Loading...
06-23-2021 HPB Agenda PacketHistoric Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, June 23, 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 June 22, 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 this link . 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 May 26, 2021 (Roll Call Vote) Meeting Minutes, 5/26/2021 Historic Preservation Board Agenda for June 23, 2021 Pg. 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Board on matters of community interest that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may limit speakers to three minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Board from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up. BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Board Members and/or staff may make announcements on matters related to historic preservation and promotion. 2.Mills Act Contract Applications (73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Continued Public Hearing (from the meeting of May 26,2021) to consider applications for Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, the Walter B. & Annie (Hall) Jones House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. City Council meeting date to be determined. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Staff Report OLD BUSINESS 3.Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities to the Board. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of July 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 Wednesday, May 26, 2021 | 5:00 PM Zoom Meeting CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of May 26, 2021, was called to order at 5:00 p.m., via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Michael Foulkes, Chair None Todd Walter, Vice Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of April 28, 2021. Motion: Upon motion of Vice Chair Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of April 28, 2021, with minor corrections to pages 2 and 8, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None Abstain: None ORAL REQUESTS None Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 2 BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS None *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Mills Act Contract Applications (73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote): Public Hearing to consider applications for Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, the Walter B. & Annie (Hall) Jones House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. City Council meeting date to be determined. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Planner Daniel Fama provided the staff report. Chair Foulkes asked if there were Board questions for staff. There were none. Chair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Item 2. APPLICATION #1 James Barrese, Applicant/Owner – 51 Alice Avenue: • Started by saying it is his hope the Board will explore a process to ask Council for more Mills Act contracts. • Cautioned that it is not healthy for the City to pit neighbors against neighbors, four in this case, in competition for just two Mills Act contracts. • Said that if there is a way to increase the number, he would like to see that happen and help to retain the neighborhood dynamic. • Stated that he loves his house that he purchased in 2016. • Reported that he fixed the foundation problems but retained the historic look and feel of this home. • Explained that Radon was detected in his home’s livable basement. High levels of Radon. He has already spent $12,000 just a couple of months’ ago to correct that problem for the safety of his family. • Advised that there is a real issue with heating and cooling the top floor (third floor). • Stated that the solution is to either tear down the walls and put in insulation or to replace the HVAC system. • Said that the front of his house fronts the sun during the day, and it gets quite hot. • Added that there is dry rot as well. • Said that there are always a bunch of maintenance issues for an older home. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 3 • Said that he hopes that by being issued a Mills Act contract, he will be able to keep his house historic. • Reported that he put in solar off the roof. • Described the home’s original windows to be really drafty as they are single-paned. He said he may attempt to restore those windows if at all possible to help solve the existing draft issues. • Said that there is woodwork that is cracking and old and needs repair. • Reported that due to the proximity of his home to Winchester and its traffic, he needs some form of sound attenuation. • Admitted that he is not claiming to qualify for any form of economic hardship. He added that he is actually looking to retire and the tax savings of a Mills Act contract would help him to continue the maintenance of this historic home when retired. • Added that his tax base for this home is higher than a long-time owner as he just moved in five years ago. With his higher property tax, he would have more funding available to keep his home in historic condition. • Reported that he provided a long list in the supplement form submitted. • Questioned what sort of awning over the front door could be supported for an historic home. It is needed to help deflect the heat from the sun that glares on the home all day making the front porch, door, and elevation quite hot to the touch. • Assured that the awning would be custom built. • Said the home needs HVAC. Currently, at least 30 percent of heating and/or cooling goes out into walls or exterior environment. • Advised that the house needs drainage for a way to get water away from the foundation. Use of a French drain could help divert water quite a distance away from the foundation. • Reiterated that the Radon remediation was done. He could not just live with it once it was discovered. Vice Chair Walter asked staff if everyone here tonight for this item is aware of the comparison charts prepared for the four properties. Planner Daniel Fama advised he has forwarded a link to the materials to each property owner here tonight. James Barrese, Applicant/Owner – 51 Alice Avenue: • Said he did not get the link. • Admitted to getting lots of email and could have just missed it. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said he forwarded an email to the Board from Mr. Kornel regarding corrections to his submittal. • Explained that the spirit of the application form is to serve as a priority consideration worksheet. • Added that from the individual submittals he created a comparable table. • Clarified that only work that is being proposed and has not yet been done qualifies. James Barrese, Applicant/Owner – 51 Alice Avenue: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 4 • Pointed out that he did the Radon work on his house after he had already submitted his Mills Act application materials. Chair Foulkes: • Advised that there are four criteria. • Said that one criterion is value of the proposed improvements and how those improvements equate to a greater benefit to the public, as seen from the public right-of-way. • Added that another criterion is to reduce any threat to a property if the proposed work is not done. • Stated that another is economic hardship and the highest tax savings available to the owners issued a Miss Act contract. • Stated that for long time owners, especially Property 13 owners, a Mills Act contract is not as good. • Pointed out that a lot of the owners here have already done a lot of work on their homes. James Barrese, Applicant/Owner – 51 Alice Avenue: • Said that his projects, sun awning, windows, and new HVAC, can be done the historic way or the Home Depot way. • Stated that they all love their street (Alice Avenue) and want to preserve these historic homes. • Advised he would also need to do foundation repairs to the rest of the house not done with the original foundation repair he did upon purchase and before move in. • Reiterated that the high Radon levels were not a livable situation. • Cautioned that if this house were sold with that level of Radon, it might likely have to have been torn down. He added that other constraints such as thing walls are a challenge to the upkeep of this home. Chair Foulkes: • Clarified for the meeting that the parts of these historic homes as seen from the street is of priority concern in terms of preservation. • Added that the exterior is the focus. The interior does not have to remain historic. • Asked Mr. Barrese about his roof. James Barrese, Applicant/Owner – 51 Alice Avenue: • Replied that he will need a new roof in a few years,. • Reiterated he had installed solar on the back of the home’s roof. • Said that the shingling siding needs maintenance. • Stated that this home’s frontage is not typical. *** APPLICATION #2 Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: • Said he owns the home at 73 N. Third Street that is known as the Laura Swope Campbell House. This home was built in 1895. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 5 • Reported that he initially applied for a Mills Act contract in 2018. • Added that in August 2019, he was told that his application was on hold to allow the Board to review its Mills Act Program. • Said he was asked to re-apply in February 2021. His 2021 application material included the same work that was listed on his 2018 application package. • Assured that there is a lot of work that is required for the preservation of this historic home. • Stated that there has not been any work done on the home’s roof since 1990. That causes dry rot against the trim. There are also inadequate rain gutters on the home. There is lead paint. The deck needs repair. • Added that while the existing windows are double-paned, they all leak like a sieve. • Pointed out that the exterior walls are bending outward. The exterior walls are not straight. • Asked if the Board has any questions for him. Member Blake: • Said that she had stopped by this property to look at it from the street. • Stated that she saw vertical cracks on the foundation. Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: • Reported that the foundation was last inspected in 2008 at which time no problems were detected. Member Blake thanked the applicant. Vice Chair Walter: • Said it seems Mr. Chan has two items proposed, exterior paint and exterior windows. Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: • Elaborated by listing roof, windows, siding, and fumigation against termites. Vice Chair Walter: • Asked Mr. Chan if he has already done any of that work. Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: • Replied no, nothing yet, Planner Daniel Fama: • Suggested that something the Board should consider is that Mr. Chan’s list of projects that he brought forward in his 2021 application are from his 2018 submittal. That list has not been updated to include scheduling and potential costs of work moving forward. Vice Chair Walter: • Asked Mr. Chan if he has any more work planned outside of the 2018 list. Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 6 • Replied that he is waiting to complete the work from his 2018 listing of proposed projects. Planner Daniel Fama says it does change the focus. Member Blake said that the proposed completion dates were projected. Planner Daniel Fama suggested a brief recess to allow him to add this 2018 proposed material to the comparative table. Vice Chair Walter: • Said that the interior photographs provide show the home to be empty. • Asked if anyone is living there now. Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: • Replied yes. He has owned this home since 2008. He moved out in order to do the interior work needed and then moved back in. Chair Foulkes: • Said that it is important for all applications that we have comparable information. • Admitted that the HPB is hoping for a better process in the future once they are able to update the Mills Act Program. • Added that he also hoes to see Council allow for more Mills Act contracts. Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 N. Third Street: • Said that the tax calculation as estimated on his 2018 application forms reflects the tax rates from 2018. Those rates are at least three years old. No inflation has been included since that time in his estimated numbers. *** APPLICATION #3 Marie and Kornel Kovacs, Applicants and Owners, 204 Alice Avenue. Marie Kovacs: • Said that they purchased 204 Alice Avenue about a year-and-a-half ago. • Stated that they have done a lot of work on the home since that time. • Apologized for the inundating the Board with the many receipts attached to their Mills Act application package. • Provided a list of proposed work: o Front façade primarily o Siding around the house o Front gable is rotted o New front door o Lighting o The chimney is a hazard Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 7 Kornel Kovacs: • Reported that the house had been vacant for approximately three years before they bought it. • Stated that they will have to put on a new roof in a couple of years’ time. • Said that they had to do repairs to the up-front part of the roof. Marie Kovacs: • Advised that their windows are leaking. • Said there is mold in the walls that has made her ill. • Added that as a result, they had to gut the interior walls to deal with that mold. • Stated the deferred the other issues. • Said they are available for any questions from the Board. • Admitted that she knew when they first bought this house that they would want to apply for a Mills Act contract. Chair Foulkes: • Referenced Attachment 9 for 2-4 Alice Ave. • Asked if the owners are proposing architectural trim replacement. Marie Kovacs: • Recounted that when they replaced windows they found significant dry rot. • Said that there is need for paint, shutters, and gutters. The front gable has rot over the front porch. *** APPLICATION #4 Douglas Fournier, Applicant and Property Owner, 81 Alice Avenue: • Thanked the Historic Preservation Board and Planner Daniel Fama for their efforts and help in getting his application for a Mills Act contract submitted. • Said that this evening marks his second time before the HPB. He came once before when securing approvals for a remodel. • Explained that he has removed an unsightly awning from this home. • Stated that he loves his neighborhood and hopes that the City Council will consider add more Mills Act contracts to the program rather than just the final two that are currently available and being sought for by four properties. • Admitted that he is uncomfortable with a competitive process between neighbors. • Said that his home is not a Proposition 13 home. He bought it in 1999 and it was reassessed in 2013 with the addition put on. • Declared that he loves everything about their house. However, he does not like the fact that the home’s roof is flat. It leaks. It is a low-lying tar and gravel type of roof that pools water. That is not okay. There have been multiple leaks and rotten areas. • Reported that the roof that they need here is a rubberized style of roofing. It is off- white in color and a three-ply modified seamless roof that can hold two inches of water. • Assured his plan to keep the bones of this house as appropriate as well as cancer free. He plans to fix the existing damage to the attic. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 8 • Pointed out that his proposed roof will run about $40,000. He stated, “We all have to get right with our roofs.” • Gave his second point that his home has a unique architectural style. Kind of California Bungalow. This house does not have eaves. It is battered by the sun, wind, rain, dirt, and bugs. • Said that the house was rebuilt in 2004 from the ground up and the trim from 2004 is already rotten. • Advised that the paint is peeling but the stucco seems to hold up pretty well in the sun. • Listed the termite damage in the garage that has a $4,000 estimate for repairs. • Said that maintenance of the original floors is also a desired task. As is tree trimming and other maintenance options. • Reiterated the roof problems and lack of eaves. • Said that maintaining this house is extremely important and he cannot let it die from the inside out. • Bemoaned the fact that they did not apply for a Mills Act contract sooner when they first become available. Vice Chair Walter: • Repeated the desired list of repairs as being: o Termite repair o Interior floors o Routine annual maintenance o New roof o Trim repair o Painting Douglas Fournier, Applicant and Property Owner, 81 Alice Avenue: • Said that while spot touch up painting might be an option, his painting contractor’s recommendation was for a full exterior paint job. Vice Chair Walter: • Said the roofing described by Mr. Fournier is called PVC and/r TPO. It is a rubberized roofing. • Added that with that roofing, the whole roof becomes a “bathtub”. • Stated that he highly recommends them (rubberized roofing) and, as an architect, he has used them for projects, particularly for schools. Chair Foulkes said he has a house in San Jose building in the 1920’s with the same roof situation. Chair Foulkes closed the Public Hearing for Item 2. Chair Foulkes: • Said that the Board agrees with the applicants that the City needs more Mills Act contracts. • Added that the Board is hoping to have a better number of contracts to award. • Said that many cities do their program this way as well. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 9 • Pointed out that originally these Mills Act contracts were issued on a first-some-first-serve basis. • Assured that the issue is not to create winners versus losers. • Reiterated, “If we had more we would allow for more.” • Agreed with the applicants who indicated that is somewhat of an odd process for neighbors and friends to be competing directly for just two contracts and four applications. Douglas Fournier, Applicant and Property Owner, 81 Alice Avenue, asked whether he would be allowed to reapply in the event he is not one of the two selected from amongst this evening’s four applications. Chair Foulkes: • Said that part of the Mills Act in the past has been a lack of follow through by the City and Council on those contracts awarded. • Stated that unless there is more accountability, the City Council will not allow for more contacts to be added. • Reiterated that the HPB wants to be more thoughtful going forward. If the Board does a good job, he hopes Council will allow more contracts. Planner Daniel Fama said he has been updating the comparative table and has emailed it to the HPB and applicants. Member Blake cautioned that new information is likely to change her initial scoring. Chair Foulkes: • Said he felt similarly to Member Blake. • Stated that all for applicants made good cases for seeking a Mills Act contract,. • Added that the updated table is now completely different and make take time to digest. • Asked for comments and/or discussion amongst the Board. • Inquired if there are any new criteria to propose. Does anything stand out? Vice Chair Walter: • Said that the Board had intended to select two properties of the four submittals for issuance of a Mills Act contract. • Stated that the table revisions will change things. • Suggested that the Board may want to table this discussion to the next meeting on June 24th. • Said that the four applicants under consideration now are aware of the scoring criteria being used by the HPB. They may, as a result, want to resubmit more information. • Asked if there is anything else to add in this current round. • Pointed out that some applicants have a lot of projects listed. Others have fewer but more expensive items. That is a quandary for him. • Said that the issue remains the quantity of projects or key projects needed to sustain the house. He is befuddled on how to make that determination. • Suggested that all involved work with Council to ask that they open up more Mills Act contracts. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 10 • Said that given we have before us four great applications but must select just two and the other two are left out. • Offered that perhaps Council would be willing to allot four more to cover the two that would have been left out and leaving us with two more for future consideration. • Admitted that due to existing budget constraints for the City, the Council may not be prepared to allow additional contracts until fiscal year 2022/23. Chair Foulkes: • Said that we know have accountability issue. • Said that in most cases the anticipated costs exceed the Mills Act amount received. • Added that all of these old houses have lots of deferred maintenance. • Stated that the Board will not be rushing a vote today but rather would take action to defer it to the June meeting. • Questioned whether there might be added information from all four applicants to help make more compelling cases. • Admitted that he would rather reject two good than have to approve two substandard. • Advised that all improvements are important, but the main emphasis is life safety and appearance of the frontage, which is highly relevant to the public. • Said that tasks to improve comfort are less worthy than work that is necessary to the retention of the structure itself. • Agreed that there are cheap and easy ways versus correct preservation efforts for work done on an historic structure. • Pointed out that several applicants have said there are more ways to do the work needed. Typically, the historic way comes at a massive cost. Vice Chair Walter: • Suggested that the next go around criteria should focus just on exterior components and fire and life-safety components. • Reiterated that the original intent was to preserve the exterior of our historic structures. • Said that with the suggested changes to priorities for these Mills Act contracts, the Board will find more of a semblance of common themes amongst the four applications under consideration for the two available contracts. • Cautioned that kitchen and bath remodels will not be considered. Drill down to the exterior maintenance and upgrades so as to represent and “apples to apples” comparison. Member Blake said that makes sense to her. Vice Chair Walter: • Said he believes all four property owner(s) will feel better if the work done is more relevant to preservation of their homes. Chair Foulkes: • Agreed and said that makes sense to him as well. It is preferred to an arbitrary judgement call. • Stated that as much commonality the better. • Said the issue remains between on-going versus 10-year Mills Act contracts. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 11 • Reminded that a 10-year minimum is required. Member Walter said that makes sense. Member Blake: • Said that discussion has occurred in consideration of a 10-year maximum. • Said that whether there should be pre-approval is an issue that needs to be discussed further by the Board. It should be a part of the application process to require a pre-inspection of the home seeking a Mills Act contract. • Questioned whether the Board should continue to crunch the new numbers this evening. • Stated she is not comfortable doing so. • Added that she is suggesting more information for the owners should they want to provide it. • Recommended continuing to the June 23rd HPB meeting. Planner Daniel Fama: • Brought forth two points of procedure to the Board. • Reminded that the intent of conducting a public hearing for an item is to deliberate publicly. To show that the Board Members have not made up their respective minds prior to the hearing itself. • Stated that to exclude certain types of work is a legitimate reason for a continuance. • Suggested that the Board go over its list and select the applicable items for consideration when ranking each of the four properties. He shared his screen with the list of options. • Read though the list. • Said that the first priority is the exterior of the home as well as fire/life safety issues/repairs. • Added that interior repairs are fine if they represent fire/life safety concerns. Kitchen and bath remodels are not applicable, but remediation of Radon or Asbestos are applicable as life safety concerns. Chair Foulkes said that several items on the list do not make sense. Others could go either way. Vice Chair Walter suggested just the structure itself. A 4-0 vote was taken that exterior maintenance qualifies for Mills Act expenditures. A 4-0 vote was taken that HVAC maintenance is not an applicable expense for Mills Act expenditures. Planner Daniel Fama suggested the table itself be updated and asked if they should be combined into categories with several projects within those categories. Vice Chair Walter suggested that staff go back to each applicant to clarify proposed work if it is not clear. With that uniformity, the review will be fair and equitable. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 12 Planner Daniel Fama suggested that each Board member look at all four applications against the proposed schedule and email him with any items that need to be changed. Chair Foulkes said that is a good idea. He pointed out that some did not provide a sufficiently clear timeline. Vice Chair Walter: • Said that it may be too late for the applicants to send more information. • Stated that rather Daniel Fama can update and clarify the original submittals based on this evening’s deliberations. Member Blake stressed the need for a timeline for each property under consideration. Planner Daniel Fama asked if the Board has any further direction for the applicants other than requesting more defined timelines and costs per item. Chair Foulkes said that it is assumption that Daniel Fama can update the information on the table and send it out to the four applicants for their feedback. There was a general group discussion while the members of the HPB reviewed all four priority sheets. Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Vice Chair Walter, the Historic Preservation Board CONTINUED TO ITS MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2021, the consideration of four properties (51 Alice Ave; 73 S., First St.; 204 Alice Ave., and 81 Alice Ave, to allow for updates to the original submittals by the applicants and allow time for staff to revise and the comparative table for use at the next meeting to make its recommendations onward to Council for issuance of two Mills Act contracts, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None Abstain: None *** OLD BUSINESS 3. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion: The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities to the Board. Vice Chair Walter: • Reported that Member Blake, Planner Daniel Fama, and he met. • Said that given the City’s budget issues, and the subsequent halt work being done that involves staff of the ad hoc subcommittee’s review of the Mills Act materials, that he and Member Blake continue to do research and prepare recommendations for the time work can recommence on the update to the Mills Act contract. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for May 26, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 13 Planner Daniel Fama advised that the new Community Development Director Rob Eastwood would begin work on Tuesday, June 1st. He will bring up this matter with him. Vice Chair Walter said there is nothing further to report. Chair Foulkes sought clarification from staff that after the decision on the recommendations for properties to receive a Mills Act contract is reached at the June 23rd meeting, would they then forward its recommendation onward to the City Council for final action. Vice Chair Walter: • Said that it has been a struggle in the past to get quantity of applications. • Reminded that the Board started with five Mills Act contracts and that was later extended upward to allow for up to 10 Mills Act contracts in total. • Admitted that it would be nice if that number could be extended again to 15 or 20 in total. Member Blake agreed and said it is important to make a case for that to Council. Vice Chair Walter: • Suggested that the four applicants now have a great opportunity to reach out to members of the Council. A type of rallying the troops. Perhaps a nice letter to Council. • Concluded that is his two cents. Member Blake seconded that suggestion. *** ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 7:01 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for June 23, 2021, at 5:00 PM, using Zoom. PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison ITEM NO. 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ June 23, 2021 PLN-2021-26 PLN-2021-32 PLN-2021-49 PLN-2021-72 Continued Public Hearing (from the meeting of May 26, 2021) to consider applications for Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, the Walter B. & Annie (Hall) Jones House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board review the submitted Mills Act contract applications and take the following action: 1.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1 ) recommending that the City Council approve up to two (2) Mills Act contract requests and deny the remaining requests. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board recommend that the City Council determine approval of a Mills Act contract is categorically exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the CEQA Guidelines, pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources. BACKGROUND At its meeting of May 26, 2021, the Historic Preservation Board held a public hearing to consider four Mills Act applications for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue. Since the City may only approve two remaining contracts available from the total allocation of 10 contracts set by the City Council, review of the four applications is a competitive process. Consistent with the City's Mills Act application package, the staff report laid out a framework for the Board to rank the four applications so that the two highest ranked proposals could be recommended for approval to the City Council (reference Attachment 2 – Staff Report).1 Draft minutes from the May meeting are included as Item No. 1 of this agenda. Due to the competitive nature of the review and some discrepancies in the application materials, the Board continued the public hearing to June 23rd and directed the applicants to provided revised Proposed Schedule and Plan spreadsheets (the 10-year proposed workplan required for each application). Specifically, the Board directed that spreadsheets to exclude HVAC system work, fence construction/repair, interior repainting, security systems, lighting systems, kitchen and bathroom remodels, hardwood floor installation/refinishing, and general ongoing maintenance, as well as any work already completed or not otherwise specified by the Mills Act application package. 1 Please see the May 26th agenda packet for the original applications materials, available on the City's website: https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05262021-2306 Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of June 23, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring/Summer 2021) ANALYSIS The revised application materials enclosed with this report are listed below. The applicant for 51 Alice Avenue did not submit a revised Proposed Schedule and Plan Spreadsheet and informed staff that he would be seeking a refund believing the process has been unfair. However, as the application has not formally been withdrawn, it must still be considered by Board when it makes its recommendation to the City Council. Revised Proposed Schedule and Plans Spreadsheets • Attachment 3 – 81 Alice Avenue • Attachment 4 – 204 Alice Avenue • Attachment 5 – 73 S First Street2 A revised comparison table, included as Attachment 6, identifies the proposed work, proposed cost3, estimated property tax savings4 (annual and over a 10-year period5), and the percentage of savings reinvested into the property (cost ÷ savings) for each application. This information can be used to evaluate the applications with regard to Criteria No. 1 (number and/or value of improvements) and No. 4 (percentage of tax savings used to finance improvements). As discussed during the May meeting, to facilitate the ranking and recommendation of the four submitted applications, the Board agreed to apply a weighted point system to the selection criteria, restated, below, such that up to five points (0-5) could be granted for Criteria No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 each, and up to one point for Criteria No. 5. An application could receive up to 16 points using this methodology. For the Board's reference, staff has prepared a ranking matrix, included as Attachment 7, which can be used to perform the ranking exercise. • Criteria No. 1 (5 points): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the greatest number or value of improvements to the historic property thereby resulting in the greatest benefit to the public. • Criteria No. 2 (5 points): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition, deterioration, abandonment, and/or general neglect. • Criteria No. 3 (1 point): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate, in cases of economic hardship, that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the preservation and maintenance of a historic property. • Criteria No. 4 (5 points): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate the highest percentage of tax savings being used to finance the property maintenance and improvements. 2 Since this application was originally prepared in 2018, a 6% inflationary factor was added to the applicant's estimates. 3 The cost for reoccurring maintenance proposed at a specified interval is counted more than once as appropriate. 4 The savings is based on the applicant's estimate as provided in the Property Tax Adjustment Worksheet. The actual reduced property tax will be calculated by the County Assessor's Office. 5 Since Mills Act contracts have a minimum 10-year duration, a 10-year contract period was assumed. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of June 23, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring/Summer 2021) With regard to Criteria No. 4 (percentage of tax savings used to finance improvements), the Board had considered granting points based on a numerical spectrum at 10% intervals: • 90%-100% of savings reinvested = 5 points • 80%-89% of savings reinvested = 4 points • 70%-79% of savings reinvested = 3 points • 60%-69% of savings reinvested = 2 points • 50%-59% of savings reinvested = 1 point • 49% or less than savings reinvested = 0 points The Board should also discuss any conditions of approval (beyond the standard requirements) it may wish to recommend. For example, the Board may require submittal of an inspection report to confirm the need for certain improvements/repairs or contractor estimates to substantiate the cost of specific projects. The Board may also consider recommending a specific contract duration. As currently structured, the City's Mills Act contracts have a minimum 10-year duration and automatically renew for one additional year annually. If the Board wishes to limit the contract to the minimum 10-year duration it may recommend that the City Council include a condition of approval directing the Community Development Director to issue a Notice of Non-Renewal upon execution of the contract. The Mills Act contract(s) would then expire in 2031. NEXT STEPS Following a recommendation by the Board, a City Council public hearing will be scheduled. The Council may accept or reject the Board's recommendation in whole or in part. The Council may also elect to refer the applications back to the Board for further consideration if one or more of the applicants submit additional and/or revised information not previously considered. If the Council approves a Mills Act application(s), staff will work with the applicant(s) to confirm completion of any conditions of approval before a contract is executed by the City Manager. Additionally, since three of the subject properties are located in the Alice Avenue Historic District and one is a landmark, any exterior alteration itemized in the Mills Act contract will require subsequent approval of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit, which would be considered by the Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. HPB Staff Report, dated May 26, 2021 3. 