09-22-2021 HPB Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, September 22, 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 23, 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://bit.ly/HistoricPreservationBoard. 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 June 23, 2021 (Roll Call Vote)
Meeting Minutes, 6/23/2021
Historic Preservation Board Agenda for September 22, 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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.705 El Patio Dr. – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicholas Key for a Tier 1 Historic Resource
Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525
square-foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive in the R-1-
6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be
deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. 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 October 27,
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, June 23, 2021 | 5:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of June 23, 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 Laura Taylor Moore
Todd Walter, Vice Chair
Susan Blake Staff Members Present: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of May 26, 2021.
Motion: Upon motion of Vice Chair Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of May 26, 2021, as submitted, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, and Walter NOES: None
ABSENT: Moore Abstain: None ORAL REQUESTS
None
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 2
BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planner Daniel Fama introduced Community Development Director Rob Eastwood, who started three weeks ago, to the Historic Preservation Board.
Chair Foulkes welcomed Director Eastwood. Member Blake advised the Board that she had inspected and cleaned all 15 of the City’s historic plaques. They are all in good shape.
*** 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): Continued 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 with the following highlights:
• Advised that Mr. James Barrese, owner of 51 Alice Avenue, decided to withdraw his application for consideration of a Mills Act Contract. He will receive a partial refund of his application fees.
• Reminded that today, the Board is going to rank the three applications remaining for consideration of issuance of two available Mills Act Contracts.
• Stated that the two of three highest ranked properties/applications will be forwarded on to Council with the Board’s recommendation of approval of issuance of a Mills Act
Contract for those two properties. The third property/application would be forwarded
with a recommendation for denial at this time. Chair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Item 2.
APPLICATION – 204 Alice Avenue: Kornel & Marie Kovacs, Property Owners/Applicants, 204 Alice Avenue:
• Said they didn’t have too much to add to their previous presentation on May 26th.
• Thanked the HPB for their consideration of their application for a Mills Act Contract. Chair Foulkes thanked the Kovacs for being here again today. He thanked Planner Daniel Fama for organizing the updated data provided by each applicant. It was very helpful.
***
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 3
APPLICATION – 73 S. First Street Chung Chan, Applicant and Property Owner, 73 S. First Street:
• Said he is available in case there are any questions that he can respond to for the Board.
***
APPLICATION – 81 Alice Avenue Douglas Fournier, Applicant and Property Owner, 81 Alice Avenue:
• Stated that he is excited to have his property considered for awarding of a Mills Act Contract.
• Said that he is thrilled to live in an historic house located on an historically designated street, Alice Avenue.
• Advised that there is a specific uniqueness to this home requiring costly maintenance updates including the windows, doors and the flat roof. Chair Foulkes closed the Public Hearing for Item 2.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that the discussion now is back in the hands of the Board.
• Lamented the fact that there are more applications for a Mills Act than there are Mills
Act Contracts available.
• Stated this is the first time this Board has had that situation of more demand than supply.
• Asked the Board to deliberate on how best to rank the three properties remaining for consideration of a Mills Act Contract.
• Inquired if there are any questions from the Board.
Member Blake:
• Said that she has no questions.
• Stated that all of the applications/properties under consideration have provided a
significant amount of information.
• Added that between that fact, in addition to the fine work Planner Daniel Fama did in creating the comparative matrix for each of the three properties under consideration, she is ready to make her ranking recommendations.
Vice Chair Todd Walter:
• Thanked the owners and Planner Daniel Fama for the information provided.
• Listed his rankings as: 73 S. First Street (1st); 204 Alice Avenue (2nd); and 81 Alice Avenue (3rd). Member Blake:
• Listed her rankings as: 73 S. First Street (1st); 81 Alice Avenue (2nd); and 204 Alice Avenue (3rd).
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 4
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that all three projects are very good.
• Advised that he looked at criteria to determine the benefits to the public as seen from the public right-of-way.
• Said that for 73 S. First Street, about 80 percent of that home is visible from the street
as it is on a corner and across the street from the Water Tower.
• Stated that all three Board members present today are in agreement that 73 S. First Street is the top priority project of the three. He too ranks it as first.
