages of excavation and shoring and to monitor the removal of existing windows and walls. Please note the recommended Conditions of Approval, included in the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment 1), can be removed, added to, or modified at the discretion of the Board. ALTERNATIVE(S) Recognizing the most recent set of plans was not reviewed by the City’s consulting architect, in an effort to reduce costs and expedite review of the permit request, should the Board believe that another round of review should be performed given the extent of changes, the following alternative action may be taken:  Continue the item to a date uncertain, requiring the applicant to submit a cash deposit to facilitate an additional round of review additional round of review by the City’s consulting architect. In taking such action, the Board may elect to identify specific aspects of the proposal warranting further review and analysis. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Primary Record 4. Project Plans 5. Architectural Design Review Report (For Reference Only) 6. Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes, August 12, 2019 Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 9 of 9 PLN-2020-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 7. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report, August 12, 2019 Prepared by: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2020-17) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 989 SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION, 884 SQUARE- FOOT BASEMENT EXPANSION, AND THE REMOVAL OF 254 SQUARE-FEET FROM A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO AN ALICE AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE, LOCATED AT 119 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-2021-17: 1. The project site is a 13,275 square-foot single-family residential property located on the north side of Alice Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and South Third Street 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, originally constructed in 1923, with Bungalow and Craftsman influences, commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House. 5. The proposed project is an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure. 6. 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 "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit. 7. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.080, a request for an Historic Resource Alteration Permit 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. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 8. The Historic Preservation Board’s recommendation establishes standards which serve to satisfy the required findings to grant a Tier 1 Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with CMC Sec. 21.33.080. The Community Development Director applies these standards and requirements when issuing a zoning clearance on the permit request. 9. 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. 10. 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 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. 11. The proposed project may be found consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible. Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 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. 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. 12. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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. b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource. c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible. d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future. Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 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. 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): 6. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code; 7. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings; 8. 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; 9. 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 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): 10. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures. 11. There are no unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board adopts a resolution recommending approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 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 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) 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 Planning Division 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment 4 in the March 24, 2021 Historic Preservation Board Staff Report, except as may be modified by conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration: The Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit approval shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring April 3, 2021). Within this one-year period, the building permit must be approved (i.e. ready to issue). Failure to meet this deadline will result in the Historic Resource Alteration Permit being rendered void. 3. Siding Material: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a sample of the new siding for the Community Development Director’s review and approval. The new siding shall be a minimum of a half-inch, and a maximum of one-inch, wider or narrower than the existing siding found on the front elevation of the building. Alternatively, the siding may be a minimum of one-eighth inch, and a maximum of one-quarter inch, thinner or thicker than the existing siding on the front elevation of the building. The final siding design and appearance shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Preservation and Reuse of Historic Windows: The applicant shall be required to preserve and reuse all windows with grids (presumed historic/original to the structure) onsite on their respective elevations to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. Egress Window: If an egress window is required for the proposed bedroom on the second floor (identified as Bedroom: 2 on Sheet A3.3) the applicant shall accommodate this window on the south elevation of the home in place of the proposed closet in this area. The applicant shall not be allowed to resize existing windows to meet egress requirements. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 2 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 6. Third-Party Inspector: The applicant shall be required to provide a deposit and cover all costs associated with having a third-party inspector present on the property to monitor key stages of excavation and shoring as well as the removal of existing windows and walls. 7. Rough Framing and Planning Final Required: Planning Division clearance is required prior to rough framing and final Building Permit clearance. Construction not in substantial compliance with the approved project plans shall not be approved without prior authorization of the necessary approving body. 8. Minor Modifications: Minor Modifications to the approved project plans are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Minor modifications include alterations in floor area of no more than 50 square feet on the first floor, alterations to second story windows that are not oriented toward neighboring yards and result in an increase in window area of no more than one square foot and horizontal relocation of no more than one foot from the approved window location, and minor alterations to façade material. All other modifications are subject to review at a public hearing. 9. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Building plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Building Official prior to Final Inspection. 10. Fences/Walls: Except as noted below, any newly proposed fencing and/or walls shall comply with Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.18.060 and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 11. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: As a remodel/addition/rehabilitation project with a total project landscape area equal to or less than 2,500 square feet, this project is subject to the landscaping and irrigation standards in Chapter 21.26 of the Campbell Municipal Code. The building permit application submittal shall include compliant Planting and Irrigation Plans and shall include the following: a. A completed Landscape Information Form. b. A note on the Cover Sheet in minimum 1/2” high lettering stating “Planning Final Required. The new landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed prior to final inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning approval.” 12. On-Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 3 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 13. Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements during construction: a. The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition. d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses. f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell. Building Division: 11. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed addition to and remodeling of the existing structure. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 12. Plan Preparation: This addition may require plan prepared under the direction and oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. When applicable, plans submitted for building permits shall be “wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying professional person. 13. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. 14. Size of Plans: The minimum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24 in. X 36 in. 15. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include a competent site plan that identifies property and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as appropriate. Site plan shall also include site drainage details. 16. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. Compliance with the Standards shall be demonstrated for conditioning of the building envelope and lighting of the building. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 4 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 17. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance with C.B.C Chapter 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of Campbell, Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter. 18. Non-Point Source: The standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan submittal. The specification sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division service counter. 19. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to issuance of the building permit: a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407) b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010) c. San Jose Water Company (279-7900) d. School District: i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405) ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960) iii. Moreland School District (379-1370) iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103 Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved the building permit application. 20. P.G.& E.: Applicant is advised to contact Pacific Gas and Electric Company as early as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or relocations may require substantial scheduling time and can cause significant delays in the approval process. Applicant should also consult with P.G. and E. concerning utility easements, distribution pole locations and required conductor clearances. 21. Intent to Occupy During Construction: Owners shall declare their intent to occupy the (e) dwelling during construction. The Building Inspection Division may require the premises to be vacated during portions of construction because of substandard and unsafe living conditions created by construction. 22. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water run-off from impervious surface created by this permitted project shall be directed to vegetated areas on the project parcel. Storm water shall not drain onto neighboring parcels. 23. Site Management: This project shall use the following Site Management policies: • Job Site Manager. Every permitted job must have an identified person to manage the work and be responsive to issues that come up during construction. It is important to identify this person and provide contact information to the Building Inspector at the beginning of the construction process. When a change is made concerning site manager, the inspector should be made aware of the new person and contact information. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 5 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue • Construction Debris. At the end of each construction day, attention should be made to collect and manage construction waste and debris. Trash must be covered and removed from the site as soon as reasonable. Respect the neighbors and keep a clean site! Sites that fail to manage trash can and will be cited. • Construction Hours. Every Permitted job is required to observe the permitted hours of construction. Construction work is allowed from 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday thru Friday. Construction is allowed on Saturdays from 9:00am to 4:00pm. No work is allowed on Sundays or Legal U.S. Holidays. Workers showing up at job sites before the permitted times may create a problem and should be discouraged from arriving earlier than 15 minutes before permitted times. Material deliveries should never be scheduled before permitted hours. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to manage and coordinate deliveries. Citations and/or Stop Work Notices will be issued to Contractors violating the permitted hours. • Dust and Dirt. Many jobs will create dust and dirt on the street. When it rains, sites may have mud running into the sidewalk and street. All job sites must keep all rain runoff on the site and prevent water from running from the site into the gutter and street. Vehicles tracking mud and dirt into the street require cleanup and keeping the sidewalks and streets clean. If you fail to manage your dirt, dust and mud, your site may be issued a ‘Stop Work’ notice and/or a citation. • Music and Unnecessary Noise. Radios and loud music or other noise not related to construction is discouraged and will keep the neighbors from complaining. Earbuds are a good way to keep the music playing and not a problem for the neighbors. Job sites are not a good place for a worker’s dog. Animals should be left at home. • Construction Vehicles. Construction vehicles shall access the property only from S. Winchester Boulevard and shall not travel westbound on Alice Avenue except to leave the project site. Public Works Department: 24. Frontage Improvements Required: The scope of this project triggers the requirement for Frontage Improvements as required by Campbell Municipal Code 11.24.040. The applicant will be required to apply for an Encroachment permit to construct frontage improvements as listed below. The building permit and grading permit will not be issued until all Public Works Conditions of Approval have been satisfied. 