81 Alice Avenue Spreadsheet 4. 204 Alice Avenue Spreadsheet 5. 73 S First Street Spreadsheet 6. Revised Comparison Table 7. Ranking Matrix Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 2021-0_ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MILLS ACT CONTRACTS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT (1) _____________ AND (2) ________________, COMMONLY AS THE _____________ HOUSE, AND THE _________________HOUSE, RESPECTIVELY. FILE NO.: PLN-2021-XX AND PLN-2021-XX 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 numbers PLN-2021-__ and PLN-2021-___: Environmental Finding 1. Approval of a Mills Act contract is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that a Mills Act contract is not a "project" as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21065. CEQA specifically excludes organizational or administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Moreover, it can be anticipated that any work performed pursuant to a Mills Act contract will itself be categorically exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the CEQA Guidelines, pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources. Evidentiary Findings 1. California Government Code, Section 50280 et seq., and California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 439 et seq., authorize the City of Campbell to enter into contract with owner(s) of qualified historical property; defined as property that is (a) located entirely within the City of Campbell; (b) is privately owned; (c) is taxed as residential property; and (e) is individually listed on the City of Campbell's adopted Historic Resource Inventory List, to restrict the use of the property in a manner which the City deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of the relevant state regulations. 2. The Mills Act program allows private property owners of qualified historic property to receive property tax relief in exchange for agreeing to preserve, rehabilitate, and maintain their historic properties for a specific period. 3. On October 4, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11334, initiating a three-year pilot Mills Act Incentive Program, allowing up to five (5) Mills Act contracts to assist property owners of locally-designated historic residences to benefit from property tax savings in exchange for reinvestment towards the structures’ preservation. 4. On February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of the Mills Act Incentive Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten (10) Mills Act contracts over the course of the program. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-0_ Page 2 of 3 Mills Act Contracts - ______________and _______________ 5. To date, the City Council has approved eight Mills Act contracts, leaving two available under the current Mills Act Incentive Program. 6. The City's Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program application package requires submittal of three supplemental forms including: • Priority Consideration Worksheet (Supplemental Form #1) that asks the applicant to explain how their application will satisfy the established selection criteria; • Proposed Schedule and Plan (Supplemental Form #2) that asks the applicant to identify proposed work, type of work (e.g., maintenance, remodel, etc.) the year(s) in which the work will commence and be completed, and estimated cost; and • Property Tax Adjustment Worksheet (Supplemental Form #3) that asks the applicant to complete a property tax savings estimate. 7. The City's Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program application package provides the following selection criteria: • Criteria No. 1: A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the greatest number or value of improvements to the historic property thereby resulting in the greatest benefit to the public. • Criteria No. 2: A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition, deterioration, abandonment, and/or general neglect. • Criteria No. 3: A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate, in cases of economic hardship, that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the preservation and maintenance of a historic property. • Criteria No. 4: A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate the highest percentage of tax savings being used to finance the property maintenance and improvements. 8. The City received four Mills Act contract applications for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, the Walter B. & Annie (Hall) Jones House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively. 9. In light of the program limitation of ten contracts, the application review process is vitally important in order to ensure that contracts are awarded judicially. In this regard, the Historic Preservation Board may exercise its discretion to be as selective as it believes is appropriate in making a recommendation to the City Council. 10. The Historic Preservation Board is not obligated to recommend any of the applications for approval to the City Council. Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-0_ Page 3 of 3 Mills Act Contracts - ______________and _______________ 11. To facilitate the ranking and recommendation of the four submitted applications, the Historic Preservation Board applied a weighted point system to the selection criteria provided in the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program application package, such that up to five points (0-5) could be granted for Criteria No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 each, and up to one point for Criteria No. 5. 12. The Historic Preservation Board chose to evaluate proposals based on proposed work rather than work already performed in that it is reasonable for the remaining contracts to be restricted to those that will result in the greatest amount of new investment into a property given the Mills Act program limitations. 13. Consistent with the City's Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program application package, the Historic Preservation Board held a public hearing to review the submitted Mills Act contract applications and to evaluate the applications against the selection criteria and to provide each a ranking. The two applications with the highest ranking were recommended for approval to the City Council. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that that the four Mills Act contract applications shall be ranked as follows: 1. _____________, commonly known as the ______________House; 2. _____________, commonly known as the ______________House; 3. _____________, commonly known as the ______________House; and 4. _____________, commonly known as the ______________House; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the City Council approve Mills Act contracts for the two (2) top ranked properties located at (1) __________________ and (2) ________________, commonly known as the _______________House, and the _________________House, respectively, subject to the attached Recommended Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 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 Mills Act Contracts 1. Approval: Approval is granted by the City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into Mills Act contracts for the two (2) top ranked properties located at (1) __________________ and (2) ________________, commonly known as the _______________House, and the _________________House, respectively. The contracts shall conform to the submitted Proposed Schedule and Plan for Maintenance and Treatment of the Historic Property, as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Expiration: The Mills Act Historic contract approval shall be valid for one year from City Council action. Within this one-year period the property owner shall enter into the Mills Act contract with the City. Failure to execute a contract within this one-year period will result in this approval being rendered void 3. Annual Reports: The property owner shall be required to submit to the City an annual report which documents how the property owner is satisfying the terms and provisions of the Mills Act Historic Property Contract. An annual monitoring fee established by the City Council may be required to be submitted with the annual report. 4. Inspections: The property owner shall allow periodic interior and exterior inspections by the City, County Tax Assessor, Department of Parks and Recreation, and State Board of Equalization to determine the property owner’s compliance with the Mills Act Historic contract. 