• Admitted that the other two properties, 81 Alice Avenue and 204 Alice Avenue, are
pretty equal in merit. They are both on the same street. Both homes have differing architecture. He finds it difficult to rank one above the other.
• Directed a question to staff. As there are just two contracts and there are three
applicants for those two contracts, would it be possible for the Board to do the
following:
o Grant a normal, 10-year Mills Act Contract, to 73 N. First Street. o Forward a recommendation to Council that both 81 and 204 Alice Avenue also be granted a 10-year Mills Act Contract.
o All three of these contracts would conclude at 10 years and expire.
• Asked what the Board and staff thinks? Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reminded that Council has limited the City’s maximum number of Mills Act Contracts to 10.
• Stated that it is important that the Board provide a formal recommendation for two of
the three properties to be awarded a Mills Act Contract by consideration and action of
the City Council.
• Suggested that the Board could also convey its desire to see the third application also approved.
• Reiterated that as it stands Campbell’s Mills Act Program can have up to a maximum of 10 properties allocated Mills Act Contracts.
• Recommended that the Board just recommend two of the three.
Vice Chair Walter suggested the Board consider asking Council to consider allowing for two more (up to 12 Mills Act Contracts) so that whichever property is deemed third gets a contract as does the owner of 51 Alice that just recently withdrew his property from consideration due to being uncomfortable with the process of competing with his neighbors (who are friends) for one.
Chair Foulkes said he understands that the Board can recommend a term-limit for a contract.
Vice Chair Walter suggested that all contracts be limited to a 10-year minimum. That is
because the existing eight other contract owners have not been notified of any proposed changes to their existing contracts as part of tonight’s action. Chair Foulkes:
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 5
• Pointed out that the loss of taxes to the City is very low. Most of the lost tax income diverted to cover Mills Act Contracts is borne by the County and State and not the City
of Campbell.
• Reminded that Vice Chair Foulkes and Member Blake have reverse second place properties. That basic tie needs to be broken.
Vice Chair Walter said that there is just a one-point difference for his rankings of 81/204 Alice Avenue. Member Blake said she is in the same position as Vice Chair Walter. The two Alice Avenue properties are separated by just one point.
Vice Chair Walter said he looked at the list of proposed projects and cost of work for both properties. Member Blake:
• Stated that it is difficult to make this ranking between the final two as all three of the properties under consideration are worthy and having just a one point difference between 2nd and 3rd place is distressing.
• Stressed the need to at least try to make a case before Council to allow for two more
Mills Act Contracts.
• Advised that she does support having a sunset date of 10 years for these newest contracts (four contracts if Council concurs with the Board’s request and
recommendation). Chair Foulkes:
• Stated his agreement with the other members that all of these properties are worthly.
• Agreed that the strength of all three requests make ranking one to three very hard.
• Added that it seems unfair as none of these are unworthy.
Vice Chair Walter said it seems the Board needs for Chair Foulkes to provide his second
choice to break the current tie between the two Alice properties (81/204 Alice). Chair Foulkes:
• Explained his process is considering the total value of the contract per property as well as the anticipated expenses for the work to be provided under a Mills Act Contract. With that, he would have to place 204 Alice Avenue as second place and 81 Alice Avenue as third. Regrettably.
Vice Chair Walter asked Member Blake if her placements change. Member Blake:
• Said that the work needed on the roof for 81 Alice Avenue really caught her attention.
• Added that 204 Alice has a lot that needs to be done including several projects that are of a life, health and safety concern that includes mold and dry rot issues.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 6
Vice Chair Walter that he really wants not just the three under discussion tonight but also the fourth that withdrew from consideration, to be granted Mills Act Contracts.
Director Rob Eastwood:
•Stated that he hears the struggle faced by the Board here.
•Said that a lot of thought went into coming up with rankings for those properties under
consideration.
•Suggested that the Board somehow convey its concern and desire to award a MillsAct Contract to all three of the remaining properties under consideration.
•Advised that with that message conveyed to Council, the Board must let Council take
it from there.
Planner Daniel Fama:
•Suggested that the structure of the draft resolution be revised.
•Stated that instead of being the Board’s resolution just recommendation for two to beawarded, instead the Board could rank the three (1st, 2nd and 3rd) with norecommendation for denial of one of the three.
•Recommended the Board proceed with specific rankings in a motion.
Vice Chair Walter said it seems the ranking after deliberation is as follows: 73 S. First Street (1st); 204 Alice Avenue (2nd) and 81 Alice Avenue (3rd). Is that the consensus of
the Board?
Member Blake replied yes. She added that she remains comfortable making a case with Council for contracts for all three of these properties.
Motion: Upon motion of Vice Chair Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2021-08 forwarding on to the City Council the ranking of three properties under consideration for a Mills Act Contract as follows:
•First Ranking – 73 S. First Street
•Second Ranking – 204 Alice Avenue
•Third Ranking – 81 Alice Avenue
•With the caveat to the Board’s recommendation requesting that theCity Council increase the maximum number of contracts in orderto award Mills Act Contracts to all three properties for a finite 10-year duration;
by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: Moore Abstain: None
Chair Foulkes thanked the applicants for their patience with this process as well as for their dedication and efforts taken in the on-going preservation of their beautiful historic houses.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 7
*** 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. Member Blake:
• Reported that she spoke with Councilmember Landry on May 31st where she was able to recap the HPB meeting held on May 26th.
• Said she told Councilmember Landry that there were four good applicants seeking
Mills Act Contracts for their respective historic properties and sadly there were just two available contracts.
• Said she also had occasion to speak with Mayor Gibbons and shared the same information with her.
• Advised that she asked Finance Director Will Fuentes if he know just how much tax revenue the City might lose for a Mills Act Contract to be assigned. Director Will Fuentes told her it is just about 14 percent of the taxes being diverted to a Mills Act Contract holder.
• Reported that she contacted the County Tax Assessor’s to inquire whether a Mills Act Contract could be restricted in duration. The County said they didn’t get involved with those issues.
• Told the Board that she will now contact the State to see if they can answer that
question. Planner Daniel Fama said the Board could bring that up as a sidebar issue to Council before any noticing of non-renewal could go out.
Vice Chair Walter:
• Pointed out that a hold had been placed on the updating of the Mills Act.
• Asked staff whether he and Member Blake, who serve as the Mills Act ad hoc
Subcommittee, could still continue on with their research.
• Stated it was important for them not to lose momentum on their work.
Planner Daniel Fama said he would need to defer to Director Rob Eastwood as to his
thoughts whether independent research by the subcommittee could continue. Director Rob Eastwood:
• Said he really appreciates the dedication and passion of Vice Chair Walter and
Member Blake.
• Offered a “qualified” answer.
• Suggested that the subcommittee may do well to wait until the Council makes its
decision. Vice Chair Walter:
• Said it seems they must leave further research and drafting subcommittee
recommendations on hold. As such, they will be unable to bring forth any
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for June 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 8
subcommittee updates to HPB meetings on the Mills Act until authorized to resume their work.
• Asked if they might be able to do research on the existing eight Mills Act Contracts
while the work plan is on hold.
• Said that they are simply doing the Board’s due supervisory diligence on existing contracts.
• Asked if they can continue with that research, put it together and then put it to the side until final decisions are made. Director Rob Eastwood said he has no issue with that.
Chair Foulkes said that since the Board is going to Council to request more Mills Act Contracts, the Board really wants to put more “teeth” into the existing Mills Act policies in terms of oversight and reporting.
Member Blake said that better accountability is needed and more research on existing
contracts. The Board wants a tight program to ensure that giving the tax breaks via these Mills Act Contracts provides benefits to the community by preserving the community’s historic properties
Chair Foulkes:
• Pointed out that this year is the first time the Board has had more Mills Act applications that it has contracts available.
• Said that this is an important process to these applicants to help them preserve their historic homes.
• Added that it’s rather nice to be comparing based upon merit rather than simply assigning Mills Act Contracts on a “first come, first serve” basis.
• Reminded that these owners put a lot of hard work in maintaining these old houses. *** ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 6 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled
for July 28, 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. 2021-08
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RANKING MILLS ACT APPLICATIONS IN ORDER OF PRIORITY FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: 73 S. 1ST STREET, 204 ALICE AVENUE, AND 81 ALICE AVENUE, COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE LAURA CAMPBELL SWOPE HOUSE, THE WILLIAM &
DOROTHY (MILLS) HARRISON HOUSE, AND THE DOC AND CORA BEAL HOUSE, RESPECTIVELY. FILE NO.: PLN-2021-26, PLN-2021-49, PLN-2021-72
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-2021-26, PLN-2021-49, PLN-2021-72:
Environmental Finding
1. 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.
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.
5. To date, the City Council has approved eight Mills Act contracts, leaving two available
under the current Mills Act Incentive Program.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-08 Page 2 of 3 Mills Act Contracts
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 Historic Preservation Board considered three Mills Act contract applications
for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue,
commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison 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.
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
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-08 Page 3 of 3 Mills Act Contracts
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.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that the three Mills Act contract applications shall be ranked as follows:
1. 73 S. 1st Street, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House;
2. 204 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the William & Dorothy Harrison House; and
3. 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Doc and Cora Beal House;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the City Council consider the Mills Act applications in order of priority as ranked above for
a 10-year contract term, 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: Walter, Blake, Moore, and Foulkes
NOES: Board Members: None
ABSENT: Board Members: None ABSTAIN: Board Members: None
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) 73 S. 1st Street, and (2) 204 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House and the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison 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 the contract shall be for a period of (10) ten years. Upon execution, the City Manager shall issue a notice of non-renewal, which shall result in the termination of the contract in 10 years.
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 ∙ SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
PLN-2021-160 Key, N. Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicholas Key for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the
construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure
of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive in the R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), recommending approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Sections 15303 and 15331 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROJECT DATA
Proposed Requirement
Zoning Designation: R-1-6 (Single-Family) N/A
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential N/A
Net Lot Area: 13,945 square-feet 6,000 sq. ft. (Min.)
Density: 5.2 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max.)
Building Height: 14 feet (addition) 35 feet (Min.)
Building Square Footage:
Existing Living Area: 1,055 square feet
Proposed New Area: 523 square feet 1,578 square feet (Total House Size) Existing Front Porch: 14 square feet
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .11 (1,578 sq. ft) .45 (6,275 sq. ft.) (Max.)
Building (Lot) Coverage: 11% (1,592 sq. ft.) 40% (5,578 sq. ft.) (Max.)
Parking: N/A (non-conforming) 2 spaces (Min. Required)
Setbacks: Front (south): 21 ½ feet 20 feet Interior Side (east): 29 ½ feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
Street Side (west): 13 ¼ feet 12 feet Rear (north): 103 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Site: The project site is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar
Avenue. The property is bordered by single-family residences to the east and townhomes to the
north, as shown on the aerial map, below:
The property is developed with a single-family residence, recognized as a Structure of Merit
constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style (reference Attachment 2 – Site Photographs). According to the City's DPR (Department of Parks and Recreation) form, this home was one of several constructed in this architectural style built within the Rancho del Patio subdivision during the 1930's under the supervision of B.J. Smith (reference Attachment 3). The existing residence is slightly over 1,000 square-feet incorporating two bedrooms, a kitchen, living
room, and small dining area.
Background: The property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), along with 649 El Patio and 58 S. Third Street, by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012. The property's designation occurred after extensive public outreach and review by both the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Commission as noted in the City Council staff report (reference Attachment 4). In including the property on the HRI, the Council found that it possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value of an historical nature". As noted by the DPR form, the property exemplifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character-defining features, including a flat-roof, cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco-covered chimneys with brick reveal.
Proposal: The application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit would permit construction of 523 square-foot addition to the structure. The addition would allow for an expanded living area, an additional bedroom, and expanded master bedroom. As shown the submitted project plans, the proposed addition would be located to the rear of the structure (reference Attachment
5).
ANALYSIS
Environmental Determination: Construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence is considered Categorically Exempt Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration,
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources are also Categorically Exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 if the project is found consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties. Lastly, there are no unusual circumstances, as defined by
Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt. Administrative Procedure: Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.070.B, a proposed
exterior alteration or material change to a Structure of Merit may be considered through either an
"expedited" building permit review or referred to the Historic Preservation Board for review of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit. Referral to the Board is warranted when a proposal may alter the "character-defining features" of the structure. The Community Development Director has determined that a substantial addition, such as the 523 square foot addition proposed by this
application, warrants a referral to the Board. The Board’s recommendation to approve or deny the
Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit applies to staff's review of a Zoning Clearance necessary to formally authorize to deny the proposed work. Findings for Approval: In order to recommend approval of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit, the Board must affirmatively determine the project meets findings for approval. Findings
establish the evidentiary basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval necessary to meet the findings. The following identifies each of the applicable findings in italics followed by staff's analysis of the consistency of the proposed project.
Please note that an Historic Evaluation Report was not required for this project since staff believed
that the findings for approval could be affirmatively determined without one. However, the
Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Sec. 21.33.070.A.2.) does allow the City to require such a report if the Board believes that additional review is warranted to support a recommendation.
1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
The project site is located in the R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. As
indicated under 'Project Data', the proposed addition conforms to applicable development standards specified by the Zoning Code. Although the property does not have any on-site parking, expansion of a single-family residence does not require construction of a garage or carport.
2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not
limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
The Design Guidelines indicate that additions "should respect the significant character-defining features that are found in the building’s architectural style" and "maintain a compatible relationship with the rest of the home in size, scale, use of materials,
craftsmanship, and overall visual appearance." The proposed addition satisfies these
requirements by incorporating building forms, features, and materials comparable to the existing residence. Specifically, the use of a flat roof extends a fundamental component of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style to the addition. New materials, including a painted wood door and new metal windows with black anodized frames and grids would also
maintain design consistency with the home's architectural style.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
3. The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district; and
The design and placement of the proposed addition has been carefully planned so as to
maintain the historic integrity of the resource, which is accomplished my avoiding alteration to the front façade.
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.
The proposed addition incorporates a flat roof consistent with the design expression of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. Although the addition would be slightly taller than the existing structure, as discussed below, it is still a single-story addition and the
difference in height is not of a degree that would render the addition incompatible in
terms size, scale, massing, or proportion.
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.
Other that the walls affected by the addition, the proposed project would not result in
the removal of integral features of the historic resource.
c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible.
There are no deteriorated features that would be modified by the proposed project.
d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed
such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if
the addition is removed in the future.
The proposed addition would be differentiated from the existing residence through an increase building height that would clearly differentiate the new area from the existing
residence such that there would no question as to what constitutes the original house.
This approach maintains essential form and integrity of the historic resource while allowing the home to utilize a consistent material (stucco) across the entirety of the structure. The Board recently recommended approval of an addition to a home on Alice Avenue using this similar approach.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
Public Comment: No public comment was received on this application.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Site Photographs 3. DPR Form 4. City Council Staff Report, dated May 2, 2012 5. Project Plans
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2021-160) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 525 SQUARE-FOOT REAR ADDITION TO A STRUCTURE OF MERIT LOCATED AT 705 EL PATIO DRIVE IN
THE R-1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 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-201-160:
1. The Project Site is an approximately 13,945 square-foot single-family residential property located along the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar Avenue.
2. The Project Site is zoned R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) 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 Structure of Merit constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style.
5. The Proposed Project is an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit to allow an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition.
6. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.070.B provides that a proposed exterior alteration or material change to a Structure of Merit may referred to the Historic Preservation Board for consideration of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit if the proposal may alter the character-defining features of the structure.
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.
8. A recommendation for approval by the Historic Preservation Board, based on the ability to affirmatively establish the findings provided in CMC Section 21.33.080.C, allows the issuance of a Zoning Clearance by the Community Development Director in that the proposal would comply with all applicable standards and provisions for the
category of use in the zoning district of the subject parcel, as specified by CMC Section 21.40.030.
9. The Campbell Historic Design Guidelines provides the following four Preservation Principals from which the decision-making process should be based:
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
a. Retain and preserve the historic character of a property. Do not try to make a building look older than it is by introducing elements that do not match the existing design. Mixing historical design elements can confuse the character
of a building. 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.
b. Preserve distinctive features and examples of craftsmanship. Construction
techniques or distinctive finishes that characterize an historic property should be treated carefully and maintained in order to prevent the need for replacement or alteration. Most often these features will be comprised of windows, doors, porches, ornamentation, or other features, which are
typically seen by the public.
c. New additions or exterior alterations should respect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Any new construction should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property, and it should be compatible with the historic architectural features.
d. Deteriorated historic features should be repaired rather than replaced. When
repairs are not possible, a historic feature should be replaced with a new feature matching the old in design and, where possible, materials.
10. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation provides the following standards from which alterations to historical buildings shall be evaluated against:
a. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use
that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
b. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.
c. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
d. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
e. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
f. 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-__ Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
g. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage
to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
h. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
i. 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.
j. 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 would clearly differentiate the new addition from the existing residence through an increased building height.
12. The Proposed Project does not require any covered parking stalls for an addition.
13. 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 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.
14. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
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):
5. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 and Section
15331, Class 31, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures and projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources, respectively.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board recommends
approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive, subject to the attached recommended Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”).
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 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-2021-160) 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 Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear
addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive. The project shall
substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment No. 4 in the September 22, 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 approval (expiring October 1, 2022). Within this
one-year period, an application for a building permit must be submitted. Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of an issued building permit will result in the Historic Resource Alteration Permit being rendered void.
3. Window/Door Material: New doors and windows shall be made of a high-quality
material consistent with the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines as determined by
the Community Development Director, specifically excluding vinyl or aluminum.
4. 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. 5. Minor Modifications: Minor Modifications to the approved project plans are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director pursuant to CMC Section 21.56.060 (Amendments to an approved project).
6. 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.
7. 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:
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 119 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-116) Page 2
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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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. Permit Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed project. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when
such work is part of the permit. 12. Conditions of Approval: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 119 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-116) Page 3
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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. 13. Frontage Improvements Requirement Threshold: The project plan is showing a 523.52-sf addition which is less than 50% of the existing single family residence area
of 1,055.04 sf. If the proposed addition exceeds 50% of the existing single family
residence area, the frontage improvement requirement to dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements to finish the cul-de-sac will be triggered. 528-sf addition in the project description exceeds the 50% threshold, please verify the correct area of addition on the construction plans submitted for a building permit.
14. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any grading or 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 $678.68 (set for R-1 land use).
15. 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.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: El Patio California Mission Revival District P1. Other Identifier:
*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 705 El Patio 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: 279-45-003 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style popular in the 1930’s, this single family residence sits between the entrance to a condominium complex and Los Gatos Creek at the terminus of El Patio Drive. One story in height and primarily flat topped it has a parapet with tile coping surrounding built-up roofing. Cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing rise at the front and provide the character defining look to the structure. The walls are of stucco with a large trowel handcrafted pattern. A recessed entryway is set between molded columns that appear embedded into the front façade, a detail not typical to the style. The windows are steel casement set without trim into the stucco surface. Two stucco-covered chimneys rise above the roof near the front of the building with brick revealed near the top that then rises from two sides into arches. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) 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, 07/24/07 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
Historic Prehistoric
Both Late 1930’s *P7. Owner and Address: Karen F. Shore 244 Bonita Rd. Portola Valley, CA 94028 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Leslie A.G. Dill Architect 110 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 *P9. Date Recorded: 4/1999 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Inventory Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-78 Survey. *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: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Style *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built, late 1930’s *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: b. Builder: *B10. Significance: Theme Architecture 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.) In January, 1931, the subdivision map for Tract No.2, Rancho del Patio was drawn by civil engineer R. W. Fisher, This became a California Spanish Revival Style subdivision with a total of 7 houses built under the supervision of B.J. Smith on El Patio. His son-in-law, Charles Lynds, painted 5 of the houses inside and out. 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.)
5
o~ .Ci\Jt~
tJ ~
o 0
OltCHA.\\.\J
City
Council
Report
Item:
Category:
Meeting Date:
15.
Public Hearing
May 1,2012
TITLE: Public Hearing to consider a City initiated application to designate three
properties as Historic Resource Inventory Properties (PLN2012-63).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution, designating 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio Drive, and
58 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory properties.
BACKGROUND
When a property is listed on the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), it joins a select
group of other historic properties, all of which exhibit a degree of local significance. A
listing on the HRI identifies structures that contribute to the character of a neighborhood,
that help define the City's past, and that foster increased connections to Campbell's
cultural and historical heritage. Currently 214 properties have been surveyed and have
been placed in one of three levels of historic designation:
1. Landmark Properties: There are 55 properties designated as Landmark properties.
This designation identifies properties that the City Council has determined having a
special aesthetic, architectural, cultural, engineering, or historical value or interest.
Landmark designation includes specific properties, such as the Ainsley House and
the Campbell Community Center, and those properties located within the Alice
Avenue Historic District.
2. Properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory: There are 84 properties on
the City Council approved inventory of buildings and structures. These are
properties found significant to the City of Campbell's history, architecture,
archaeology and culture but not designated as Landmark Properties or found within
a designated Historic District.
3. Potential Additions to the Historic Resource Inventory List: There are currently 75
properties identified by the Historic Preservation Board as potential additions to the
Historic Resource Inventory. These properties have been identified as being
potentially significant to the City of Campbell's history, architecture, archeology, and
culture, but have not been approved by the City Council for designation as either a
Landmark Property or a HRI property. They are simply a group of surveyed
properties that could potentially be added.
City Council Report - May 1, 2012
Historic Resource Inventory Designation
Page 3 of 5
questions regarding historic resource designation. After receiving input from seven of
the property owners, the HPB scheduled a public hearing to continue the designation
process. On March 28, 2012, the HPB held a public hearing to determine which of the
13 property owners support HRI designation. Two property owners, 649 EI Patio Drive
and 58 S. Third Street, had previously expressed their support and continued
participation. The property owners of 705 EI Patio Drive were supportive of bringing
their property to the Planning Commission for recommendation as long as they are able
to withdraw their property from consideration pending their additional research
reference Attachments 2 & 3, Location Maps & Historic Surveys). As the HPB has
expressed its desire to only bring forward those property owners of the first 13 who
support inclusion, the Board adopted a Resolution recommending HRI designation for
649 EI Patio, 705 EI Patio, and 58 S. Third Street, with the understanding that the
property owners of 705 EI Patio may withdraw their property from consideration with the
full support of the Board.
Planninq Commission Public Hearinq: The Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider the proposed project at their meeting of April 10, 2012. The Planning
Commission considered the HPB's evaluation of each of the identified properties
against the criteria set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In summary, the
HPB found that the three properties still under consideration met the following required
criteria:
1. 649 EI Patio Drive was found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 3a, and 3b.
2. 705 EI Patio Drive was also found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 3a, and 3b.
3. 58 S. Third Street was found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 c, 3a, and 3b.
The attached meeting minutes reveal that the Planning Commission questioned if any
additional restrictions would be placed on historic resource designated properties. Staff
explained that historic resource designation may subject a property to a more detailed
design review process consistent with the City's adopted historic residential design
guidelines and the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic structures.
If an owner of an historic resource complies with the adopted design guidelines and
standards, project review would be consistent with that of a property not designated as
a historic resource. After discussion, the consensus of the Planning Commission was
that the Historic Preservation Board's evaluation of the three residential properties
whose owners desire designation was appropriate and supportable.
Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two Commissioners
absent) to recommend that the City Council designate 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio
Drive, and 85 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory properties(reference
Attachment 4, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes).
Evaluation of Outreach Process: The strategy for bringing forward the 75 properties on
the "Potential" list was to create a process that would allow property owners to
voluntarily place their structures on the HRI. This process would involve outreach to