25. Single Legal Parcel: The applicant shall provide documentation to demonstrate that this lot is a single legal parcel as it appears to be three legal parcels based on the Title Report: being Lot 35 and the West 15 feet of 34 and the East 25 feet of Lot 36 as shown on that certain Map entitled “Map of the Hyde Residence Park”. If the applicant cannot satisfactorily demonstrate that the property is a single legal parcel, they will need to process a lot line adjustment for lot merger as detailed below: a. Lot Merger: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall fully complete the lot line adjustment process for lot merger. The applicant shall submit an application for approval by the City Engineer, pay the current Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 6 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue application processing fees, process the application with City staff’s comments and fully complete the lot line adjustment. 26. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, currently set at $2,120.00 per net acre, which is $646.00 (set for R-1). 27. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff to the bay. Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start at the Source: A Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999; and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document to Start at the Source (“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003. 28. Utility Services: The following conditions only apply if the applicant has a need to install / upgrade utility services (water, sewer, gas, etc.) in the street: a. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate permits for the installation of utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. b. Utility Coordination Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a utility coordination plan and schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation and/or abandonment of all utilities. The plan shall clearly show the location and size of all existing utilities and the associated main lines; indicate which utilities and services are to remain; which utilities and services are to be abandoned, and where new utilities and services will be installed. Joint trenches for new utilities shall be used whenever possible. c. Pavement Restoration: The applicant shall restore the pavement in compliance with City standard requirements. In the event that the roadway has recently received a pavement treatment or reconstruction, the project will be subject to the City’s Street Cut Moratorium. The applicant will be required to perform enhanced pavement restoration consistent with the restoration requirements associated with the Street Cut Moratorium. The City’s Pavement Maintenance Program website (https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/219) has detailed information on the streets currently under moratorium and the enhanced restoration requirements. 29. Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall cause plans for public street improvements to Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 7 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue be prepared, pay various fees and deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by the City Engineer. The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: a. Removal and replacement of broken curb along Alice Avenue project frontage. b. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as necessary. c. The project is not proposing any changes to the alley project frontage. 30. Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Building Permit Final: Prior to allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings, the applicant shall have the required street improvements installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. 31. Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future, are required to maintain the landscaped park strip in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Street trees shall not be pruned by the property owner. Fire Department: 32. Limited Review: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 33. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet A0.1 & F1.1) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: One or more additions made to a building after January 1, 2011 that do not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. 2) In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by CBLMC. 34. Water Supply Requirements: (As Noted on Sheet F1.1) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 8 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 35. Address Identification: (As Noted on Sheet F1.1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 36. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As Noted on Sheet F1.1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 37. Limited Review: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6] 179 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. 119 Alice Avenue 2,150Campbell IT, GIS Services 358 1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet 3580 Scale DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: Robert/Holmes 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 119 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: 412-05-061 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Two story house constructed of overlapping wooden boards; the roof consists of asphalt and wood shingles; the roof shape is front gabled. The roof trim on the gable end of the home has the edge of the roof projecting with boards attached at the roofs edge. The eaves are projecting with rafters exposed The roof also contains gable with overhang dormer type upper windows. The window in front consists of three sashes divided vertically with upright dividing bars, the center window is fixed, the side windows are casement style. The windows on the sides consists of two sash double hung and casement, one sash fixed style of windows. The main door is plain with four vertically elongated evenly spaced windows near the top. The main door also has glass side panels. The porch is recessed into the corner of the home supported on wooden piers. Additional features include an exterior chimney against the wall of the house. *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 1923 *P7. Owner and Address: T.D. & Kay Atkinson (April 1987) *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kevin Tokanaga City of Campbell Museum 51 N. Central Campbell, CA 95008 *P9. Date Recorded: April, 1986 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-78 Survey. Phone interview with Mrs. Kurt (Betty G. Newton) Ritter (April 26, 1978) by Tom M. King. Initial study taken by Hugh I. Schade (October 10, 1977). *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD 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 *NRHP Status Code Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: Robert/Holmes House B2. Common Name: Robert/Holmes House B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same *B5. Architectural Style: Semi-Bungalow with craftsman style influence *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built, 1923. *B7. Moved?  No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Barn, carport. Eaves incorporated into the carport, back porch remodeled by adding into the kitchen. B9a. Architect: b. Builder: Robert Holmes *B10. Significance: Theme Economic/Industrial Area Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Alice Avenue was created in 1915 on a portion of the site of the fruit drying yards owned by the George E. Hyde Company, a canning and fruit dehydrating plant occupying 17 acres in Campbell. The land was originally owned and utilized by Flamming’s Fruit Dryer (1887); sold to Frank Buxton’s Dryer (1890, and again sold to Campbell Fruit Grower’s Union (1892) which owned and controlled the drying yards and packing house until its sale to George Hyde in 1909. The residential subdivision, “Hyde Residential Park” was built primarily for housing cannery workers, though George and Alice Hyde (the Street’s namesake) resided there too. The house was rented a number of years, one renter being Mr. Van Dyke, former principal of Campbell High School. Robert Holmes sold to the Perrott family. Mr. Perrott was the J.C. Ainsley Packing Co. official who handled exports to Britain. His wife was related to J.C. Ainsley. The Ritters purchased the house from the Long family (Mr. a Navy radio man here one year) in 1947. They raised three children in this house, one, Walter, was born here. The house was sold to Walter in 1976, and he sold it in Jan 1978. The Ritters added the car port in 1950 and remodeled the kitchen including the porch in it. 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.) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA Prepared for CITY CAMPBELL PLANNING DIVISION 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Date: 9/18/20 Final HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 1 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WORK The owner of the property located at 119 Alice Avenue wishes to renovate their home extensively by adding another 1,483 square-foot addition to this existing 1,817 square-foot two-story historic home with a basement, which is located in the city’s only Designated Historic District. According to the drawings prepared by BRITT/ROWE DESIGNER BUILDER, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA (consisting of 23 drawing sheets, last dated 7/14/20), the applicant is proposing to reuse original detailing and remove existing details and features from previous additions and remodeling of the home that are typically inconsistent with the building’s original Bungalow and Craftsman Style influences. They are also proposing to keep all of the existing mature trees, landscaping, walkways, and patios, including the detached garage/shed structure that is located next to the alleyway. DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This historic two-story single-family home with partial basement occupies the property located at 119 Alice Avenue in the City of Campbell, which is situated on the north side of Alice Avenue, between South Third Avenue to the east and South Winchester Boulevard to the west. Known by its historic name, the Robert/Holmes House, this 13,275 square-foot lot contains two buildings: the main residence, which is located roughly in the center of the lot, and a wood-framed garage/shed that is located at the rear of the property. The main residence was reportedly constructed in 1923 and is one of the existing thirty-six homes that reside in the city’s only Designated Historic District. The architectural style is described as a Bungalow with Craftsman Style influence. These influences or features include a prominent brick fireplace, gable and shed roofs, attic dormer, broad eaves with projecting rafter tails, barge rafters supported by knee braces, wood bevel horizontal board siding, and glazed doors and windows with asymmetrical muntin patterns. The exterior of the home is clad with bevel overlapping horizontal wood board siding arranged in an alternating pattern of 4-inch-wide boards placed above 8-inch wide boards on the lower portion of the wall, and a 6-inch wide bevel overlapping wood board siding placed in a conventional overlay pattern on the upper wall and gable areas. These two exterior patterns are separated by a horizontal trim board with water table molding trim that stretches around the entire house at the top window sash line, aligning all of the building’s fenestration openings in a consistent visual horizontal arrangement. The primary gable roof is clad in composition shingle and extends over the carport to the east and the shallow projecting bedroom wing of the home to the west. From the upper ridge line, the roof transitions into a small hip roof, which terminates at the ridge line of the second-floor master bedroom that runs perpendicular and faces the rear yard of the home. Below, the gable roof of the first-floor family room extends towards the detached garage/shed structure that is located next to the rear property line to the north. A small gable dormer with a pair of French doors is centered within the sloping front roof form leading to a small balcony that looks out to the street and sidewalk below. All of the roof eaves are open, with broad overhangs and barge rafters that are supported by knee braces at each of the roof gable. HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 2 A prominent brick fireplace chimney pierces the roof at the west roof plane, above the living room, and is symmetrically placed in the wall with a smaller rectangular sash window on each side. A large horizontal rectangular fixed picture window flanked with casement windows at each end is placed within the center of the front building facade. Fixed shutters have been attached to the wall, just beyond the vertical window trim boards. To the right, located at the corner end of the structure, is a deeply recessed covered porch supported by wooden piers serves as the main entrance to the home from the street. From this porch, the left door leads to the living room space. It is flanked with elongated fixed sidelight windows arranged in a 2 over 2 asymmetrically proportioned manner, with the upper two windows smaller than the elongated lower window panes. The main entry door on the north wall is glazed as well, with glass divisions proportionally complementing the living room sidelights, though they are arranged in a 3 over 3 asymmetrically proportional manner. The windows located on the other exterior elevations of the home vary in both size and types (e.g., double hung, fixed sash, casement, and fixed half-round). All but four of the existing sash windows appear to be original to the home, all others are either completely new (resulting from previous remodeling or room additions to the home) or are modern retrofit windows, which have been installed to fit within the building’s original window frame openings. HISTORIC OVERVIEW Alice Avenue was constructed 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); it was sold to Frank Buxton’s Dryer (1890), and sold again 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. According to a State of California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A Primary Record form dated from 1982, the Robert Holmes House was rented for a number of years, with one renter being Mr. Van Dyke, a former principal of Campbell High School. Robert Holmes sold to the Perrott family: Mr. Perrott was the J.C. Ainsley Packing Co. official who handled exports to Britain and his wife was related to J.C. Ainsley. The Ritters purchased the house from the Long family in 1947 and raised three children in this house—one of them Walter, was even born here. The house was sold to Walter in 1976 and he sold it in January 1978. The Ritters added the carport in 1950 and remodeled the kitchen, including the porch in it. No other archival information or construction chronology for this property was included with this application. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS Despite knowing that the historic Robert/Holmes House has been substantially remodeled and expanded over the many years from its original footprint and appearance, the home still retains much of its original design, workmanship, materials, and feeling that is important in defining its HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 3 historic character and integrity. It is this existing integrity that is of the upmost importance to preserve. Any renovation and repair work performed on this building must be done in a manner that employs only the very best in preservation techniques, methods, and procedures. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services is a document that summarizes the concepts for maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations to older historic structures. It offers guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings, making general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the standards to a property. This document provides a guiding framework for making decisions about any work or changes that might affect a historic property. THE CITY CAMPBELL’S GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS The City of Campbell Guidelines for Historic Buildings is intended to assist owners of specific properties identified on the City of Campbell’s Historic Resources Inventory in the rehabilitation and preservation of buildings without radically altering existing features that are so significant in defining the building’s architectural style and character. These guidelines parallel many of the recommendations found in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and are used as a resource by the Historic Preservation Board and the city’s staff when evaluating building applications that could affect the character of these older historic buildings within the city. GENERAL COMMENTARY The Secretary of the Interior Standard guidelines recommends the following: • A new addition must preserve the building’s historic character, form, significant materials, and features. It must be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and design of the historic building while differentiated from the historic building. • It should also be designed and constructed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic building would remain if the addition were to be removed in the future. • Placing an addition on the rear or on another secondary elevation helps to ensure that it will be subordinate to the historic building. • New construction should be appropriately scaled and located far enough away from the historic building to maintain its character and that of the site and setting. The City of Campbell’s Guidelines for Historic Buildings offer a similar recommendation: HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 4 • New construction should be compatible with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Each house should be designed with a full understanding of the characteristic elements of that style selected for the home. Careful attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail, and craftsmanship must always be observed. Incorporate these elements in a tasteful and consistent manner. Avoid combining characteristics of different or unrelated styles. RECOMENDATIONS For the most part, the applicant has succeeded in following some of these very important design considerations and recommended preservation treatments. They appear to be retaining most of the original historic fabric, design elements, and character-defining features found on the primary street elevation of the home. These features include the existing brick fireplace, horizontal bevel wood siding, windows, entry porch with its support boxed columns, front entry door, main gable roof form, upper dormer with outer deck feature, and the existing carport. They are also proposing to match the visual appearance of all extant building materials, construction assemblies, and roof overhang dimensions. Unfortunately, it is not clear what actual preservations methods and treatments will be used. The extent of demolition work proposed, which would require the removal of extant historic fabric and other features of the building that could affect its historic value and remaining integrity, is also unclear. The proposed construction work and alterations to the home are extensive, and the applicant is proposing no delineation between the new portions of the home from the original areas. They are also proposing to replicate features that did not exist at the time the home was constructed, which could result in a false sense of the building’s history. The Secretary of the Interior Standards recommends that, “new additions to historic buildings use the same forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building.” Although the applicant is proposing significant alterations to the sides and the rear of this building, the primary street façade appearance is relatively undisturbed by this new extensive construction work. This document also cautions that new construction should not diminish the original building’s historic character: “Ensure that new construction is secondary to the historic building and does not detract from its significance.” Architectural Character Checklist/Questionnaire: It is recommended that the applicant complete the 6- page City of Campbell Historic Preservation Evaluation form and included this with their application. In filling out this checklist, they will gain a better understanding of the significant aspects of their building and setting that are essential to maintaining their building’s overall historic character and integrity. Preservation Guidelines: It is important that the applicant familiarize him or herself with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and consult with a preservation professional early in the development of this project. HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 5 It is extremely important to follow these guidelines in the decision-making process and the development of design documents and drawings for a construction project on a historic building. These guidelines establish the framework in which the project emerges and is constructed. They are intended to aid in applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to all types of historic building; although they not provide case-specific advice or address exceptions or unusual conditions, they do address both exterior and interior work on historic buildings. The approaches to work treatments and techniques that are consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are listed in the “Recommended” column on the left; those that are inconsistent with the Standards are listed in the “Not Recommended” column on the right. There are four sections, each focusing on one of the four treatment standards: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Each section includes one set of standards, with accompanying guidelines, that are to be used throughout the course of a project. PRESERVATION is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses on the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than on extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form. Preservation may be appropriate if distinctive materials, features, and spaces are essentially intact and convey the building’s historical significance. If the building requires more extensive repair and replacement, or alterations or additions are necessary for a new use then rehabilitation is probably the most appropriate treatment. REHABILITATION is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses, while retaining the building’s historic character. RESTORATION is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The restoration standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods. RECONSTRUCTION is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. The reconstruction standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 6 Choosing the most appropriate treatment requires making careful decisions about a building’s historical significance, as well as taking into account a number of other considerations, such as the actual level the building’s significance, condition, intended end, and building code or other regulation requirements. Standards for Preservation: The applicant should prepare a comprehensive description that identifies the extent of all construction that is to be undertaken in areas that might affect the primary street façade and portions of the building’s side elevations as seen from Alice Avenue. This information should be clear and unambiguous, and should correlate with both the architectural and structural drawings for this project. It should describe the limits of the areas from which the extant historic material, features, and architectural components are anticipated to be removed, along with full descriptions of all proposed preservation methods and treatments (consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards) that will be employed during the construction phase of the project. Special attention should be paid to the proposed preservation treatments that will be used on the project’s existing horizontal wood board siding, original wood sash windows, original doors in the front porch area, and paint removal treatments to be used on the existing exterior wood surfaces. PROPOSED EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 7 PROPOSED WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 8 Submittals: Representative samples and full-scale tracings of all existing materials that are to be matched in like kind (e.g., trim boards, bevel siding, window sash, etc.) should be submitted to the city for comparison with the proposed replacement samples in order to determine suitability and match in appearance before they are purchased and installed. Monitoring of the Project: Periodic monitoring of the project during the construction process should be implemented by the city to ensure that agreed upon preservation measures are properly implemented during the project’s entire design and construction process. This oversight should be carried out by a third-party professional in concert with the property owner and the builder. If any unforeseen condition arises during the construction operation, there is a process and a means to which the owner can turn for guidance and advice for solutions. As a minimum, this oversight should begin early on in this project’s development, before the demolition phase. During this phase, decisions can be made regarding exactly which areas and parts of the existing home should be removed and which should be kept in place. The demolition operation can commence once these agreements are made, and should be periodically monitored to ensure that the extant historic material that is to remain is properly protected from damage or accidental removal. After this phase of the project is complete, monitoring should continue in the form of the review and approval of all required submittals for the project and periodic field observations during the foundation and rough framing inspection signoffs by the city’s Building Department. Once these milestones have been completed, it is important to periodically observe the building’s exterior window and door repair work and replacement operation to ensure that they conform with the approved corrective repair and preservation treatments specified in the construction drawings. Additional monitoring should also include both the repair and/or replacement of other character- defining features of the home (e.g., masonry brick, roof fascia and eave trim boards, knee braces, wood board siding, etc.), to ensure that all preservation methods and treatments work are carried out in a satisfactory manner. Before the final inspection is issued for the project, the members of the Historic Preservation Board and Planning Staff who have been responsible for the field monitoring of the project should perform one last inspection of the project to ensure that all final work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. CONCLUSION Although the applicant’s architect has created a well though-out and attractive design for the remodeling and room additions that the owner wishes to add to their home, the current proposal unfortunately seems more like a new construction project than a restoration project. This is partly due to the lack of clarity regarding the extent to which the historic fabric and other original historic features of the home are to remain. The proposed design also lacks clarity regarding the delineation between the proposed new construction and the important older original portions of the home. In addition, there is no clear understanding as to the manner which in which the remaining extant historic fabric is to be HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 9 preserved, removed, reconstructed, or replaced. Without including this very important information and properly conveying it in the current drawings for this project, this application in my opinion, is incomplete and is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards (i.e. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings) or the City of Campbell’s Historic Design Guidelines. If the applicant wishes to revise the current drawings and include additional information that may better clarify the concerns raised, then I would recommend they include along with their revised plans a cover letter, which responds to each item of concern listed above and resubmit this material for another design review by this office. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 9 Ron Grandia replied yes. Board Member Blake said she was pleased with this proposal. Board Member Moore said she likes this. Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Walter, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2019- 05 approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019- 129) to allow installation of new window openings on the east and west walls of an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Anthony Bargas Sr. House, located at 146 Alice Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kendall NEW BUSINESS 4. 119 Alice Avenue – Preliminary Review Request that the Historic Preservation Board review preliminary plans and provide feedback on a proposed addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue. Planner Daniel Fama:  Advised that this is an informal review of a proposed addition to offer Board feedback on a proposed addition. Jason Lee, Applicant and Property Owner, 119 Alice Avenue:  Reported that he is proposing what will be the fourth addition to this home.  Said that as part of their project they are restoring the front elevation back to its original architecture as is possible.  Stated that they would be changing the ridgeline of the roof to hide the top portion of a second story addition at the back. The ridgeline change will completely obscure that second story from the front elevation.  Stated that the front looks original and a portion from the side elevations leading to the back.  Said it is their end result intent is that their home does not look like multiple additions added over time.  Informed that they need to relocate the stairs internally. The existing stairs are not to current code and represent a potential trip hazard for senior members of their household.  Stated that he looks forward to feedback from the Board.  Concluded that he will be replacing materials back to the way they were originally. Board Member Walter asked if the home’s footprint would remain the same. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 10 Jason Lee replied somewhat. They are adding on at the rear of the home. Board Member Blake referenced the plan to even out the second-floor roofline. Jason Lee:  Said they plan is to create a more cohesive appearance for the second-floor’s current space and added space.  Reiterated that the front stays the same.  Reminded that the ridgeline for the existing roof will be raised up to hide the existing pop out that is the roof ridge of the existing second floor.  Said that he would appreciate any feedback prior to getting his plans drawn up. Board Member Blake advised that the interior remodel itself is not a part of HPB’s purview. Chair Foulkes asked if the homes on either side were single-story or two-story. Planner Daniel Fama said they are single-story homes on either side. Jason Lee said that there are only three two-story homes. His home backs on to a home with two bedrooms upstairs. Chair Foulkes:  Admitted that it bothers him to see the roofline’s height being raised.  Stated that could added height could create an appearance of mass that may be visible even from the street sides.  Opined that this will be a much bigger house than others in the neighborhood. Board Member Walter:  Said that the roofline increase would not appear obvious. It is only going up by two feet to reach the peak and obscure the roof over the back addition. Jason Lee said that the whole house was 2,700 square feet when he bought it. The total with the addition will increase by 1,000 square feet. Board Member Walter reminded that the design guidelines require that an addition to an historic structure look different from the original home while also be compatible. Jason Lee said they are open to that. He pointed out that his lot is large at 14,000 square feet. Their FAR will be less than the maximum allowed. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the maximum FAR would be .45. He added that the one limitation of extending the square footage is that it makes kick in the requirement to fire sprinkler the entire home. Jason Lee:  Said he was looking forward to putting in fire sprinklers.  Assured that he wants this addition to compliment the original architecture. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 11  Added that going with a single-story addition would take up too much property in the backyard.  Reiterated he is here today to receive early feedback.  Restated his plan to keep the front elevation historic and the addition complimentary with the original architecture. Chair Foulkes asked if the house was originally a single-story. Planner Daniel Fama said he was not sure. Jason Lee:  Said that material wise the second story was original and likely done a long time ago.  Said he wants to get it back to the original view. Chair Foulkes said he can appreciate Mr. Lee’s efforts to stitch the whole house together. Board Member Blake said that there was quite a bit to work with with this home. Jason Lee:  Reassured the Board that he wants to keep the scale of this home as it is.  Pointed out that in ratio to property size this home is not too large. Board Member Blake suggested that the HPB let the back of this home blend in with the front. Board Member Walter agreed. Board Member Blake:  Said that she is in favor of allowing this property owner to proceed with the preparation of his plans.  Suggested that the Board not make it more complicated than it already is. Board Member Walter suggested that Mr. Lee keep the dimensions, details and character of the original home for the first 10 feet along both side elevations. He asked about the type of siding proposed and/or in use. Jason Lee:  Said that the siding material at the back is composite cement which matches the front materials. It would be easy to replicate.  Said that it’s not clear if the shutters were original or added later. He has done some research and would be okay keeping them or removing them as the Board prefers. Chair Foulkes said he looks at this matter as to whether it would matter if new information is found six months down the road. It is important not to make one house look different from the rest of its neighborhood. Jason Lee said that every house on Alice is different. That’s the charm of living on Alice Avenue. There are all types of architectural styles. None of them are exactly the same. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 12 Board Member Moore pointed out that the historic design guidelines allow for second story additions to historic structures. Planner Daniel Fama reported that the existing carport was constructed in 1950. Board Member Walter asked when the original home was built. Jason Lee said it was somewhere between 1921 or 1923. Planner Daniel Fama replied 1923. Chair Foulkes said that the design guidelines call for additions to be distinct from the original structure. He questioned how this project might impact the HPB’s ability to deal with future owners wanting a second-story addition. Board Member Blake said the Board will take requests one by one. Board Member Walter said that the 1980’s era addition at the back already matches the appearance of the front. Board Member Blake said that issue of having an addition look different just because it’s an addition merits some further conversation. She suggested that the Secretary of the Interior Standards are subject to interpretation. Planner Daniel Fama said that the record of the review and discussion had is important. We have our detailed minutes and good documentation. He suggested that Mr. Lee’s architect prepare a written narrative explaining his approach in designing this latest addition. Chair Foulkes agreed getting the context would be helpful to this Board. Board Member Walter:  Stated that there are reasons to support a cohesive design versus differing the appearance of an addition from its original structure.  Suggested that it would suffice to incorporate just enough difference in materials or trim to differentiate between an original historic home and its addition. Board Member Moore said that each project is completely unique in every way. Each proposal must be looked at individually. This house has undergone more than 70 years’ worth of remodels. The entirety of this home will be cleaned up a bit with this project. Jason Lee said he loves that and wants to achieve that. OLD BUSINESS 5. 204 Alice Avenue – Review of Siding Material and Windows (Roll Call Vote) Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2020-17) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 989 SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION, 884 SQUARE- FOOT BASEMENT EXPANSION, AND THE REMOVAL OF 254 SQUARE-FEET FROM A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO AN ALICE AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE, LOCATED AT 119 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-2021-17: 1. The project site is a 13,275 square-foot single-family residential property located on the north side of Alice Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and South Third Street 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, originally constructed in 1923, with Bungalow and Craftsman influences, commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House. 5. The proposed project is an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure. 6. 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 "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit. 7. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.080, a request for an Historic Resource Alteration Permit 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. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 8. The Historic Preservation Board’s recommendation establishes standards which serve to satisfy the required findings to grant a Tier 1 Historic Alteration Permit in accordance with CMC Sec. 21.33.080. The Community Development Director applies these standards and requirements when issuing a zoning clearance on the permit request. 9. 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. 10. 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 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. 11. The proposed project may be found consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible. Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 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. 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. 12. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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. b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource. c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible. d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future. Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 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. 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): 6. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code; 7. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings; 8. 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; 9. 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 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): 10. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures. 11. There are no unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board adopts a resolution recommending approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 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 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) 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 Planning Division 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-17) to allow the construction of an approximately 989 square-foot addition, 884 square-foot basement expansion, and the removal of 254 square-feet from a detached accessory structure to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment 4 in the March 24, 2021 Historic Preservation Board Staff Report, except as may be modified by conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration: The Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit approval shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring April 3, 2021). Within this one-year period, the building permit must be approved (i.e. ready to issue). Failure to meet this deadline will result in the Historic Resource Alteration Permit being rendered void. 3. Siding Material: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a sample of the new siding for the Community Development Director’s review and approval. The new siding shall be a minimum of a half-inch, and a maximum of one-inch, wider or narrower than the existing siding found on the front elevation of the building. Alternatively, the siding may be a minimum of one-eighth inch, and a maximum of one-quarter inch, thinner or thicker than the existing siding on the front elevation of the building. The final siding design and appearance shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Preservation and Reuse of Historic Windows: The applicant shall be required to preserve and reuse all windows with grids (presumed historic/original to the structure) onsite on their respective elevations to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. Egress Window: If an egress window is required for the proposed bedroom on the second floor (identified as Bedroom: 2 on Sheet A3.3) the applicant shall accommodate this window on the south elevation of the home in place of the proposed closet in this area. The applicant shall not be allowed to resize existing windows to meet egress requirements. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 2 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 6. Third-Party Inspector: The applicant shall be required to provide a deposit and cover all costs associated with having a third-party inspector present on the property to monitor key stages of excavation and shoring as well as the removal of existing windows and walls. 7. Rough Framing and Planning Final Required: Planning Division clearance is required prior to rough framing and final Building Permit clearance. Construction not in substantial compliance with the approved project plans shall not be approved without prior authorization of the necessary approving body. 8. Minor Modifications: Minor Modifications to the approved project plans are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Minor modifications include alterations in floor area of no more than 50 square feet on the first floor, alterations to second story windows that are not oriented toward neighboring yards and result in an increase in window area of no more than one square foot and horizontal relocation of no more than one foot from the approved window location, and minor alterations to façade material. All other modifications are subject to review at a public hearing. 9. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Building plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Building Official prior to Final Inspection. 10. Fences/Walls: Except as noted below, any newly proposed fencing and/or walls shall comply with Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.18.060 and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 11. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: As a remodel/addition/rehabilitation project with a total project landscape area equal to or less than 2,500 square feet, this project is subject to the landscaping and irrigation standards in Chapter 21.26 of the Campbell Municipal Code. The building permit application submittal shall include compliant Planting and Irrigation Plans and shall include the following: a. A completed Landscape Information Form. b. A note on the Cover Sheet in minimum 1/2” high lettering stating “Planning Final Required. The new landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed prior to final inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning approval.” 12. On-Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 3 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 13. Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements during construction: a. The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition. d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses. f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell. Building Division: 11. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed addition to and remodeling of the existing structure. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 12. Plan Preparation: This addition may require plan prepared under the direction and oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. When applicable, plans submitted for building permits shall be “wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying professional person. 13. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. 14. Size of Plans: The minimum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24 in. X 36 in. 15. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include a competent site plan that identifies property and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as appropriate. Site plan shall also include site drainage details. 16. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. Compliance with the Standards shall be demonstrated for conditioning of the building envelope and lighting of the building. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 4 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue 17. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance with C.B.C Chapter 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of Campbell, Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter. 18. Non-Point Source: The standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan submittal. The specification sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division service counter. 19. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to issuance of the building permit: a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407) b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010) c. San Jose Water Company (279-7900) d. School District: i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405) ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960) iii. Moreland School District (379-1370) iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103 Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved the building permit application. 20. P.G.& E.: Applicant is advised to contact Pacific Gas and Electric Company as early as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or relocations may require substantial scheduling time and can cause significant delays in the approval process. Applicant should also consult with P.G. and E. concerning utility easements, distribution pole locations and required conductor clearances. 21. Intent to Occupy During Construction: Owners shall declare their intent to occupy the (e) dwelling during construction. The Building Inspection Division may require the premises to be vacated during portions of construction because of substandard and unsafe living conditions created by construction. 22. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water run-off from impervious surface created by this permitted project shall be directed to vegetated areas on the project parcel. Storm water shall not drain onto neighboring parcels. 23. Site Management: This project shall use the following Site Management policies: • Job Site Manager. Every permitted job must have an identified person to manage the work and be responsive to issues that come up during construction. It is important to identify this person and provide contact information to the Building Inspector at the beginning of the construction process. When a change is made concerning site manager, the inspector should be made aware of the new person and contact information. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 5 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue • Construction Debris. At the end of each construction day, attention should be made to collect and manage construction waste and debris. Trash must be covered and removed from the site as soon as reasonable. Respect the neighbors and keep a clean site! Sites that fail to manage trash can and will be cited. • Construction Hours. Every Permitted job is required to observe the permitted hours of construction. Construction work is allowed from 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday thru Friday. Construction is allowed on Saturdays from 9:00am to 4:00pm. No work is allowed on Sundays or Legal U.S. Holidays. Workers showing up at job sites before the permitted times may create a problem and should be discouraged from arriving earlier than 15 minutes before permitted times. Material deliveries should never be scheduled before permitted hours. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to manage and coordinate deliveries. Citations and/or Stop Work Notices will be issued to Contractors violating the permitted hours. • Dust and Dirt. Many jobs will create dust and dirt on the street. When it rains, sites may have mud running into the sidewalk and street. All job sites must keep all rain runoff on the site and prevent water from running from the site into the gutter and street. Vehicles tracking mud and dirt into the street require cleanup and keeping the sidewalks and streets clean. If you fail to manage your dirt, dust and mud, your site may be issued a ‘Stop Work’ notice and/or a citation. • Music and Unnecessary Noise. Radios and loud music or other noise not related to construction is discouraged and will keep the neighbors from complaining. Earbuds are a good way to keep the music playing and not a problem for the neighbors. Job sites are not a good place for a worker’s dog. Animals should be left at home. • Construction Vehicles. Construction vehicles shall access the property only from S. Winchester Boulevard and shall not travel westbound on Alice Avenue except to leave the project site. Public Works Department: 24. Frontage Improvements Required: The scope of this project triggers the requirement for Frontage Improvements as required by Campbell Municipal Code 11.24.040. The applicant will be required to apply for an Encroachment permit to construct frontage improvements as listed below. The building permit and grading permit will not be issued until all Public Works Conditions of Approval have been satisfied. 25. Single Legal Parcel: The applicant shall provide documentation to demonstrate that this lot is a single legal parcel as it appears to be three legal parcels based on the Title Report: being Lot 35 and the West 15 feet of 34 and the East 25 feet of Lot 36 as shown on that certain Map entitled “Map of the Hyde Residence Park”. If the applicant cannot satisfactorily demonstrate that the property is a single legal parcel, they will need to process a lot line adjustment for lot merger as detailed below: a. Lot Merger: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall fully complete the lot line adjustment process for lot merger. The applicant shall submit an application for approval by the City Engineer, pay the current Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 6 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue application processing fees, process the application with City staff’s comments and fully complete the lot line adjustment. 26. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to building permits for the site, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, currently set at $2,120.00 per net acre, which is $646.00 (set for R-1). 27. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff to the bay. Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start at the Source: A Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999; and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document to Start at the Source (“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003. 28. Utility Services: The following conditions only apply if the applicant has a need to install / upgrade utility services (water, sewer, gas, etc.) in the street: a. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate permits for the installation of utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. b. Utility Coordination Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a utility coordination plan and schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation and/or abandonment of all utilities. The plan shall clearly show the location and size of all existing utilities and the associated main lines; indicate which utilities and services are to remain; which utilities and services are to be abandoned, and where new utilities and services will be installed. Joint trenches for new utilities shall be used whenever possible. c. Pavement Restoration: The applicant shall restore the pavement in compliance with City standard requirements. In the event that the roadway has recently received a pavement treatment or reconstruction, the project will be subject to the City’s Street Cut Moratorium. The applicant will be required to perform enhanced pavement restoration consistent with the restoration requirements associated with the Street Cut Moratorium. The City’s Pavement Maintenance Program website (https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/219) has detailed information on the streets currently under moratorium and the enhanced restoration requirements. 29. Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall cause plans for public street improvements to Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 7 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue be prepared, pay various fees and deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by the City Engineer. The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: a. Removal and replacement of broken curb along Alice Avenue project frontage. b. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as necessary. c. The project is not proposing any changes to the alley project frontage. 30. Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Building Permit Final: Prior to allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings, the applicant shall have the required street improvements installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. 31. Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future, are required to maintain the landscaped park strip in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Street trees shall not be pruned by the property owner. Fire Department: 32. Limited Review: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 33. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet A0.1 & F1.1) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: One or more additions made to a building after January 1, 2011 that do not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. 2) In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by CBLMC. 34. Water Supply Requirements: (As Noted on Sheet F1.1) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. Page 8 of 8 PLN-2021-17 ~ 119 Alice Avenue storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 35. Address Identification: (As Noted on Sheet F1.1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 36. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As Noted on Sheet F1.1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 37. Limited Review: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6] 179 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. 119 Alice Avenue 2,150Campbell IT, GIS Services 358 1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet 3580 Scale DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: Robert/Holmes 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 119 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: 412-05-061 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Two story house constructed of overlapping wooden boards; the roof consists of asphalt and wood shingles; the roof shape is front gabled. The roof trim on the gable end of the home has the edge of the roof projecting with boards attached at the roofs edge. The eaves are projecting with rafters exposed The roof also contains gable with overhang dormer type upper windows. The window in front consists of three sashes divided vertically with upright dividing bars, the center window is fixed, the side windows are casement style. The windows on the sides consists of two sash double hung and casement, one sash fixed style of windows. The main door is plain with four vertically elongated evenly spaced windows near the top. The main door also has glass side panels. The porch is recessed into the corner of the home supported on wooden piers. Additional features include an exterior chimney against the wall of the house. *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 1923 *P7. Owner and Address: T.D. & Kay Atkinson (April 1987) *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kevin Tokanaga City of Campbell Museum 51 N. Central Campbell, CA 95008 *P9. Date Recorded: April, 1986 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-78 Survey. Phone interview with Mrs. Kurt (Betty G. Newton) Ritter (April 26, 1978) by Tom M. King. Initial study taken by Hugh I. Schade (October 10, 1977). *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD 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 *NRHP Status Code Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: Robert/Holmes House B2. Common Name: Robert/Holmes House B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same *B5. Architectural Style: Semi-Bungalow with craftsman style influence *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built, 1923. *B7. Moved?  No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Barn, carport. Eaves incorporated into the carport, back porch remodeled by adding into the kitchen. B9a. Architect: b. Builder: Robert Holmes *B10. Significance: Theme Economic/Industrial Area Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Alice Avenue was created in 1915 on a portion of the site of the fruit drying yards owned by the George E. Hyde Company, a canning and fruit dehydrating plant occupying 17 acres in Campbell. The land was originally owned and utilized by Flamming’s Fruit Dryer (1887); sold to Frank Buxton’s Dryer (1890, and again sold to Campbell Fruit Grower’s Union (1892) which owned and controlled the drying yards and packing house until its sale to George Hyde in 1909. The residential subdivision, “Hyde Residential Park” was built primarily for housing cannery workers, though George and Alice Hyde (the Street’s namesake) resided there too. The house was rented a number of years, one renter being Mr. Van Dyke, former principal of Campbell High School. Robert Holmes sold to the Perrott family. Mr. Perrott was the J.C. Ainsley Packing Co. official who handled exports to Britain. His wife was related to J.C. Ainsley. The Ritters purchased the house from the Long family (Mr. a Navy radio man here one year) in 1947. They raised three children in this house, one, Walter, was born here. The house was sold to Walter in 1976, and he sold it in Jan 1978. The Ritters added the car port in 1950 and remodeled the kitchen including the porch in it. 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.) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA Prepared for CITY CAMPBELL PLANNING DIVISION 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Date: 9/18/20 Final HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 1 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WORK The owner of the property located at 119 Alice Avenue wishes to renovate their home extensively by adding another 1,483 square-foot addition to this existing 1,817 square-foot two-story historic home with a basement, which is located in the city’s only Designated Historic District. According to the drawings prepared by BRITT/ROWE DESIGNER BUILDER, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA (consisting of 23 drawing sheets, last dated 7/14/20), the applicant is proposing to reuse original detailing and remove existing details and features from previous additions and remodeling of the home that are typically inconsistent with the building’s original Bungalow and Craftsman Style influences. They are also proposing to keep all of the existing mature trees, landscaping, walkways, and patios, including the detached garage/shed structure that is located next to the alleyway. DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This historic two-story single-family home with partial basement occupies the property located at 119 Alice Avenue in the City of Campbell, which is situated on the north side of Alice Avenue, between South Third Avenue to the east and South Winchester Boulevard to the west. Known by its historic name, the Robert/Holmes House, this 13,275 square-foot lot contains two buildings: the main residence, which is located roughly in the center of the lot, and a wood-framed garage/shed that is located at the rear of the property. The main residence was reportedly constructed in 1923 and is one of the existing thirty-six homes that reside in the city’s only Designated Historic District. The architectural style is described as a Bungalow with Craftsman Style influence. These influences or features include a prominent brick fireplace, gable and shed roofs, attic dormer, broad eaves with projecting rafter tails, barge rafters supported by knee braces, wood bevel horizontal board siding, and glazed doors and windows with asymmetrical muntin patterns. The exterior of the home is clad with bevel overlapping horizontal wood board siding arranged in an alternating pattern of 4-inch-wide boards placed above 8-inch wide boards on the lower portion of the wall, and a 6-inch wide bevel overlapping wood board siding placed in a conventional overlay pattern on the upper wall and gable areas. These two exterior patterns are separated by a horizontal trim board with water table molding trim that stretches around the entire house at the top window sash line, aligning all of the building’s fenestration openings in a consistent visual horizontal arrangement. The primary gable roof is clad in composition shingle and extends over the carport to the east and the shallow projecting bedroom wing of the home to the west. From the upper ridge line, the roof transitions into a small hip roof, which terminates at the ridge line of the second-floor master bedroom that runs perpendicular and faces the rear yard of the home. Below, the gable roof of the first-floor family room extends towards the detached garage/shed structure that is located next to the rear property line to the north. A small gable dormer with a pair of French doors is centered within the sloping front roof form leading to a small balcony that looks out to the street and sidewalk below. All of the roof eaves are open, with broad overhangs and barge rafters that are supported by knee braces at each of the roof gable. HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 2 A prominent brick fireplace chimney pierces the roof at the west roof plane, above the living room, and is symmetrically placed in the wall with a smaller rectangular sash window on each side. A large horizontal rectangular fixed picture window flanked with casement windows at each end is placed within the center of the front building facade. Fixed shutters have been attached to the wall, just beyond the vertical window trim boards. To the right, located at the corner end of the structure, is a deeply recessed covered porch supported by wooden piers serves as the main entrance to the home from the street. From this porch, the left door leads to the living room space. It is flanked with elongated fixed sidelight windows arranged in a 2 over 2 asymmetrically proportioned manner, with the upper two windows smaller than the elongated lower window panes. The main entry door on the north wall is glazed as well, with glass divisions proportionally complementing the living room sidelights, though they are arranged in a 3 over 3 asymmetrically proportional manner. The windows located on the other exterior elevations of the home vary in both size and types (e.g., double hung, fixed sash, casement, and fixed half-round). All but four of the existing sash windows appear to be original to the home, all others are either completely new (resulting from previous remodeling or room additions to the home) or are modern retrofit windows, which have been installed to fit within the building’s original window frame openings. HISTORIC OVERVIEW Alice Avenue was constructed 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); it was sold to Frank Buxton’s Dryer (1890), and sold again 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. According to a State of California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A Primary Record form dated from 1982, the Robert Holmes House was rented for a number of years, with one renter being Mr. Van Dyke, a former principal of Campbell High School. Robert Holmes sold to the Perrott family: Mr. Perrott was the J.C. Ainsley Packing Co. official who handled exports to Britain and his wife was related to J.C. Ainsley. The Ritters purchased the house from the Long family in 1947 and raised three children in this house—one of them Walter, was even born here. The house was sold to Walter in 1976 and he sold it in January 1978. The Ritters added the carport in 1950 and remodeled the kitchen, including the porch in it. No other archival information or construction chronology for this property was included with this application. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS Despite knowing that the historic Robert/Holmes House has been substantially remodeled and expanded over the many years from its original footprint and appearance, the home still retains much of its original design, workmanship, materials, and feeling that is important in defining its HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 3 historic character and integrity. It is this existing integrity that is of the upmost importance to preserve. Any renovation and repair work performed on this building must be done in a manner that employs only the very best in preservation techniques, methods, and procedures. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services is a document that summarizes the concepts for maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations to older historic structures. It offers guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings, making general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the standards to a property. This document provides a guiding framework for making decisions about any work or changes that might affect a historic property. THE CITY CAMPBELL’S GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS The City of Campbell Guidelines for Historic Buildings is intended to assist owners of specific properties identified on the City of Campbell’s Historic Resources Inventory in the rehabilitation and preservation of buildings without radically altering existing features that are so significant in defining the building’s architectural style and character. These guidelines parallel many of the recommendations found in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and are used as a resource by the Historic Preservation Board and the city’s staff when evaluating building applications that could affect the character of these older historic buildings within the city. GENERAL COMMENTARY The Secretary of the Interior Standard guidelines recommends the following: • A new addition must preserve the building’s historic character, form, significant materials, and features. It must be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and design of the historic building while differentiated from the historic building. • It should also be designed and constructed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic building would remain if the addition were to be removed in the future. • Placing an addition on the rear or on another secondary elevation helps to ensure that it will be subordinate to the historic building. • New construction should be appropriately scaled and located far enough away from the historic building to maintain its character and that of the site and setting. The City of Campbell’s Guidelines for Historic Buildings offer a similar recommendation: HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 4 • New construction should be compatible with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Each house should be designed with a full understanding of the characteristic elements of that style selected for the home. Careful attention to scale, balance, proportion, detail, and craftsmanship must always be observed. Incorporate these elements in a tasteful and consistent manner. Avoid combining characteristics of different or unrelated styles. RECOMENDATIONS For the most part, the applicant has succeeded in following some of these very important design considerations and recommended preservation treatments. They appear to be retaining most of the original historic fabric, design elements, and character-defining features found on the primary street elevation of the home. These features include the existing brick fireplace, horizontal bevel wood siding, windows, entry porch with its support boxed columns, front entry door, main gable roof form, upper dormer with outer deck feature, and the existing carport. They are also proposing to match the visual appearance of all extant building materials, construction assemblies, and roof overhang dimensions. Unfortunately, it is not clear what actual preservations methods and treatments will be used. The extent of demolition work proposed, which would require the removal of extant historic fabric and other features of the building that could affect its historic value and remaining integrity, is also unclear. The proposed construction work and alterations to the home are extensive, and the applicant is proposing no delineation between the new portions of the home from the original areas. They are also proposing to replicate features that did not exist at the time the home was constructed, which could result in a false sense of the building’s history. The Secretary of the Interior Standards recommends that, “new additions to historic buildings use the same forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building.” Although the applicant is proposing significant alterations to the sides and the rear of this building, the primary street façade appearance is relatively undisturbed by this new extensive construction work. This document also cautions that new construction should not diminish the original building’s historic character: “Ensure that new construction is secondary to the historic building and does not detract from its significance.” Architectural Character Checklist/Questionnaire: It is recommended that the applicant complete the 6- page City of Campbell Historic Preservation Evaluation form and included this with their application. In filling out this checklist, they will gain a better understanding of the significant aspects of their building and setting that are essential to maintaining their building’s overall historic character and integrity. Preservation Guidelines: It is important that the applicant familiarize him or herself with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and consult with a preservation professional early in the development of this project. HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 5 It is extremely important to follow these guidelines in the decision-making process and the development of design documents and drawings for a construction project on a historic building. These guidelines establish the framework in which the project emerges and is constructed. They are intended to aid in applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to all types of historic building; although they not provide case-specific advice or address exceptions or unusual conditions, they do address both exterior and interior work on historic buildings. The approaches to work treatments and techniques that are consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are listed in the “Recommended” column on the left; those that are inconsistent with the Standards are listed in the “Not Recommended” column on the right. There are four sections, each focusing on one of the four treatment standards: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Each section includes one set of standards, with accompanying guidelines, that are to be used throughout the course of a project. PRESERVATION is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses on the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than on extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form. Preservation may be appropriate if distinctive materials, features, and spaces are essentially intact and convey the building’s historical significance. If the building requires more extensive repair and replacement, or alterations or additions are necessary for a new use then rehabilitation is probably the most appropriate treatment. REHABILITATION is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses, while retaining the building’s historic character. RESTORATION is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The restoration standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods. RECONSTRUCTION is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. The reconstruction standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 6 Choosing the most appropriate treatment requires making careful decisions about a building’s historical significance, as well as taking into account a number of other considerations, such as the actual level the building’s significance, condition, intended end, and building code or other regulation requirements. Standards for Preservation: The applicant should prepare a comprehensive description that identifies the extent of all construction that is to be undertaken in areas that might affect the primary street façade and portions of the building’s side elevations as seen from Alice Avenue. This information should be clear and unambiguous, and should correlate with both the architectural and structural drawings for this project. It should describe the limits of the areas from which the extant historic material, features, and architectural components are anticipated to be removed, along with full descriptions of all proposed preservation methods and treatments (consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards) that will be employed during the construction phase of the project. Special attention should be paid to the proposed preservation treatments that will be used on the project’s existing horizontal wood board siding, original wood sash windows, original doors in the front porch area, and paint removal treatments to be used on the existing exterior wood surfaces. PROPOSED EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 7 PROPOSED WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 8 Submittals: Representative samples and full-scale tracings of all existing materials that are to be matched in like kind (e.g., trim boards, bevel siding, window sash, etc.) should be submitted to the city for comparison with the proposed replacement samples in order to determine suitability and match in appearance before they are purchased and installed. Monitoring of the Project: Periodic monitoring of the project during the construction process should be implemented by the city to ensure that agreed upon preservation measures are properly implemented during the project’s entire design and construction process. This oversight should be carried out by a third-party professional in concert with the property owner and the builder. If any unforeseen condition arises during the construction operation, there is a process and a means to which the owner can turn for guidance