5. Length of Mills Act Contract: The term of a contract shall be a minimum of ten years. One year will automatically be added to the initial term of the contract each year on the anniversary date of the contract, unless the City or property owner files a notice of non-renewal 60 or 90 days prior to the anniversary, respectively. If a notice of non-renewal is duly filed, the existing contract shall remain in effect for the balance of the period remaining since the execution or last renewal of the contract. 6. Continued Applicability: The contract must be binding upon successive property owners for the term of the contract. Successive property owners shall have the same rights and obligations under the contract as the owner who entered the contract. 7. Cancellation fee: A cancellation fee of 12.5% of the full market value of the property must be assessed upon the property owner if the contract is canceled for breach of the provisions of the contract or if the property is altered or allowed to deteriorate so that it is no longer considered a significant historic structure. 8. Compliance with Standards: All work must comply with the rules and regulations of the California State Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the California State Historic Building Code, and the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines. Item No. 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ May 26, 2021 PLN-2021-26 PLN-2021-32 PLN-2021-49 PLN-2021-72 Public Hearing to consider applications for Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, 51 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, the Walter B. & Annie (Hall) Jones House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board review the submitted Mills Act contract applications and take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 5) recommending that the City Council approve up to two (2) Mills Act contract requests and deny the remaining requests. ALTERNATIVES The Historic Preservation Board may also take the following actions: 2. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 6) recommending that the City Council deny all of the Mills Act contract requests. OR 3. Make a Motion to continue the public hearing to June 23, 2021; and, if applicable, direct the applicant(s) to submit revised and/or additional documentation for further consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board recommend to the City Council that approval of a Mills Act contract is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that a Mills Act contract is not a "project" as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21065. CEQA specifically excludes organizational or administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Moreover, it can be anticipated that any work performed pursuant to a Mills Act contract will itself be categorically exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the CEQA Guidelines, pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources. BACKGROUND On October 4, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11334, initiating a three-year pilot Mills Act Incentive Program, allowing up to five (5) Mills Act contracts to assist property owners of locally-designated historic residences to benefit from property tax savings in exchange for reinvestment towards the structures’ preservation. During this three-year period, the City Council authorized three (3) Mills Act contracts. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 26, 2021 Page 2 of 7 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring 2021) On February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of the Mills Act Incentive Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten (10) Mills Act contracts over the course of the program. To date, the City has entered into eight (8) contracts, leaving a maximum of two (2) additional contracts to be approved under the current program. DISCUSSION The following four Mills Act applications have been received, listed in order the applications were accepted (date payment was posted). Due to the coincidental timing of these applications, staff determined that it would be appropriate for all four to be considered concurrently by the Board. Application No. 1 (51 Alice Avenue) Property Owner: James Barrese Property Address: 51 Alice Avenue (click link for a map) Common Name: Walter B. & Annie Jones House HRI Designation: Historic District Construction Date: 1920 Architectural Style: Pre-War (non-distinct style) Application Date (Fees Paid): 2/19/2021 Application File No.: PLN-2021-32 Submitted Materials: ➢ Attachment 1(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 1(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 1(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 1(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 1(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 1(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 1(g) - Project Plans (reference only) ➢ Attachment 1(h) - Written Statement Application No. 2 (73 S. 1st Street)1 Property Owner: Chung Chan Property Address: 73 S. 1st Street (click link for a map) Common Name: Laura Campbell Swope House HRI Designation: Landmark Construction Date: 1895 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Victorian Application Date (Fees Paid): 3/02/2021 Application File No.: PLN-2021-26 ➢ Attachment 2(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 2(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 2(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 2(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 2(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 2(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 2(g) - Project Plans (reference only) 1 An earlier Mills Act contract application for this property was reviewed by the Board on 10/24/18 without the applicant present and was subsequently withdrawn. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 26, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring 2021) Application No. 3 (204 Alice Avenue) Property Owner: Kornel Kovacs Property Address: 204 Alice Avenue (click link for a map) Common Name: William & Dorothy Harrison House HRI Designation: Historic District Construction Date: 1940/1941 Architectural Style: Colonial Revival Application Date (Fees Paid): 3/11/2021 Application File No.: PLN-2021-49 ➢ Attachment 3(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 3(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 3(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 3(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 3(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 3(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 3(g) - Project Plans (reference only) ➢ Attachment 3(h) - Receipts and Invoices Application No. 4 (81 Alice Avenue) Property Owner: Douglas and Rebecca Fournier Property Address: 81 Alice Avenue (click link for a map) Common Name: Doc and Cora Beal House HRI Designation: Historic District Construction Date: 1926 Architectural Style: California Bungalow Application Date (Fees Paid): 4/13/2021 Application File No.: PLN-2021-72 ➢ Attachment 4(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 4(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 4(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 4(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 4(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 4(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 4(g) - Project Plans (reference only) ➢ Attachment 4(h) - Written Statement These applications were submitted following the City's Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program application package (reference Attachment 7). The application package requires submittal of the three supplemental forms listed, below, which are included for each application as sub-attachments (a), (b), and (c). ➢ Priority Consideration Worksheet (Supplemental Form #1): This form asks the applicant to explain how their application will satisfy the established selection criteria (discussed on the following page). ➢ Proposed Schedule and Plan (Supplemental Form #2): This worksheet asks the applicant to identify proposed work, type of work (e.g., maintenance, remodel, etc.) the year(s) in which the work will commence and be completed, and estimated cost. ➢ Property Tax Adjustment Worksheet (Supplemental Form #3): This worksheet asks the applicant to complete a property tax savings estimate. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 26, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring 2021) The City's general application checklist asks for additional materials, including photographs and plans, which are also included for each application submittal. Some applicants also provided additional documentation including invoices/receipts and written descriptions. Staff additionally included a permit history and DPR Primary Record Form for each property. The Board should take into account all the information included with this report, public testimony that will be provided during the public hearing, as well as any additional documentation that may be provided ahead of or during the May 26th Board meeting, in its review. Please note that staff did not provided feedback to the applicants regarding the adequacy of their submitted materials so as not to unduly influence the review process. ANALYSIS The City Council resolution establishing the Mills Act program did not provide specific guidance as to how applications should be reviewed other than consistency with the criteria for listing on the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). As such, the Board prepared its own selection criteria, which is included on Page 3 of the Mills Act application package and restated on the Priority Consideration Worksheet (Supplemental Form #1). Although the criteria references "ranking" of applications, the Board has not performed this exercise before since previously there have been more available contracts than applications. Therefore, to facilitate the ranking and recommendation of the four submitted applications, staff and the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee recommend that the Board apply a weighted point system to the selection criteria, restated, below, such that up to five points (0-5) could be granted for Criteria No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 each, and up to one point for Criteria No. 5.2 An application could receive up to 16 points using this methodology. For the Board's reference, staff has prepared a ranking matrix, included as Attachment 8, which can be used to perform the ranking exercise. The Board's consensus as to the two (2) applications with the highest ranking would be recommended for approval to the City Council. • Criteria No. 1 (5 points): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the greatest number or value of improvements to the historic property thereby resulting in the greatest benefit to the public. • Criteria No. 2 (5 points): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition, deterioration, abandonment, and/or general neglect. • Criteria No. 3 (1 point): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate, in cases of economic hardship, that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the preservation and maintenance of a historic property. • Criteria No. 4 (5 points): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate the highest percentage of tax savings being used to finance the property maintenance and improvements. 2 Staff and the Mills Act Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee discussed using the "Draft Ranking System – Contract Selection Criteria" referenced at the previous Board meeting. However, this system heavily prioritizes homes that are more historically significant rather than how property tax savings can be reinvested into a property. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 26, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring 2021) To provide a greater degree of objectivity in review of the applications, staff has also prepared a comparison table, included as Attachment 9 that identifies the proposed work, proposed cost3, estimated property tax savings4 (annual and over a 10-year period5), and the percentage of savings reinvested into the property (cost ÷ savings) for each application. This information can be used to evaluate the applications with regard to Criteria No. 1 (number and/or value of improvements) and No. 4 (percentage of tax savings used to finance improvements). Staff and the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee recommend that only proposed work be considered in evaluation of the submitted applications. As such, the comparison table purposely excludes work already performed, which is listed on several of the applicants' Proposed Schedule and Plans. Although the Mills Act application package does not specifically address work already performed, given the program limitations, it is reasonable for the remaining contracts to be restricted to those that will result in the greatest amount of new investment into a property. The comparison table also excludes work not listed as eligible on Form #2 of the Mills Act application package, such as landscaping improvements. However, it does include bathroom and kitchen remodels since those projects, although not specifically listed on Form #2 are effectively allowable through inclusion of constituent remodeling work, such as cabinetry, electrical, plumbing, and flooring. With regard to Criteria No. 4 (percentage of tax savings used to finance improvements), staff also suggests that for greater consistency points be granted based on a numerical spectrum at 10% intervals: • 90%-100% of savings reinvested = 5 points • 80%-89% of savings reinvested = 4 points • 70%-79% of savings reinvested = 3 points • 60%-69% of savings reinvested = 2 points • 50%-59% of savings reinvested = 1 point • <49% than savings reinvested = 0 points Conditions of Approval If the Board is able to make a recommendation for approval on one or two of the applications, the Board should also discuss any conditions of approval (beyond the standard requirements) it may wish to recommend. For example, the Board may require submittal of an inspection report to confirm the need for certain improvements/repairs or contractor estimates to substantiate the cost of specific projects. The Board's recommendation may also incorporate specific requirements to ensure material or design appropriateness in furtherance of the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines. The Board may also consider recommending a specific contract duration. As currently structured, the City's Mills Act contracts have a minimum 10-year duration and automatically renew for one additional year annually. If the Board wishes to limit the contract to the minimum 10-year duration it may recommend that the City Council include a condition of approval directing the Community Development Director to issue a Notice of Non-Renewal upon execution of the contract. The Mills Act contract(s) would then expire in 2031. 3 The cost for reoccurring maintenance proposed at a specified interval is counted more than once as appropriate. 4 The savings is based on the applicant's estimate as provided in the Property Tax Adjustment Worksheet. The actual reduced property tax will be calculated by the County Assessor's Office. 5 Since Mills Act contracts have a minimum 10-year duration, a 10-year contract period was assumed. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 26, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring 2021) ALTERNATIVES Th Board is not obligated to come to a decision in a single meeting. If additional time is desired, the Board may make a motion to continue the public hearing. The Board may also continue the hearing if it desires additional information from one or more of the applicants before rendering a decision. If the public hearing is to be continued, the Board may continue it to the next regular meeting of June 23rd (given legal noticing requirements a special meeting cannot be scheduled). If the Board determines that none of the applications warrant a Mills Act contract, it may elect to make recommendation to the Council to deny all of the applications by referencing Attachment 6 (Draft Resolution - Deny All). This action would retain the two available Mills Act contracts for use by other properties in the future. NEXT STEPS Following a recommendation by the Board, a City Council public hearing will be scheduled. The Council may accept or reject the Board's recommendation in whole or in part. The Council may also elect to refer the applications back to the Board for further consideration if one or more of the applicants submit additional and/or revised information not previously considered. If the Council approves a Mills Act application(s), staff will work with the applicant(s) to confirm completion of any conditions of approval before a contract is executed by the City Manager. Additionally, since three of the subject properties are located in the Alice Avenue Historic District and one is a landmark, any exterior alteration itemized in the Mills Act contract will require subsequent approval of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit, which would be considered by the Board. ATTACHMENTS Application No. 1 (51 Alice Avenue) Documents: ➢ Attachment 1(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 1(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 1(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 1(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 1(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 1(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 1(g) - Project Plans (reference only) ➢ Attachment 1(h) - Written Statement Application No. 2 (73 S. 1st Street) Documents: ➢ Attachment 2(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 2(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 2(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 2(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 2(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 2(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 2(g) - Project Plans (reference only) Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of May 26, 2021 Page 7 of 7 Mills Act Contract Applications (Spring 2021) Application No. 3 (204 Alice Avenue): ➢ Attachment 3(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 3(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 3(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 3(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 3(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 3(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 3(g) - Project Plans (reference only) ➢ Attachment 3(h) - Receipts and Invoices Application No. 4 (81 Alice Avenue) ➢ Attachment 4(a) - Priority Consideration Worksheet ➢ Attachment 4(b) - Proposed Schedule and Plan ➢ Attachment 4(c) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet ➢ Attachment 4(d) - DPR Primary Record Form ➢ Attachment 4(e) - City Permit History ➢ Attachment 4(f) - Property Photographs ➢ Attachment 4(g) - Project Plans (reference only) ➢ Attachment 4(h) - Written Statement Additional Attachments ➢ Attachment 5 - Draft Resolution (Approval) ➢ Attachment 6 - Draft Resolution (Deny All) ➢ Attachment 7 - Mills Act Application Package (for reference) ➢ Attachment 8 - Priority Consideration Worksheet Ranking Matrix ➢ Attachment 9 – Application Comparison Table Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner 81 Alice AvenueWork Task Work DescriptionType of Work(maintenance, repair, etc.) Reccouring?(e.g., yearly)Anticipated Start Year(e.g., 'Year 1,' 'Year 5'Estimated Cost(10-Years)New Roof replace leaking roof replace/repair leaks 15-20 year 2021 44,913.00$ address dry rot in attic replace wood damaged by water repair rotten wood none 2021 4,000.00$ Roof maintenance clean flat roof monthly maintenace Monthly 2021 5,500.00$ repair stucco repair cracks and missing stucco repair 10 year 2021 1,600.00$ Exterior window trim paint repair and repaint trim windows and doors repair 5 years 2021 11,520.00$ Basement sealing due to radon in the ground seal basment floor and walls none 2021 6,000.00$ Termite damage replace wood damaged by termites repairs 10 years 2022 4,800.00$ Termite treatment chemical treatmet to stop termite damage professional termite treatment when needed 2022 3,800.00$ Exterior wall upgrade part of the front of our home has no wall insurepair / modern stadard none 2022 4,500.00$ 86,633.00$ Total 204 Alice AvenueWork Task Work DescriptionType of Work(maintenance, repair, etc.) Reccouring?(e.g., yearly)Anticipated Start Year(e.g., 'Year 1,' 'Year 5' Estimated Cost(10-Years) Architectural Trim Replace Replace missing and or damaged trims. Use custom trims matching existing original trim work. RepairNo Year 1 3,250.00$ Structure Repair or Replace Remove damaged gable sheeting, repair dryrot, custom make new sheeting and install it RepairNo Year 1 5,000.00$ Architectural Trim - Install New Custom build new shutters, matching the old original ones what was removed due to excessive damage Repair No Year 2 1,600.00$ Chimney - Rebuild or RepairRebuild chimney (Has been inspected, it has cracks and deemed dangerous, potentially fatal to use) Rehabilitation No Year 3 17,500.00$ Chimney - Inspect and Clean Bi annual maintenance for safe operationMaintenance Yes Year 3,5,7,9 1,000.00$ Column - Replace or Rebuild Replace damaged gable columnsRehabilitation No Year 1 2,500.00$ Door - Repair Replace old front door special seal and prep and paint door and trim. Install new front door lockset. Rehabilitation No Year 1 2,000.00$ Drainage Protection and Correction Install french drain on the back and side of house, to keep water away from foundation. RepairNo Year 4 15,000.00$ Dry-Rot Remove, Repair and or Replace Replace damaged sidingRepairNo Year 1 5,000.00$ Insulation - Walls - Blown-in Under floor insulation and seal to prevent rodent and moisture intrusion RepairNo Year 4 6,358.00$ Painting - Exterior Prep, primer and complete paint exterior.Rehabilitation Yes Year 2, 10 22,700.00$ Porches - Resurface Finish front porch surface with brick tile to match front entry walkway Rehabilitation No Year 1 1,500.00$ Roof - strip and Install New Install new HPB approved (expensive) composition roof. Cost $35207 monthly payment for ten years $350 Rehabilitation No Year 0-10 35,207.00$ Termite Treatment Termite inspection and spot treatmentMaintenance Yes Year 3, 6, 9 1,500.00$ Annual Maintenance Gutter cleaningMaintenance Yes Year 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 3,500.00$ Plastering - remove, replace, refinishRemove plaster and skip sheeting from two downstairs closets. Treat framing for possible mold/mildew. Closets not usable due to health risk.Rehabilitation No Year 1 5,000.00$ 128,615.00$ Total 73 S 1st StreetWork Task Work DescriptionType of Work(maintenance, repair, etc.) Reccouring?(e.g., yearly)Anticipated Start Year(e.g., 'Year 1,' 'Year 5'Estimated Cost(10-Years)Termite Inspection Termite inspection and fumigation as needed maintenance every 5 years Year 1 6,360.00$ Gutter Replace and install new rain gutters and downspouts repairYear 2 2,934.08$ Re-roof Replace and re-roof repairYear 2 19,800.80$ Roof sheetmetal Replace and instal new roof sheetmetal repairYear 2 2,424.22$ Exterior framing Straighten "bow" and re-inforce exterior wall repairYear 2 10,875.60$ Thermal and Moisture protection for exterior walls Install thermal and moisture protection on exterior wallsrepairYear 2 3,707.88$ Insulate exterior walls Install insulation in exterior walls repairYear 2 3,137.60$ Exterior siding Replace and install with matching siding and trimsthat requires specific millwork where dry rots existsrepairYear 2 80,017.28$ Removal of lead paint from exterior walls, trim, porch Exterior lead abatement repairYear 2 3,180.00$ Exterior painting Painting exterior of the house maintenance every 8-10 years Year 2 21,571.00$ Termite Inspection Termite inspection and fumigation as needed maintenance every 5 years Year 6 6,360.00$ Exterior painting - re-paint Painting exterior of the house maintenance every 8-10 years Year 9 - 10 21,571.00$ Exterior window Replace and install exterior window repairYear 9 - 10 27,030.00$ 208,969.46$ Total Mills Act Application Comparison Table Property Proposed Work (Eligible Proposed Work Only) Proposed Cost (Eligible Proposed Work Only) Estimated Tax Savings (annual/10-years) Percentage of Savings Invested into Property (over 10 year period) 51 Alice Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A 73 S. 1st St. • Termite Inspection • Gutter • Re-roof • Roof sheetmetal • Exterior framing • Thermal and Moisture protection for exterior walls • Insulate exterior walls • Exterior siding • Removal of lead paint from exterior walls, trim, porch • Exterior painting • Termite Inspection • Exterior painting - re-paint • Exterior window $209,0001 $9,200 / $92,0001 227% 204 Alice Ave. • Architectural Trim Replace • Structure Repair or Replace • Architectural Trim - Install New • Chimney - Rebuild or Repair • Chimney - Inspect and Clean • Column - Replace or Rebuild • Door - Repair • Drainage Protection and Correction • Dry-Rot Remove, Repair and or Replace • Insulation - Walls - Blown-in • Painting - Exterior • Porches - Resurface • Roof - strip and Install New $128,600 $14,570/ $145,700 88% 1 As noted in the staff report, since this application was originally submitted in 2018, a 6% inflationary factor was added to the applicant's estimates. Mills Act Application Comparison Table Property Proposed Work (Eligible Proposed Work Only) Proposed Cost (Eligible Proposed Work Only) Estimated Tax Savings (annual/10-years) Percentage of Savings Invested into Property (over 10 year period) • Termite Treatment • Annual Maintenance • Plastering - remove, replace, refinish 81 Alice Ave. • New Roof • address dry rot in attic • Roof maintenance • repair stucco • Exterior window trim paint • Basement sealing • Termite damage • Termite treatment • Exterior wall upgrade $86,600 $9,050/ $90,500 95% Priority Consideration Worksheet Ranking Matrix Property Criteria No. 1 (5 Points) Criteria No. 2 (5 Points) Criteria No. 3 (1 Point) Criteria No. 4 (5 Points) Total Point score " …greatest number or value of improvements to the historic property thereby resulting in the greatest benefit to the public." "…will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition, deterioration, abandonment, and/or general neglect." "…demonstrate, in cases of economic hardship, that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the preservation and maintenance of a historic property." "…demonstrate the highest percentage of the tax savings being used to finance the property maintenance and improvements." 51 Alice Avenue 73 S. 1st Street 204 Alice Avenue 81 Alice Avenue