and advice for solutions. As a minimum, this oversight should begin early on in this project’s development, before the demolition phase. During this phase, decisions can be made regarding exactly which areas and parts of the existing home should be removed and which should be kept in place. The demolition operation can commence once these agreements are made, and should be periodically monitored to ensure that the extant historic material that is to remain is properly protected from damage or accidental removal. After this phase of the project is complete, monitoring should continue in the form of the review and approval of all required submittals for the project and periodic field observations during the foundation and rough framing inspection signoffs by the city’s Building Department. Once these milestones have been completed, it is important to periodically observe the building’s exterior window and door repair work and replacement operation to ensure that they conform with the approved corrective repair and preservation treatments specified in the construction drawings. Additional monitoring should also include both the repair and/or replacement of other character- defining features of the home (e.g., masonry brick, roof fascia and eave trim boards, knee braces, wood board siding, etc.), to ensure that all preservation methods and treatments work are carried out in a satisfactory manner. Before the final inspection is issued for the project, the members of the Historic Preservation Board and Planning Staff who have been responsible for the field monitoring of the project should perform one last inspection of the project to ensure that all final work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. CONCLUSION Although the applicant’s architect has created a well though-out and attractive design for the remodeling and room additions that the owner wishes to add to their home, the current proposal unfortunately seems more like a new construction project than a restoration project. This is partly due to the lack of clarity regarding the extent to which the historic fabric and other original historic features of the home are to remain. The proposed design also lacks clarity regarding the delineation between the proposed new construction and the important older original portions of the home. In addition, there is no clear understanding as to the manner which in which the remaining extant historic fabric is to be HISTORIC ROBERT/HOLMES HOUSE 119 Alice Avenue, Campbell, CA ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Date: 9/18/20 Final Page | 9 preserved, removed, reconstructed, or replaced. Without including this very important information and properly conveying it in the current drawings for this project, this application in my opinion, is incomplete and is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards (i.e. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings) or the City of Campbell’s Historic Design Guidelines. If the applicant wishes to revise the current drawings and include additional information that may better clarify the concerns raised, then I would recommend they include along with their revised plans a cover letter, which responds to each item of concern listed above and resubmit this material for another design review by this office. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 9 Ron Grandia replied yes. Board Member Blake said she was pleased with this proposal. Board Member Moore said she likes this. Motion: Upon motion of Board Member Walter, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2019- 05 approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019- 129) to allow installation of new window openings on the east and west walls of an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Anthony Bargas Sr. House, located at 146 Alice Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kendall NEW BUSINESS 4. 119 Alice Avenue – Preliminary Review Request that the Historic Preservation Board review preliminary plans and provide feedback on a proposed addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Robert/Holmes House, located at 119 Alice Avenue. Planner Daniel Fama:  Advised that this is an informal review of a proposed addition to offer Board feedback on a proposed addition. Jason Lee, Applicant and Property Owner, 119 Alice Avenue:  Reported that he is proposing what will be the fourth addition to this home.  Said that as part of their project they are restoring the front elevation back to its original architecture as is possible.  Stated that they would be changing the ridgeline of the roof to hide the top portion of a second story addition at the back. The ridgeline change will completely obscure that second story from the front elevation.  Stated that the front looks original and a portion from the side elevations leading to the back.  Said it is their end result intent is that their home does not look like multiple additions added over time.  Informed that they need to relocate the stairs internally. The existing stairs are not to current code and represent a potential trip hazard for senior members of their household.  Stated that he looks forward to feedback from the Board.  Concluded that he will be replacing materials back to the way they were originally. Board Member Walter asked if the home’s footprint would remain the same. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 10 Jason Lee replied somewhat. They are adding on at the rear of the home. Board Member Blake referenced the plan to even out the second-floor roofline. Jason Lee:  Said they plan is to create a more cohesive appearance for the second-floor’s current space and added space.  Reiterated that the front stays the same.  Reminded that the ridgeline for the existing roof will be raised up to hide the existing pop out that is the roof ridge of the existing second floor.  Said that he would appreciate any feedback prior to getting his plans drawn up. Board Member Blake advised that the interior remodel itself is not a part of HPB’s purview. Chair Foulkes asked if the homes on either side were single-story or two-story. Planner Daniel Fama said they are single-story homes on either side. Jason Lee said that there are only three two-story homes. His home backs on to a home with two bedrooms upstairs. Chair Foulkes:  Admitted that it bothers him to see the roofline’s height being raised.  Stated that could added height could create an appearance of mass that may be visible even from the street sides.  Opined that this will be a much bigger house than others in the neighborhood. Board Member Walter:  Said that the roofline increase would not appear obvious. It is only going up by two feet to reach the peak and obscure the roof over the back addition. Jason Lee said that the whole house was 2,700 square feet when he bought it. The total with the addition will increase by 1,000 square feet. Board Member Walter reminded that the design guidelines require that an addition to an historic structure look different from the original home while also be compatible. Jason Lee said they are open to that. He pointed out that his lot is large at 14,000 square feet. Their FAR will be less than the maximum allowed. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the maximum FAR would be .45. He added that the one limitation of extending the square footage is that it makes kick in the requirement to fire sprinkler the entire home. Jason Lee:  Said he was looking forward to putting in fire sprinklers.  Assured that he wants this addition to compliment the original architecture. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 11  Added that going with a single-story addition would take up too much property in the backyard.  Reiterated he is here today to receive early feedback.  Restated his plan to keep the front elevation historic and the addition complimentary with the original architecture. Chair Foulkes asked if the house was originally a single-story. Planner Daniel Fama said he was not sure. Jason Lee:  Said that material wise the second story was original and likely done a long time ago.  Said he wants to get it back to the original view. Chair Foulkes said he can appreciate Mr. Lee’s efforts to stitch the whole house together. Board Member Blake said that there was quite a bit to work with with this home. Jason Lee:  Reassured the Board that he wants to keep the scale of this home as it is.  Pointed out that in ratio to property size this home is not too large. Board Member Blake suggested that the HPB let the back of this home blend in with the front. Board Member Walter agreed. Board Member Blake:  Said that she is in favor of allowing this property owner to proceed with the preparation of his plans.  Suggested that the Board not make it more complicated than it already is. Board Member Walter suggested that Mr. Lee keep the dimensions, details and character of the original home for the first 10 feet along both side elevations. He asked about the type of siding proposed and/or in use. Jason Lee:  Said that the siding material at the back is composite cement which matches the front materials. It would be easy to replicate.  Said that it’s not clear if the shutters were original or added later. He has done some research and would be okay keeping them or removing them as the Board prefers. Chair Foulkes said he looks at this matter as to whether it would matter if new information is found six months down the road. It is important not to make one house look different from the rest of its neighborhood. Jason Lee said that every house on Alice is different. That’s the charm of living on Alice Avenue. There are all types of architectural styles. None of them are exactly the same. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for August 12, 2019   Page 12 Board Member Moore pointed out that the historic design guidelines allow for second story additions to historic structures. Planner Daniel Fama reported that the existing carport was constructed in 1950. Board Member Walter asked when the original home was built. Jason Lee said it was somewhere between 1921 or 1923. Planner Daniel Fama replied 1923. Chair Foulkes said that the design guidelines call for additions to be distinct from the original structure. He questioned how this project might impact the HPB’s ability to deal with future owners wanting a second-story addition. Board Member Blake said the Board will take requests one by one. Board Member Walter said that the 1980’s era addition at the back already matches the appearance of the front. Board Member Blake said that issue of having an addition look different just because it’s an addition merits some further conversation. She suggested that the Secretary of the Interior Standards are subject to interpretation. Planner Daniel Fama said that the record of the review and discussion had is important. We have our detailed minutes and good documentation. He suggested that Mr. Lee’s architect prepare a written narrative explaining his approach in designing this latest addition. Chair Foulkes agreed getting the context would be helpful to this Board. Board Member Walter:  Stated that there are reasons to support a cohesive design versus differing the appearance of an addition from its original structure.  Suggested that it would suffice to incorporate just enough difference in materials or trim to differentiate between an original historic home and its addition. Board Member Moore said that each project is completely unique in every way. Each proposal must be looked at individually. This house has undergone more than 70 years’ worth of remodels. The entirety of this home will be cleaned up a bit with this project. Jason Lee said he loves that and wants to achieve that. OLD BUSINESS 5. 204 Alice Avenue – Review of Siding Material and Windows (Roll Call Vote) Item No. 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ March 24, 2021 City Action Review and approve the 2019-2020 Certified Local Government Annual Report. (Resolution/ Roll Call Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action: 1.Adopt a resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving the 2019-2020 Certified Local Government Annual Report and directing staff to transmit it to the California Office of Historic Preservation. DISCUSSION As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City of Campbell must submit an annual CLG report to the California Office of Historic Preservation every year. Staff has prepared a draft report for the Board’s review (reference Attachment 2). Attachments: 1.Draft Resolution 2.Draft CLG Report Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING THE 2019-2020 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TRANSMIT IT TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WHEREAS, the Congress under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the establishment of a Certified Local Government program; and WHEREAS, the State of California, represented by the State Historic Preservation Officer, is responsible for the administration of the program within the state and the establishment of necessary rules and procedures governing the application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9808, allowing the City of Campbell to enter the Certified Local Government Program and appointing the Community Development Director to coordinate, process, and execute all contracts, agreements, amendments, and ancillary documents; and WHEREAS, as a requirement of the Certified Local Government Program the City must submit an annual report to the California Office of Historic Preservation; and 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, the Planning Commission, and the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Board has reviewed the draft Certified Local Government annual report and found it satisfactory. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD hereby approves the 2019-2020 Certified Local Government Annual Report and directs staff to transmit it to the California Office of Historic Preservation. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: ABSTAIN: Board Members: APPROVED: Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 1 Complete Se Name of CLG City of Campbell Report Prepared by: Daniel Fama Date of commission/board review: March 24, 2021 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION I. Enforce Appropriate State or Local Legislation for the Designation and Protection of Historic Properties. A. Preservation Laws 1. What amendments or revisions, if any, are you considering to the certified ordinance? Please forward drafts or proposals. REMINDER: Pursuant to the CLG Agreement, OHP must have the opportunity to review and comment on ordinance changes prior to adoption. Changes that do not meet the CLG requirements could affect certification status. N/A 2. Provide an electronic link to your ordinance or appropriate section(s) of the municipal/zoning code. https://library.municode.com/ca/campbell/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT21ZO_CH21.33HIPR B. New Local Landmark Designations (Comprehensive list of properties/districts designated under local ordinance, HPOZ, etc.) INSTRUCTIONS: This a Word form with expanding text fields and check boxes. It will probably open as Read-Only. Save it to your computer before you begin entering data. This form can be saved and reopened. Because this is a WORD form, it will behave generally like a regular Word document except that the font, size, and color are set by the text field. • Start typing where indicated to provide the requested information. • Click on the check box to mark either yes or no. • To enter more than one item in a particular text box, just insert an extra line (Enter) between the items. Save completed form and email as an attachment to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov. You can also convert it to a PDF and send as an email attachment. Use the Acrobat tab in WORD and select Create and Attach to Email. You can then attach the required documents to that email. If the attachments are too large (greater than10mb total), you will need to send them in a second or third email. Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 2 1. During the reporting period, October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020, what properties/districts have been locally designated? REMINDER: Pursuant to California Government Code § 27288.2, “the county recorder shall record a certified resolution establishing an historical resources designation issued by the State Historical Resources Commission or a local agency, or unit thereof.” 2. What properties/districts have been de-designated this past year? For districts, include the total number of resource contributors? Property Name/Address Date Removed Reason N/A Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. C. Historic Preservation Element/Plan 1. Do you address historic preservation in your general plan? ☐ No ☐ Yes, in a separate historic preservation element. ☒ Yes, it is included in another element. Provide an electronic link to the historic preservation section(s) of the General Plan or to the separate historic preservation element. https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/15684/General-Plan-Excerpt-Historic-Preservation D. Review Responsibilities 1. Who takes responsibility for design review or Certificates of Appropriateness? ☐ All projects subject to design review go the commission. ☒ Some projects are reviewed at the staff level without commission review. What is the threshold between staff-only review and full-commission review? The Community Development Department provides an initial review of all applications affecting a historic resource. Any exterior alteration or material change to a structure of merit that alters its character defining features will be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board. All Landmarks and Historic District Property Name/Address Date Designated If a district, number of contributors Date Recorded by County Recorder N/A Type here. Type here. Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 3 properties are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. The decision making body will depend on the type of permit or decision, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code section 21.38.030. 2. California Environmental Quality Act • What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to CEQA documents prepared for or by the local government? See below What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing CEQA documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Most of the projects brought forward to the HPB are found exempt from CEQA. When necessary, City of Campbell staff either prepares the CEQA document or manages a consultant contract for the preparation of the CEQA document. City staff assists the HPB in reviewing the CEQA documents and providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council 3. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to Section 106 documents prepared for or by; the local government? See below • What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing Section 106 documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Most of the projects brought forward to the HPB are not subject to Section 106 review. If Section 106 review is found necessary, both staff and the HPB would provide input. City staff would assist the HPB in providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding the adequacy of any Section 106 documents relevant to the City of Campbell. II. Establish an Adequate and Qualified Historic Preservation Review Commission by State or Local Legislation. A. Commission Membership Name Professional Discipline Date Appointed Date Term Ends Email Address Michael Foulkes Public Role February 2017 October 2021 MikeF@campbellca.gov Todd Walter Architecture September 2011 October 2023 ToddW@campbellca.gov Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 4 Attach resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all members. 1. If you do not have two qualified professionals on your commission, explain why the professional qualifications not been met and how professional expertise is otherwise being provided. The City of Campbell’s second qualified professional resigned in September 2017. The HPB currently has an open vacancy, which the City is actively attemping to fill with a “qualified professional” candidate. 2. If all positions are not currently filled, why is there a vacancy, and when will the position will be filled? Board Member Kendall resigned from the HPB in October of 2020 due to reoccurring conflicts-of-interest owing to her home's location in an historic district and possession of a Mills Act contract. The City is currently conducting a recruitment for a replacement. However, finding candidates who satisfy the CLG "qualified professional" criteria has been challenging. It is unknown when a replacement will be appointed. B. Staff to the Commission/CLG staff 1. Is the staff to your commission the same as your CLG coordinator? ☒ Yes ☐ No If not, who serves as staff? Click or tap here to enter text. 2. If the position(s) is not currently filled, why is there a vacancy? Type here. Attach resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for staff. Susan Blake Public Role January 1999 October 2022 SusanB@campbellca.gov Laura Taylor Moore Public Role October 2010 October 2022 LauraM@campbellca.gov Yvonne Kendell (former) Public Role December 2017 October 2021 N/A Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Name/Title Discipline Dept. Affiliation Email Address Daniel Fama City Planning Community Development danielf@campbellca.gov Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 5 C. Attendance Record Please complete attendance chart for each commissioner and staff member. Commissions are required to meet four times a year, at a minimum. If you haven’t met at least four times, explain why not. D. Training Received Indicate what training each commissioner and staff member has received. Remember it is a CLG requirement is that all commissioners and staff to the commission attend at least one training program relevant to your commission each year. It is up to the CLG to determine the relevancy of the training. Commissioner/Staff Name Training Title & Description (including method presentation, e.g., webinar, workshop) Duration of Training Training Provider Date Michael Foulkes Webinar – Implementing & Managing a Mills Act Program 2 Hours California Preservation Foundation February 2020 Commissioner/Staff Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Michael Foulkes ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ Todd Walter ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ Susan Blake ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ Laura Taylor Moore ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Yvonne Kendell (former) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Daniel Fama (staff laison) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 6 ⧫ Weigh the financial benefits and costs of a Mills Act contract for various property types. ⧫ Examine the typical terms and obligations of a contract. ⧫ Understand the relationship between the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation and the Mills Act. ⧫ Identify key strategies that planners or consultants use to monitor and manage Mills Act contracts. Todd Walter See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Susan Blake See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Laura Taylor Moore See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Yvonne Kendell (former) See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. III. Maintain a System for the Survey and Inventory of Properties that Furthers the Purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act A. Historical Contexts: initiated, researched, or developed in the reporting year (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: California CLG procedures require CLGs to submit survey results, including historic contexts, to OHP. (If you have not done so, submit an electronic copy or link if available online with this report.) Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 7 Context Name Description How it is Being Used Date Submitted to OHP No update to the City’s Context Statement in reporting year Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. B. New Surveys or Survey Updates (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: The evaluation of a single property is not a survey. Also, material changes to a property that is included in a survey, is not a change to the survey and should not be reported here. How are you using the survey data? N/A IV. Provide for Adequate Public Participation in the Local Historic Preservation Program A. Public Education What public outreach, training, or publications programs has the CLG undertaken? How were the commissioners and staff involved? Please provide an electronic link to all publications or other products not previously provided to OHP. Item or Event Description Date Campbell Historic App Continued public promotion of the City's historic walking tour app (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/historic-campbell/id1237978549) Ongoing Survey Area Context Based- yes/no Level: Reconnaissance or Intensive Acreage # of Properties Surveyed Date Completed Date Submitted to OHP N/A Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANNUAL PRODUCTS REPORTS FOR CLGS NOTE: OHP will forward this information to NPS on your behalf. Please read “Guidance for completing the Annual Products Report for CLGs” located at http://www.nps.gov/clg/2015CLG_GPRA/FY2013_BaselineQuestionnaireGuidance- May2015.docx. A. CLG Inventory Program During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) how many historic properties did your local government add to the CLG inventory? This is the total number of historic properties and contributors to districts (or your best estimate of the number) added to your inventory from all programs, local, state, and Federal, during the reporting year. These might include National Register, California Register, California Historic Landmarks, locally funded surveys, CLG surveys, and local designations. Program area Number of Properties added N/A Type here. B. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) did you have a local register program to create local landmarks and/or local districts (or a similar list of designations) created by local law? ☒Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been added to your register or designated from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? Zero C. Local Tax Incentives Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) did you have a Local Tax Incentives Program, such as the Mills Act? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many properties have been added to this program from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? zero Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 9 Name of Program Number of Properties Added During 2019-2020 Total Number of Properties Benefiting From Program Type here. Type here. Click or tap here to enter text. D. Local “bricks and mortar” grants/loan program 1. 20uring the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) did you have a local government historic preservation grant and/or loan program for rehabilitating/restoring historic properties? ☐Yes ☒No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020? N/A Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here. Type here. E. Design Review/Local Regulatory Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) did your local government have a historic preservation regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance) authorizing Commission and/or staff review of local government projects or impacts on historic properties? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many historic properties did your local government review for compliance with your local government’s historic preservation regulatory law(s) from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020? 5-10 F. Local Property Acquisition Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020) did you have a local program to acquire (or help to acquire) historic properties in whole or in part through purchase, donation, or other means? ☐Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 202020N/A Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 10 Type here. Type here. IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM CLG REQUIREMENTS, OHP IS INTERESTED IN A SUMMARY OF LOCAL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS A. What are your most critical preservation planning issues? Championing the community benefits of historic preservation in the face of increasing property values and heighted development pressure. B. What is the single accomplishment of your local government this year that has done the most to further preservation in your community? The HPB commenced a comprehensive update to its Mills Act Program. C. What recognition are you providing for successful preservation projects or programs? When warranted, the Board has provided letters of commendation to property owners who have performed exemplary restorations projects. D. What are your local historic preservation goals for 2020-2021? To complete a comprehensive update of the City’s Mills Act Program. E. So that we may better serve you in the future, are there specific areas and/or issues with which you could use technical assistance from OHP? Establishing local government incentives to encourage greater community participation. F. In what subject areas would you like to see training provided by the OHP? How you like would to see the training delivered (workshops, online, technical assistance bulletins, etc.)? Training Needed or Desired Desired Delivery Format Adaptive reuse strategies Online Webinar G. Would you be willing to host a training working workshop in cooperation with OHP? ☐Yes ☒ No H. Is there anything else you would like to share with OHP? Click or tap here to enter text. Certified Local Government Program -- 2019-2020 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) 11 XII Attachments (electronic) ☒ Resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all commission members/alternatives and staff ☒ Minutes from commission meetings ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the ordinance ☐ Drafts of proposed changes to the General Plan ☐ Public outreach publications Email to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov