The URL can be used to link to this page

07-22-2020 HPB Agenda Packet - w desk item Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, July 22, 2020 | 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 July 22, 2020: Chair Mike Foulkes, Vice-Chair Yvonne Kendall, 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 register to electronically participate in this Zoom HPB meeting at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83083231762?pwd=cVBMbU5TVUpzT2Z2dWpOQzBiYzBjZz09. The Password is 415467. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The complete agenda packet will be posted by Friday, July 17, on the City website at https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/Historic- Preservation-Board-4, and will include all materials for this 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 the Daniel Fama, Board Secretary, at (408) 866-2193 or danielf@campbellca.gov. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Board Members or the Board Secretary may request that agenized items be considered in a different order than shown in the agenda or be postponed to a subsequent meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of January 22, 2020 (Voice Vote)  Meeting Minutes, 1/22/2020 Historic Preservation Board Agenda for July 22, 2020 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 3. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Historic Review (Informational Only – No Action Required) The owner of 1940 Hamilton Avenue commissioned an historic review of the property, prepared an historic resource consultant. The consultant’s materials were peer- reviewed by the City’s Architectural Advisor Mark Sandoval, who concurred with the determination that the property does not meet any of the minimum threshold eligibility requirements needed to be listed on the California Register of Historic Resources or as a local historic resource by the City as either a Structure of Merit or a Landmark property.  Historic Review Materials  Peer-Review Memo (Mark Sandoval) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. 20 Alice Avenue – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Public Hearing to consider the application of Barzin Keyhankhadiv for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.  Staff Report NEW BUSINESS 5. 204 Alice Avenue – Review of Windows (Roll Call Vote) Approval of windows as required by an approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-110) for property located at 204 Alice Avenue.  Staff Report 6. Certified Local Government Annual Report (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Review and approve the 2018-2019 Certified Local Government Annual Report.  Staff Report OLD BUSINESS 7. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities and the Board will discuss the Mills Act Program update. Historic Preservation Board Agenda for July 22, 2020 Pg. 3 STUDY SESSION ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of August 26, 2020, at 5:00 PM to be conducted using 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, January 22, 2020 | 5:00 PM City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell, California CALL TO ORDER The Historic Preservation Board meeting of January 22, 2020, was called to order at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Acting Chair Kendall, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair Michael Foulkes, Chair Susan Blake Todd Walter Laura Taylor Moore Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of December 16, 2019. As there was not a quorum available at this meeting to adopt the draft minutes of the HPB meeting of December 16, 2019, they will be continued to the next meeting when a quorum is in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (ITEMS NOT AGENDIZED) None BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES AND REQUESTS 2. Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report – Resumes Required Planner Daniel Fama: • Advised that he would need to secure updated resumes from each HPB member for inclusion with the annual CLG Report that will be submitted. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 22, 2020 Page 2 • Reported that the owner of The Courtyard will be painting the rear building (old house) and has placed paint samples on the building in case the HPB would like to see them. PUBLIC HEARINGS None NEW BUSINESS 3. Election of the 2020 HPB Chair and Vice Chair Member Blake suggested continuing with the current leadership until after the Mills Act update has been completed. Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore, the selection of new leadership for the Historic Preservation Board will remain as is until the work on updating the Mills Act program has been completed. (3-0-2; Members Foulkes and Walter were absent) 4. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Formation and Appointment Planner Daniel Fama: • Reported that at the last meeting the HPB decided to form a Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. • Added that it is proposed that this special committee be dissolved once its purpose has been accomplished. • Advised that since this is a subcommittee without a quorum of the Board, subcommittee meeting noticing is not required. • Said that he had prepared a resolution for the HPB to adopt establishing the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. • Stated that the ad hoc Subcommittee would provide monthly reports to the HPB. • Announced the recent hire of an intern, who will start on Monday, January 27, 2020. He is a graduate student at San Jose State University and will work eight-hour days on Mondays and Wednesdays and will work with the ad hoc Subcommittee. Acting Chair Kendall: • Suggested that there be no Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee formed. • Recounted that per her previous experience serving on the Planning Commission and including its subcommittee, SARC (Site and Architectural Review Committee), she finds that after SARC had reviewed an item and provided the PC with an overview of its review, the PC was less intense in its own deliberations and heavily relying on the report and recommendations made by SARC. • Added that since HPB is already a small Board, the work of an even smaller subcommittee could be more biased. Member Blake reminded that the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee would be providing reports at each regular HPB meeting. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 22, 2020 Page 3 Acting Chair Kendall: • Stated that SARC’s impression of a project is respected by the PC so it limits a follow up discussion at PC meetings. • Concluded that the PC simply supports the SARC recommendations. Member Moore: • Admitted that she is confused. • Pointed out that the goals for the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee are very focused. • Stated that there needs to be additional attention paid to the Mills Act that can be better served with the appointment of this proposed Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. Member Blake: • Reminded that the staff supporting HPB is stressed with workload and the HPB has volunteered to help. • Assured that there will be a variety of opinions even though we are a very small group. • Stated that the Mills Act is a complex issue based on State law. Acting Chair Kendall: • Stated that both Members Moore and Blake have provided valid arguments to support the appointment of a Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. • Concluded that their points made sense. Member Moore pointed out that follow up and progress on updating the Mills Act Program can be done more immediately with the additional time put in by the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. Planner Daniel Fama said that the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee would provide more flexibility to get work done. They will check in monthly with the HPB. The entire HPB will forward its final recommendations on to Council. Acting Chair Kendall asked staff what action should now be taken. Planner Daniel Fam said that a motion and second to adopt the resolution establishing a Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee should be made and voted upon. The next action would be to select the two HPB members to serve on the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. Member Blake: • Said that it seems awkward to make these appointments with two Members absent from this meeting. • Asked staff if the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee could draft a letter of outreach to the current seven Mills Act Contract property owners. Planner Daniel Fama suggested that perhaps another HPB meeting could be set in the next week or so to plan out what will be done before empaneling the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. Acting Chair Kendal pointed out that Member Walter has architectural expertise. The rest of the HPB Members own historic homes. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 22, 2020 Page 4 Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore, the Historic Preservation Board adopted a resolution establishing the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee. (3-0-2; Members Foulkes and Walter were absent) Acting Chair Kendall asked who present was interested in serving on the Subcommittee. Member Blake said she was willing to serve. Member Moore stated that she would like to be on it. She added that since Chair Foulkes would continue to serve as HPB Chair until the completion of the Mills Act update, he would likely prefer not to be appointed to this Subcommittee. Acting Chair Kendall said that given their longevity serving on HPB and the fact they both live in historic homes; she has no objection to both Members Blake and Moore being appointed. Member Blake said that she’d like to ask Member Walter prior to officially appointing this Subcommittee. Acting Chair Kendall suggested that perhaps he could serve as the expert. Planner Daniel Fama cautioned that a Subcommittee for the HPB cannot consist of a majority of the HPB. He suggested continuing the actual selection to the next meeting. Member Blake suggested the scheduling of a Special Meeting with all five HPB members in attendance in the next week or so. Acting Chair Kendall advised that Mayor Landry has scheduled a meeting on January 29th for all Chairs of Boards and Commissions. Planner Daniel Fama recommended the making of a motion to continue this appointment to a Special Meeting. He added that he would conduct a Doodle Poll to find a meeting date where all five members are available to attend. Motion: Upon motion of Member Moore, seconded by Member Blake, the selection of the HPB members to serve on the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee will be CONTINUED in order to schedule near-future Special HPB Meeting when all HPB can be present and participate. (3- 0-2; Members Foulkes and Walter were absent) 5. 2020 HPB Meeting schedule Planner Fama: • Said that it makes sense for the HPB to plan its meetings around holidays during 2020. • Advised that his recommendation is for the cancellation of the November meeting due to its proximity to the Thanksgiving Holiday. • Suggested that the December meeting be held earlier on December 9th, due to the proximity of the normal meeting date to the Christmas Holiday. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for January 22, 2020 Page 5 Member Blake said she appreciates Planner Daniel Fama’s work with the HPB. Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore, the HPB adopted a resolution setting the HPB meeting dates for 2020. (3-0-2; Members Foulkes and Walter were absent) OLD BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 5:28 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for February 26, 2020, at 5:00 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Yvonne Kendall, Acting Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, February 26, 2020 | 5:00 PM City Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 N First St., Campbell, California CALL TO ORDER The Special Historic Preservation Board meeting of February 26, 2020, was called to order at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Michael Foulkes, Chair Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chai Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore Todd Walter Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary Michael Shwe, Planning Intern AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of December 16, 2019 Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of December 16, 2019. (4-0-1; Member Kendall was absent) 2. Approval of Minutes of January 22, 2020 As there was not a quorum available at this meeting to adopt the draft minutes of the HPB meeting of January 22nd, they will be continued to the next meeting when the quorum that attended the December 16th meeting is in attendance. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes of January 29, 2020. Motion: Upon motion of Member Moore, seconded by Member Walter, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of January 29, 2020. (4-0-1; Member Kendall was absent) ORAL REQUESTS None BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. Attendance for 2020 CPF (California Preservation) Conference The Board will discuss attendance of up to two Board Members to the 2020 CPF California Preservation Conference, which will be held May 17-20, in Sacramento. Planner Danel Fama: • Reported that funding is available to send two members of the HPB and himself to this conference. • Added that the City covers all the expenses for attendance. • Advised that the event will be in Sacramento from May 17th to 20th, at the Embassy Suites Sacramento. • Asked the Board to advise if they are interested in attending within the next week. Member Blake advised that it is important to make conference arrangements as soon as possible to secure accommodates in the host hotel. Chair Foulkes: • Reported that he had watched the webinar Mills Act presentation and found it most helpful. • Added that it shows how we could do things much better and how other communities are creative with their programs. • Said that there are lots of tools out that to help track Mills Act contracts project by project. • Stated that there are also different ways of timing contracts. There are things (repairs) that they will fund and will not fund. • Suggested this be agendized for the next meeting. Member Moore said that this webinar is another reason why State Conferences are so good. So valuable. Chair Foulkes said that this would be a good conversation for the next meeting and help us to make our Mills Act Program a “world class” one. He stated that this webinar helped make him excited about our program. Member Moore reported that the Historical Museum is hosting “Historic Happy Hour” events and promised to forward information outlining the specific topics of each event. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS None NEW BUSINESS 5. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update on its activities to the Board Member Blake: • Reported that the Subcommittee met with Planner Daniel Fama and Intern Michael Shwe and minutes of this first meeting were taken. • Advised that letters have now been mailed to the holders of Mills Act Contracts going out on February 14th (Valentine’s Day). • Stated that the Subcommittee is hoping to see the responses come in by the end of March. • Said that Intern Michael Shwe created a nice template for the Mills Act Contract holders to use to prepare their report. • Informed that two of the homes are due for a five-year visit. One on Catalpa and the other on Peter Drive. • Stated that those visits will be scheduled after receipt of the requested reporting information. • Outlined some of what she has learned about “Best Practices” in reaching out to other cities. o Palo Alto told her they started to update their Mills Act Program in 2017. They are no yet finished with their update as there is not enough staff in Palo Alto to dedicate to this task. She said that their layout has a nice template. o About Oakland, She stated, “OMG, it’s so cool!” They provided her with a copy of their application. o All around the State: she’s learned that some jurisdictions concentrate just on exterior restoration. Some have 15-year duration of a Mills Act Contract. It’s kind of interesting. • Stated that it is important for us to determine what we need moving forward. The Subcommittee has identified some things already. Member Walter: • Said that the City Council wants HPB to do a refresh of its Mills Act. • Added that once the research is completed, Council will want to receive a report from the HPB evaluating our program and giving suggestions on how best to improve it. • Stressed the importance of slowing down to allow enough time to do the necessary “fact finding” and then provide a “big-picture” recommendation to Council after which the HPB could go back to draft and roll out the most appropriate plan for Mills Act Contracts in Campbell. • Stated that after that draft plan is developed, the HPB would take it back to the Council for its blessing. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 4 Member Blake: • Pointed out that the current Mills Act Program is not currently codified. The goal is to have it codified. • Stated that Council is asking us, “where’s the accountability?” Member Walter: • Advised that he conducted Mills Act Program research from the internet about six cities. • Said one jurisdiction gives just two times per year (i.e. August and February) when a property owner can apply for a Mills Act Contract. He admitted he is not absolutely sure why those particular times of year. Member Blake reminded that it was mentioned in the webinar why those dates. Member Walter: • Said that they determined that reviewing and comparing Mills Act applications one at a time throughout the year was less effective than reviewing multiple applications just twice a year. Member Blake: • Suggested Member Walter look at the list online that shows what you want to have. What’s allowed with a Mills Act Contract. Member Walter: • Said that the Subcommittee will discuss this further. • Opined that this Mills Act update is a “big thing” and should not be rushed before having the opportunity to obtain some direction and feedback from Council. Chair Foulkes: • Reported that he recently attended a meeting of the Chairs of Boards and Commissions with Mayor Landry. • Advised that in Monrovia, seismic upgrades are required first thing with a Mills Act Contract. • Suggested perhaps syncing specific improvements for the money (tax savings benefit) received by Mills Act Contract holders. • Stated that he didn’t want to see this process of updating the Mills Act to drag on for three years. • Added that it’s these details that make this program successful. • Stated that he is very excited by the webinar he watched and hearing about the work already being done by our ad hoc Subcommittee. Member Walter: • Admitted that he has no issue or concern that HPB will not be able to come p with a good plan for its Mills Act Program. • Said that we have a lot of information and just need to consolidate it into our plan. Planner Daniel Fama: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 5 • Said that for the next meeting agenda he will include a continued discussion to include the following: o Create a “game plan” moving forward o Scheduling the process o Developing a sequence of what happens next Chair Foulkes: • Added other components to include: o Areas of Campbell with historic properties (buckets) o Fees o Accountability o Duration of Mills Act Contracts o Project worthiness • Said that there are two different ways of going. • Stated that we must decide what side of the fence we are on. • Pointed out that another issue of consideration is landscaping. Some jurisdictions don’t allow costs for landscaping as a qualified improvement for Mills Act funds. Member Walter: • Said that the ad hoc Subcommittee can look at our current plan and come back to discuss as a group to pinpoint our collective preferences. • Stated that one thing to consider may be the cost to apply. He asked what that cost currently is. Member Blake said that it is approximately two-thousand dollars ($2,000). Member Moore: • Said that if we are tailoring our Mills Act specifically to our community, Campbell is a working-class community. • Added that there are only about 130 potentials. • Stated that it behooves us to maintain the Downtown Core Area. • Pointed out that Oakland may have at least 500 potential locations for a Mills Act Contract while we have maybe 130. Planner Daniel Fama suggested that offering a Mills Act Contract could serve as an incentive to be voluntarily added to the HRI list. Chair Foulkes; • Said that HPB could encourage those owners of the most dilapidated of the 130 houses. • Said it could be very project based. Contract on windows, etc., and specific time frames. • Reminded that Mills Act Contract is a huge benefit to property owners. It would provide an easier way of entry onto the HRI. Planner Daniel Fama said that Mills Act is sanctioned by Council and a clear policy direction will help a lot. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 6 Member Walter said he was not sure how much input HPB would have on what Mills Act application fees to charge as it is his understanding that the application fee is the estimated overhead cost of processing such an application. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that is true to some degree. • Added that fees are policy as well. • Advised that the City subsidizes fees for single-family residential substantially. • Stated that he recently had a long phone conversation with the owner of 140 S. Peter Drive. She went to the County and was informed that the County destroys and doesn’t even really look at the annual reports provided by the Mills Act Contract holders. She told him that a lot of work was done that was substantial and permitted. Member Blake: • Reported that San Francisco recently reduced its Mills Act filing fee. Member Walter admitted that he is not really concerned about 140 Peter Drive. Chair Foulkes said that they have photographs both before and after to document the work done. Member Walter: • Added that Google Earth offers historic aerials and street views as well. • Pointed out that Campbell’s Mills Act Contracts run for 10 years but every year it extends out again to 10 years after each year concludes. Planner Daniel Fama said that it’s true that every year, the Mills Act Contract keeps going for more 10 years. He said that would be the case until a program to expire them is created. Chair Foulkes said it must be 10 years worth of scheduled and specific projects. Member Walter pointed out that Campbell has not yet had a Mills Act Contract for longer than five years as of yet. Two of them are at the five-year mark now. Planner Daniel Fama said he didn’t think Council was aware that these are continuing contracts rather than ending at 10 years. Chair Foulkes: • Suggested that HPB bring pictures of potentials to show to Council when the two groups meet. • Stated that the Mills Act Contracts provide an investment in the City to help its homeowners improve historic homes within the City. Member Moore stated that she wants to have people who “love” their historic house to benefit from these contracts. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 7 Member Walter said that Mills Act Contracts offer tax savings for homeowners versus what is lost by the City if the small supply of potential historic homes disappear. Member Blake said that allocating Mills Act Contracts effects schools as well. Member Walter reminded that Council was afraid of loss of tax revenue so limited the number of Mills Act Contracts to five. Chair Foulkes: • Said that there are three levels of taxation for homes. Proposition-13, standard and Mills Act. • Suggested that members of HPB approach the County Assessor (Larry Stone) to get the data/information on our Mills Act Contracts with the support of our City Council in making that request. Planner Daniel Fama said he would structure the staff report for this conversation at the next meeting. Member Blake said that would be helpful. She added that it is nice to have Intern Michael Shwe working with us on this project. Member Walter advised that he and Member Blake included their personal phone numbers on the letters recently sent out to the existing Mills Act Contract holders. Member Moore asked how many such contracts Campbell has now Member Blake replied there are eight Mills Act Contracts in total. Member Walter asked what happens if there is no response form these eight Mills Act Contract owners. Planner Daniel Fama: • Replied that follow up phone calls would be made. Staff could find the numbers for the ad hoc Subcommittee to use for follow-up calls. • Cautioned that revocation of a Mills Act Contract would be both difficult and time consuming. Members Blake and Walter both said they have no problem calling these eight Mills Act Contract holders if the reports are not submitted by the end of the month. Member Walter asked if all eight properties are actually owner-occupied. Planner Daniel Fama said that staff would look into that. Member Moore said she already has the contact phone numbers for the owners of Catalpa and Peter. Ms. Marie Jasinspy, Property Owner 204 Alice Avenue, asked the HPB if they are taking in new applications as she is interested in applying for a Mills Act Contract. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for February 26, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 8 Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 5:47 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for March 25, 2020, at 5:00 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 1 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign MEMORANDUM DATE: 3/17/20 TO: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner City of Campbell Community Development Department PROJECT NUMBER: MSA-2003-01-C FROM: Mark Sandoval, AIA REGARDING: 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Review of Applicant’s Historic Evaluation ___________________________________________________ PROJECT DOCUMENTS Documents provided include both the PRIMARY RECORD (DPR 523A) in addition to CONTINUATION SHEETS (DPR523L) forms consisting of 11 pages in total; BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (DPRB) along WITH CONTINUATION SHEET(DPR523L) forms consisting of 28 pages in total, updated 9/2013. All documents prepared by STACY FARR, HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANT, 3823 Clark Street, Oakland CA 94609. No drawings were included as part of this review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property located at 1940 Hamilton Road is situated on the south side of Hamilton Avenue between Leigh and Phantom Avenues in the city of Campbell. An older wood-framed building originally designed in the Folk Victorian style, along with a detached three-car garage structure, occupies the site. Both structures are clad in a stucco finish. It is theorized at this time that the stucco finish may have been applied over the dwelling’s original wood sheathing. The footprint of the main structure is generally rectangular in shape and appears to have been constructed sometime in 1889 as a dwelling, but now has been converted for commercial use. It is unclear when the garage structure or the addition placed at the rear of the building was constructed, but neither is original to the property. The primary north façade is asymmetrically arranged, with the building’s entrance placed beneath a sheltered porch that spans the right side of the façade. The building is capped with a peaked roof which terminates at a smaller rectangular flat roof above, with an intersecting front gable roof facing the street. The porch has wooden floorboards and ornamental wood details, M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 2 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign which include turned posts, scrollwork, brackets, and wood handrails with band-sawn decorative flat balusters. The porch is capped by a low-pitched hip roof under the frieze of the main roof. At the rear of the building, an addition has been constructed with an elevated wood deck with handicap lift. Wooden stairs with wooden railings provide access to the rear entrance from the parking lot. The footprint of the addition is asymmetrical, with its longer axis extending the entire length of the rear façade, from which a small room extends perpendicularly from the left. The addition is capped by a low-pitched shed roof with an intersecting gable below the frieze of the original structure’s roof. Most of the original windows have been replaced by either vinyl or painted wood-clad windows. The windows and fenestration openings found within the rear addition of the structure are not original. The main building located on this property faces onto a front yard with grass and shrubbery. It is accessed from the street sidewalk by a contemporary walkway. A low picket fence delineates the front yard near the property line and extends toward the west, terminating at a redwood fence approximately 6 feet tall that runs along the west property line. To the east, the structure faces a paved parking lot that extends around toward the rear of building, where a detached three-car garage structure runs perpendicular to the southern property line. The structure is capped by two gable roofs that run east to west. This structure looks out past the rear paved area toward a low picket- fenced garden area beyond. Behind the garage structure is a narrow side yard which runs parallel to south property. Evaluation of Historic Resources Framework There are three separate levels of designation of historic resources: Local (City of Campbell Structure of Merit), State (California Register), and Federal (National Register of Historic Places). Each designation level detailed below may differ in its criteria for the overall importance and significance of a historic resource. The methodology applied to determine a historic resource’s eligibility closely parallels the criteria developed by the National Park Service by which every property is nominated to the National Register and is to be judged. This same evaluation criterion is also designed to help guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the National Register. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under the Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, ʺA project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.ʺ It further states under Section 5023.1, ʺ [projects] are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 3 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, not included in a local requester of historic resources, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subsection (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.ʺ THE THREE LEVELS OF DESIGNATION FOR A HISTORIC RESOURCE City of Campbell Structure of Merit is a historic resource that has been designated by resolution of the City Council, as possessing outstanding aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering historic value. Structures of merit do not include landmarks or historic districts. Landmark is a historic resource that has been designated as a landmark by ordinance of the City Council as having exceptional historic significance in Campbell’s history, architecture, engineering, and culture. The California Register (CRHR) is the authoritative guide to the State's historical and archeological resources. It also includes all locally designated properties and all properties listed in the National Register. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is a list of buildings and sites of local, state, or national importance. This program is administered by the National Park Service through the California Office of Historic Preservation. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE: STRUCTURE OF MERIT AND LANDMARK Designation Criteria for a Structure of Merit: For a resource to be eligible as a Structure of Merit it must be reviewed for conformance with the following criteria: a. The proposed resource is associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage; b. The proposed resource is associated with the lives of persons important to our history; c. The proposed resource yields, or has the potential to yield, information important to our prehistory or history; d. The proposed resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction; M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 4 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign e. The proposed resource represents the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder; or f. The proposed resource possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city. Designation Criteria for a Landmark: For a resource to be eligible as a Landmark a resource must be reviewed for conformance with the following criteria: a. The proposed resource represents a unique, rare, or extraordinary example of an architectural design, detail or historic type; b. The proposed resource identifies with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the history, culture, or development of the city, the state or nation; or c. The proposed resource represents the site of a significant event. THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER (CRHR) The California Register was created by the State Legislature in 1992 and is intended to serve as an authoritative listing of significant historical and archeological resources in California. Additionally, the eligibility criteria for the California Register (codified in PRC § 5024.1 and further amplified in 14 CCR § 4852) are intended to serve as the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to be eligible for a listing in the California Register a property must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: Criterion 1 (Event): The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or Criterion 2 (Person): The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or Criterion 3 (Design): The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or Criterion 4 (Information): The resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 5 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign NATIONAL REGISTER (NRHP) A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history INTEGRITY In addition to the above requirements historic properties must also retain integrity. Integrity is defined as the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the either the California Register (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criterion recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. The following sections define the seven aspects and explain how they combine to produce integrity. Seven Aspects of Integrity • Location • Design • Setting M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 6 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign • Materials • Workmanship • Feeling • Association SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The applicant’s historic consultant has provided much evidence to demonstrate that the property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue does not meet the threshold of any the four criteria required for listing in either the California Register (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These criteria are summarized below. (CRHR) Criterion 1 and (NRHP) Criterion A (Event): As pointed out in the property’s historic evaluation, the subject property does not appear to be directly connected with any significant historical pattern or event that contributed to the development of the local community or to an important moment in our either state or national history. In addition, the subject property has been completely transformed by urban expansion, removing all traces of its historic horticultural past. The sole residence that remains cannot adequately convey the era of the horticultural development of the Campbell or its past history, which is necessary to be found eligible for either register listing under this criterion. (CRHR) Criterion 2 and (NRHP) Criterion B (Person): The various persons connected with this property, from the first owners Zeri and Jane Hamilton (1851–1882), who may have been somewhat influential in the early development of the immediate area around the subject property, do not seem to have developed the property beyond using it for agricultural purposes. The next series of owners and occupants, William F. and Agnes Groves, who actually constructed the house on the subject property (reportedly sometime around 1889), Charles C., Alice E., and Albert T. Cragin (1899–1913), Harry M. and Susie Richmond (1925–1939), Orofirio and Carmelo Sciortino and Vicenza Oliviere (1939–2013), all appear through the archival research presented not to have made significant contributions to the development of either Campbell or the broader region, which is needed to be found eligible for either listing under this criterion. (CRHR) Criterion 3 and (NRHP) Criterion C (Design/Construction): The building located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue, which appears to have been built around 1889, meets both the 50 years of age threshold and does appear to have retained some of its distinctive Folk Victorian architectural style characteristics, but because of the many remodeling alterations and room additions performed over the years to this structure (originally constructed as a residential dwelling but now used for commercial purposes), it has lost its overall integrity and historic value. Coupling this fact with the property’s urban M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Project Review Memrandum Date: 3/17/20 Page: 7 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, California 94925 Peninsula and South Bay Region Phone: 650.941.8048 Fax: 650.941.8069 San Francisco, Marin and North Bay Region Phone: 415.924.7059 Fax: 415.924.7629 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture - Historic Preservation - D esign setting, it no longer conveys its original era of development, architectural character or significance, which is all necessary to be found eligible under the above criterion. (CRHR) Criterion 4 and (NRHP) Criterion D (Information Potential): Although the applicant’s consultant did not provide evidence regarding this criterion, evaluation of this kind generally does not include such research. Such research is usually reserved for cultural landscapes of potential archeological importance and significance. Without evidence to the contrary, it is highly doubtful that this property alone could meet the eligibility threshold required under the above criterion. Evaluation of Significance: City of Campbell Structure of Merit or Landmark: Since the property in question is not listed on the city’s historic resource inventory nor appears eligible for either the California Register (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), for the sum of these reasons, it is not eligible under Criteria A–F to be listed as Structure of Merit or under Criteria A–C to be listed as a Landmark. CONCLUSION Based on the preponderance of evidence presented in the material provided by the applicant, it is difficult to support the notion that the property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue could possibly meet any of the minimum threshold eligibility requirements needed to be listed on the California Register of Historic Resources or as a local historic resource by the city as either a Structure of Merit or a Landmark property. Page 1 of 11 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell CA 95008 P1. Other Identifier: 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell CA 95008 DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information 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 *P2. Location: ¨ Not for Publication x Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Jose West, CA Date 2015 T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 1940 Hamilton Avenue City Campbell Zip 95008 UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S, 37.29409°N / -121.92133°E d. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) Assessor’s Parcel Number 288 24047 *P3a. Description: 1940 Hamilton Avenue is a one-story-over-raised-foundation, Folk Victorian-style building located on the south side of Hamilton Avenue between Leigh and Phantom avenues in Campbell, California. The wood frame building has a 1,659 square foot generally rectangular footprint and is situated at the northwest portion of a 20,000 square foot lot. The building was constructed as a dwelling and has been converted to commercial use. All facades are clad in stucco and the building is capped with a flat- peaked hipped roof with an intersecting front gable. All windows are contemporary replacement vinyl or painted wood-clad vinyl unless otherwise noted. The primary (north) façade faces onto a front yard planted with grass, and the building is accessed from the street by a contemporary cobblestone walkway. A low wood picket fence marks the front lot line at the left and right portions of the front yard. The primary facade (Figure 1) is asymmetrically arranged around the primary entrance, a contemporary wood door with a fixed transom set within a shallow paneled recess. The primary entrance is sheltered by a porch which spans the right side of the façade and is accessed from grade by a short straight concrete stair with pipe handrails. The porch has wood floorboards and is ornamented with wood details including turned posts, scrollwork brackets, and a wood handrail with flat scrollwork balusters (Figure 2). The porch is capped with a low-pitched hipped roof. (See Continuation Sheet.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3– Multiple Family Property *P4. Resources Present: x Building x Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo: Figure 1: 1940 Hamilton Avenue, primary (north) façade, view facing south, taken 01/07/2020 by Stacy Farr *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: x Historic Prehistoric 1889 (San Jose Mercury News, December 1,1889) *P7. Owner and Address: 1940 Hamilton LLC 1940 Hamilton Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 *P8. Recorded by: Stacy Farr, Historic Resource Consultant 3823 Clarke St., Oakland, CA 94609 *P9. Date Recorded: 02/19/2020 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") none *Attachments: NONE Location Map x Continuation Sheet x Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 2 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update *P3a. Description (continued): Right of the primary entrance there is a pair of double-hung windows. Left of the primary entrance, the façade projects outward approximately six feet and there is a large fixed window with a fixed upper lite, trimmed with simple surrounds and ornamental wood shutters. There is a circular vented opening at the gable peak, and the gable peak and the rest of the primary façade terminates with a compound cornice composed of a flat scalloped molding, stepped brackets interspersed with paneled molding, and projecting eaves. The east side façade faces onto a paved parking area, beyond which the east lot line is marked with a vertical board fence. The raised foundation includes a wood utility box at far right and one rectangular vented opening. Fenestration at the first floor (Figure 3) includes, from right to left, a horizontally-oriented multi-lite leaded wood window; paired double-hung windows with decorative wood shutters; and, at left, four horizontally-oriented double-hung windows. All windows are trimmed with simple surrounds and the majority of the façade terminates with the same compound cornice as described at the primary (north) façade, while the far-left portion of the façade reflects a shed-roof addition at the rear (south) façade and terminates with a slight eave overhang. The rear (south) façade faces onto a paved parking area and a multi-car garage. The rear facade includes two additions and is asymmetrically arranged (Figure 4). A shed-roof addition spans the width of the façade, the right side of which includes a double-hung window and a half-glazed pedestrian entrance door. At the left half of the rear façade, a front- gable addition projects out approximately 10 feet and includes double-hung windows at its east- and south facets. The right side of the rear façade is spanned by a deck of dimensional lumber accessed via a short stair and a wheelchair lift. Above the slope of the shed-roof addition, the south façade terminates with the same brackets found at the front and east facades. The shed-roof addition terminates with a slight eave overhang with exposed rafters, and the gable-front addition terminates with three pipe vents at the gable peak and a plain facia board and, on the sides of the addition, exposed rafters. The west side façade faces onto a landscaped side yard with a contemporary cobblestone paved walkway, a gravel pathway and sitting area, planted areas, and mature trees, beyond which the west property line is marked with a vertical board fence. At the raised foundation there is one rectangular vented opening. Fenestration at the first floor (Figure 5) includes, from left to right, paired double-hung windows; four double-hung windows; and, at far right, one horizontally- oriented double-hung window at the shed-roof addition and one horizontally-oriented double-hung window at the gabled addition. The majority of the west façade terminates with the same compound cornice found at the front, east, and rear facades, while the shed-roof and gabled additions terminate with a slight eave overhang with exposed rafters. At the south portion of the lot, behind the dwelling, there is a one-story, multicar garage, clad in stucco and capped with a double front-gable roof. The primary (east) façade of the garage (Figure 6) includes three vinyl roll-up auto doors, and the façade terminates with slightly projecting gable roofs with plain fascia boards. The north façade includes a contemporary paneled wood door at left, and two double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, and terminates with a slight eave overhang with exposed rafters. The rear (west) façade (Figure 7) includes three double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, and terminates with slightly projecting gable roofs with plain fascia boards. The south façade is flush with the south lot line, which is marked with a vertical board fence, and was not observed during a site visit. At the southeast portion of the lot there is a fenced-in garden, currently planted with grass, ornamental plans and mature trees, enclosed by a low wood fence with areas of baluster that match that of the front porch, and accessed via an opening DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 3 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update framed by wood posts and a wood trellis (Figure 8). The garden also includes platforms and benches of dimensional lumber, and walkways of contemporary cobblestone paving. 1940 Hamilton Avenue is located in a mixed residential and commercial area (Figures 9-11). East of the subject property there are two Ranch-style dwellings on the south side of Hamilton Avenue west of Phantom Avenue, constructed c. 1960. West of the subject property, the Expressionist-style church at 1980 Hamilton Avenue is surrounded by mature trees and associated buildings and parking areas, which extend into the area south of the subject property. On the north side of Hamilton Street, across from the subject property, there is a mixture of residential and commercial buildings, including the Craftsman-style dwelling at the northwest corner of Hamilton and Norman avenues, and the Modern-style commercial building at the northeast corner of Hamilton and Norman avenues. Overall the area reflects a broad mixture of construction dates and architectural styles and appears unlikely to potentially qualify as a historic district for any reason. Figure 2. Primary (north) façade, porch detail. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 4 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 3. East façade, view facing northwest. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 5 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 4. Rear (south) façade, view facing northwest. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 6 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 5. West façade, view facing northeast. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 7 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 6. Primary (east) façade of garage, view facing west. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 8 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 7. Rear (west) façade of garage, view facing southeast. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 9 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 8. Garden at southeast portion of the lot, view facing northeast. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 10 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 9. Ranch style dwellings directly east of the subject property, view facing southeast. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 11 of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr Historic Resource Consulting *Date 02/19/2020 x Continuation Update Figure 10. Expressionist-style church at 1980 Hamilton Avenue, west of the subject property, view facing west. Figure 11. Modern-style commercial building at the northeast corner of Hamilton and Norman avenues, view facing northeast. *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Ave., Campbell CA *NRHP Status Code 6Z Page 1 of 28 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) Sketch Map. Source: Santa Clara County Assessor B1. Historic Name: none B2. Common Name: 1940 Hamilton Avenue B3. Original Use: single-family dwelling B4. Present Use: commercial building *B5. Architectural Style: Folk Victorian *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Original construction: 1889 (based on completion announcement, San Jose Mercury News, December 1, 1889). Permitted alterations: Installation of installation of two clean out lines to the main sewer lateral (San Jose Permit No. P9950552, issued January 8, 1999). Additional alterations: see Continuation Sheet. *B7. Moved? xNo Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: garage in back yard; fenced garden in back yard. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Designer/Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Area none Period of Significance none Property Type residential Applicable Criteria none (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Historic Context: Development of Campbell The first inhabitants of what is today the Santa Clara Valley were several bands of the Ohlone or Costanoan Native Americans, who congregated in concentrations of small villages related by kinship ties. Primarily hunter-gatherers, these bands settled near dependable water sources and constructed dwellings of tule rushes fastened to willow poles. Native habitation was severely impacted by the arrival of Spanish explorers in 1769 and the subsequent establishment, in 1777, of Mission Santa Clara de Assis and the associated civil settlement of El Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe. At the Mission, native persons were converted by the Catholic Church and compelled to labor to support the mission population, including farming, ranching, and crafts work including leatherwork, soapmaking, ropemaking, and others. Colonial pueblo settlers farmed corn, beans, wheat, hemp, flax, vineyards, and orchards, and worked in early industries such as gristmilling, making wine and brandy, processing hemp, and making soap. The area that eventually became Campbell was part of Mission Santa Clara’s grazing lands, supporting over 30,000 head of cattle and sheep by 1827. (See Continuation Sheet.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See continuation sheet. B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Stacy Farr, Architectural Historian *Date of Evaluation: 02/19/2020 DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 2 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ *B6. Construction History (continued): With the exception of the 1999 plumbing permit, there are no building permits on file for 1940 Hamilton Avenue at the City of Campbell Building or Planning departments; the San Jose Building or Planning departments; the Santa Clara County Building or Planning departments; in the Santa Clara County Archives: General index of Property Records; or in the San Jose Building Permit Index for Physical Permits, 1920s-1940s or the Permits on Microfilm, 1940s-1980, which are held in the collection of the California Room at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library. Alterations that were observed during a site visit to the property on January 7, 2020 include the following: • Application of stucco cladding, either replacing or covering original wood cladding and associated wood moldings at corners and windows; • Removal of original windows at the left side of the primary (north) façade and replacement with a reconfigured large picture window with a fixed upper lite; • Removal of all original double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs and replacement with contemporary painted vinyl or wood-clad vinyl double-hung windows; • Removal of original primary entrance door and replacement with a contemporary door; • Two rear additions, including a shed-roof addition that spans the width and almost the height of the rear façade, and another gable-roof addition that projects out from the shed-roof addition; • Reconfiguration of the shape of three original window openings on the east façade, from vertical to horizontal orientation; • Removal of some original wood porch components, including the stairs and the floor, and replacement with concrete; • Installation of a non-historic scalloped molding at the lower perimeter of the cornice; • Changes to the setting including subdivision of the historic parcel from 9.75 acres to its current 0.54 acres; associated loss of barn and agricultural use; asphalt paving at the east side of the lot; construction of a multicar garage at the south side of the lot; and contemporary landscaping and paving at the north side of the lot, in front of the building. Additionally, while interiors of privately-owned buildings are not subject to historic evaluation, the property was constructed as a single-family dwelling and has been extensively renovated at the interior for use as a multi-office commercial building. *B10. Significance (continued): Following the change of governmental control from Spain to Mexico in 1822, missions were secularized and vast swaths of land were granted to private landholders in an effort to stimulate colonization. Thirty-eight land grants were issued between 1833 and 1846 in the Santa Clara Valley, including three within the boundaries of what is today Campbell (Archives and Architecture, 3). Each land grant, or rancho, included a small settlement composed of the main rancho residence, laborers’ housing, cattle corrals, a grist mill, tannery, and other utilitarian buildings, and was surrounded by DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 3 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ vineyards, cultivated fields, and grazing land. In the late 1820s, immigration increased, and foreigners started to settle in California, often marrying into the families of local landholders. By 1835, of the 700 people who lived in the pueblo of San Jose, 40 were foreigners, mainly Americans and Englishmen (Archives and Architecture, 4). The first overland American settlers arrived in California in 1841 and by 1845 the population of the San Jose area had increased to 900. New settlers established various types of industries and stores, and shifted the character of the area from a small Mexican village to a bustling American town. In 1846 California was occupied by American military forces and Mexican rule came to an end. William and Agnes Campbell arrived from Missouri to the Santa Clara Valley in 1846, with their family of nine, including 19-year old son Benjamin Campbell. William Campbell surveyed the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara in 1847, establishing an urban framework that replaced the earlier rancho model and shaped future residential and commercial development. San Jose was on the southern route to the Sierra Nevada mountains and developed rapidly after gold was discovered there in 1848. Many prospectors, arriving hopeful from the East Coast and Europe and finding no gold in the mountains, settled in the Santa Clara Valley and developed lucrative agricultural and industrial sites. In 1851, Benjamin Campbell bought 160 acres and planted it with hay and grain: this acreage later became Campbell’s central downtown area. Hay and grain were massively profitable crops, as they supplied the cattle and dairy industry, which remained dominant in the valley from the 1850 through the 1890s. (Archives and Architecture, 7). Benjamin Campbell married his wife Mary in Missouri in the fall of 1851, and returned to California with a wagon train of 36 adults and children, all related by marriage or birth: most of this party settled what is now the City of Campbell, including John Bland, Peter Keith, Archibald Johnson, Zeri Hamilton, A. M. and J. B. Hess, and N. H. Hicks. Transportation, both for people and saleable goods, increased during these decades, as what is now Winchester Boulevard was declared a public road in 1850, Bascom Avenue to Santa Cruz was surveyed in 1856, the railroad line between San Francisco and San Jose was completed in 1864, and the line connecting San Jose to Niles and the Transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869. In 1877, Benjamin Campbell granted South Pacific Coast Railroad Company right of way through his property for a rail line that connected San Jose and Santa Cruz. Anticipating the development of a thriving town, Benjamin and Mary Campbell subdivided their property and laid out the town of Campbell in 1885. In 1886, a rail stop station was constructed near the Campbell family’s ranch house, and in 1888 the Campbells began selling residential lots. While as devout Methodists, the Campbells required the new town be free of saloons, by 1895 the settlement of Campbell had become a thriving village (Archives and Architecture, 10). Horticulture had been present in the Santa Clara Valley since the 1850s, and in the 1880s much of Campbell was planted with orchards and vineyards. These crops were dried, packed, and later canned in early industrial facilities, the largest of which included the J.C. Ainsley Packing Company, Hyde Cannery, and Payne Cannery. Campbells Station was integral in the shipping and distribution of these products. Cooperative facilities for production such as the Campbell Fruit Growers’ Union also developed during these decades. As wheat was replaced by horticultural products, large farms were subdivided into smaller 10- and 20-acre orchards, often at high profit, leading to increased density of settlement in the Campbell area. Residential settlement and rail transportation increased during these decades as well, with the DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 4 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Interurban Railroad establishing a line from San Jose through Campbell to Los Gatos in 1905 (Archives and Architecture, 10). Automobile travel increased after the turn of the twentieth century, and trucks became an important part of the horticulture industry, both in production and distribution. Additional amenities, both municipal and private, were established including water, electrical, and telephone service. By 1918, Campbell boasted a newspaper, bank, hotel, markets, shops, and specialty shops (Archives and Architecture, 11). Following World War I, the population of Campbell continued to grow, and many orchards and vineyards were replaced by residential developments. This effect was even more dramatic during World War II, as thousands of military personnel traveled through the San Francisco Bay Area on route to the Pacific front. After the War, a huge new influx of residents arrived to work on contracts for the defense department, aerospace engineering, and other high-tech industries. in the second half of the twentieth century. Campbell was officially incorporated as a city in 1952, and between 1950 and 1975, the population of Santa Clara county exploded form 95,000 to over 500,000 (Archives and Architecture, 12). At Stanford University and other defense industry firms in the Santa Clara area, advancements associated with the war effort laid the groundwork for the development of the technology industry that shifted the Santa Clara Valley to “Silicon Valley.” As the horticulture industry waned, most of Campbell’s remaining orchard land was sold and replaced by business and research parks and housing developments. The canneries that historically packaged the valley’s fresh fruit were also demolished during this era, and Campbell has grown from a small farming center to a progressive community with a population of over 38,000. Site History Prior to construction of the subject property, the area where the subject property was later constructed (“subject site”) was first owned by Zeri Hamilton, who arrived in California in 1851 and took possession of a homestead site described as “on what is now known as the Meridian road, near the eastern terminus of Hamilton Avenue, two and one-half miles southwest of San Jose” (Foote, 463). (Biographical information about all known owners of the subject site and subject property is included in the following section of this report.) The Zeri Hamilton Partition was established several years after Zeri Hamilton’s death in 1871 and spanned the north and south side of Hamilton Avenue, east of what is now Leigh Avenue and east and west of Meridian Avenue (Figure 1). Research has not uncovered any evidence that Zeri Hamilton or his family developed the subject site in any way, although it is possible the subject site was used for agricultural purposes during this era. On January 31, 1882, Zeri Hamilton’s son David A. Hamilton sold an “about 10 acres” lot of the Hamilton tract to William F. Groves for $1,450 (“Real Estate Transactions,” San Jose Herald, January 31, 1882). Groves’ ownership of the subject site is depicted in an 1888 map of Santa Clara County, with the full historic boundaries of the 9.75 acre squared site bounded by Hamilton Avenue at the north, what is today Leigh Avenue at the west, what is today Phantom Avenue at the east, and a southerly line approximately 650 feet south of Hamilton Avenue (Figure 2). Groves and his wife Agnes may have lived at a temporary building at the subject site after they purchased it in 1882, or they may have lived elsewhere for several years while Groves planted an apricot orchard on the parcel, the fruits DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 5 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ of which Groves was selling by 1887 (“Local Brevities,” San Jose Mercury News, August 11, 1887). The December 1,1889 edition of the San Jose Mercury News announced the completed construction of “the new and lovely residence of W. F Groves, on Hamilton Avenue near the Willows.” While research has not uncovered original building permits or other documentation that would conclusively date the subject property’s date of construction, based on the architectural style of the house and information gathered through newspaper research, it appears strongly likely that the subject property is the house described in this 1889 announcement. An 1899 map of Santa Clara County records the footprint of two structures at the subject site, likely the subject property and a barn, located southeast of the subject property (Figure 3). Research has not uncovered any historic photographs of the subject property that would provide conclusive information about the property’s historic appearance. Despite the establishment in 1905 of an interurban railroad line that travelled from San Jose along Hamilton Avenue through Campbell to Los Gatos, the 1915 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map did not record the area of Hamilton Avenue west of Meridian Avenue in detail, indicating that the area was not developed to a degree that warranted mapping for fire insurance purposes. An aerial photograph taken by Fairchild Photography in 1931 is the earliest image available of the subject property (Figure 4). While the resolution of the photograph does not provide much specific information about the subject property, the photograph shows the 9.75-acre site fully planted with orchard trees, and a barn and several outbuildings located southeast of the house. There was also a U-shaped driveway in front of the house. More broadly, the 1931 photograph shows the subject property surrounded by similar agricultural properties, including houses, barns, outbuildings, and orchards. An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1948 has higher resolution and provides additional information about the subject property that year (Figure 5). As in 1931, the 1948 photograph shows the 9.75-acre site fully planted with orchard trees, and the barn and outbuildings still located southeast of the house. The U-shaped driveway is still visible in front of the house. A one-car garage had been constructed behind the house, which is still in place but has been expanded. The photograph also suggests a volume at the east façade, close to the back of the house: this area currently includes non-historic, horizontally-oriented windows, which may have been installed when this volume was removed. More broadly, the 1948 photograph shows the subject property was largely still surrounded by similar agricultural properties and orchards, although residential development had increased east of the subject property, and new streets including Norman and Grace avenues had been constructed. Despite ongoing increased development, Hamilton Avenue where the subject property is located was not recorded on the 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. A survey map of the subject property drawn by Santa Clara County Civil Engineer Frank E. Pisano in August of 1953 provides some information about the subject property that year (Figure 6). While Onofrio Sciortino appears to have continued to own the full 9.75-acre site, the .54-acre site that now encompasses the whole of the subject site was divided out from the larger site. Widening of Hamilton Avenue by 30 feet appears to have eliminated much of the property’s front lawn. Also by this year, Phantom Avenue was in place, precipitating the construction within the following few years of dwellings alongside what had been the east perimeter of the 9.75-acre parcel. According to the “History” section of the website of the First Congregational DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 6 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Church of San Jose, located directly west of the subject property, the church purchased its current site in 1953, suggesting that Onofrio Sciortino sold the majority of the historic 9.75-acre parcel to the church shortly after the survey map was drawn. Both Onofrio Sciortino and his brother Carmelo had farmed the orchard at the subject property: it appears that the brothers, both in their sixties by 1953, decided to sell off the majority of their landholdings, likely to support themselves and their sister in their old age, and provide financial support for the younger generations of their family. An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1960 shows the dramatic changes to the subject site as a result of the sale of most of the historic 9.75-acre site (Figure 7). In addition to reflecting its current .54-acre size, the subject property appears by 1960 to have the footprint it retains today, including the gable roof addition at the rear (south) façade, and without the volume at the east façade that was visible in the 1948 photograph. The garage had been expanded to the double-gabled roof footprint it retains today, and was accessed via a paved driveway east of the house, with the remainder of the east side of the lot unpaved. The U-shaped driveway in front of the house was still in place, despite the widening of Hamilton Avenue in the 1950s. On the land that had been historically part of the 9.75-acre subject site, west of the subject property, the classroom wings and fellowship hall of the First Congregational Church were complete, although a portion of the property surrounding that building remained planted with orchard trees. East of the subject property, ranch-style houses had been constructed along Hamilton and Phantom avenues. More broadly, the 1960 photograph shows some agricultural properties and orchards remained, but the area was largely developed by this year with single family residential buildings. An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1968 shows the subject property unchanged from the 1960 photograph, with the exception of maturation of trees and the installation of a fence at the west property line (Figure 8). On the land that had been historically part of the 9.75 acre subject site, the First Congregational Church had constructed its dramatic Expressionist sanctuary in 1966, and paved a parking area behind the subject property and an access driveway directly west of the subject property. More broadly, the 1968 photograph shows that all of the agricultural properties and orchards that had once characterized this area had been removed and replaced by residential and commercial development. An aerial photograph taken by the United States Geological Service (USGS) in 1981 shows the subject property unchanged from the 1968 photograph, with the exception of maturation of trees (Figure 9). More broadly, the 1981 photograph shows no notable changes to the surrounding area, which was completely characterized by this time by residential and commercial development. The subject property was recorded on a State of California DPR A form in 1999, as part of a survey inventory for the City of Campbell (Dill, 1999). The photograph of the subject property shows alteration that remain in place, including stucco cladding, reconfigured windows at the left side of the primary (north) façade, and several horizontally- oriented windows at the east façade (Figure 10). The U-shaped driveway remained in place, and the east side of the lot appears to have remained unpaved beyond a driveway that provided access to the rear of the lot. The 1999 photograph shows a flat-roof structure in the back yard of the house which is not discernable in earlier aerial DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page Page 7 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ photographs and is no longer present at the property: no additional information about this structure is available. The text of the 1999 DPR form notes alterations to the property including stucco finish over earlier wood siding; alterations to the primary front window to include a single fixed picture window with a five-lite transom (since removed and replaced with a single-lite transom); an addition to the rear façade; and modifications to the site. The DPR form concludes that the “while the original fabric of the structure is generally intact, the visual integrity is partly compromised due to the stucco cladding, window changes, and the character of the site” (Dill, 1999). One permit for work at the subject property is on file with San Jose Building Department, for installation of two clean out lines to the main sewer lateral (San Jose Permit No. P9950552, issued January 8, 1999). The permit was issued to property owner Dorothy Oliviere, and the property was described as a single-family dwelling. Research has not uncovered any historic photographs of the subject property that would provide conclusive information about the property’s historic appearance. Based on the property’s date of construction, its architectural style, and a comparison with other well-preserved residential properties constructed in Campbell around the same era, it can be inferred that the subject property was originally clad in wood, most likely horizontal wood clapboard or flush board-and-batten, with vertical corner moldings, and may have included plain or shaped wood shingles in the gable peak at the primary (north) facade. All of the building’s original windows were most likely vertically- oriented, double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, indicating that the large fixed window with a fixed upper lite at the left side of the primary (north façade), potentially the horizontally-oriented multi-lite leaded wood window at the right side of the east façade, and the smaller, horizontally-oriented double-hung windows at the left side of the east façade, the right side of the west façade, and the rear (south) facade, are not original. Additionally, while small, shed-roof volumes were a common feature of Folk Victorian-style buildings constructed prior to 1900, and usually included a kitchen and/or bathroom, the shed-roof volume at the rear (south) façade of the subject property is larger (in height and width) than was historically common, and the gable-front addition was constructed between 1948 and 1960, based on aerial photographic evidence. Finally, some historic features of the subject property have been replaced by non-historic materials, including the concrete steps to the porch and porch floor, vinyl or painted wood- clad vinyl windows, and flat scalloped molding at the cornice, which may mimic the presence of an older molding but appears to date from the mid-twentieth century and was potentially installed when the stucco cladding was applied. Changes to the setting have been detailed in the preceding narrative, and include a reduction of the size of the historic parcel from 9.75 to .54 acres; loss of the property’s historic barn, outbuildings, and orchard; reconfiguration of the front yard from a U-shaped driveway to its current contemporary landscaping; paving of the east side of the lot; and construction of a multi-car garage behind the house. Additionally, the use of the subject property has changed from a single-family dwelling to a multi-office commercial building. Owners and Occupants Zeri and Jane Hamilton – owners of subject site prior to construction of subject property, 1851-1882 The first known owner of the subject site was Zeri Hamilton, who traveled from Missouri to California in 1851 with his wife Jane as part of Benjamin Campbell’s wagon train (Foote, 463). Upon arrival in the Santa Clara Valley, the family DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 8 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ took possession of a homestead site described as “on what is now known as the Meridian road, near the eastern terminus of Hamilton Avenue, two and one-half miles southwest of San Jose.” They constructed a home immediately upon arrival that had been originally constructed in Maine and shipped around Cape Horn (Ibid.) The Hamiltons had nine children, and, following Zeri Hamilton’s death in 1871, Jane Hamilton fought a protracted legal battle over land rights to the family’s homestead, eventually receiving a decree of the Secretary of the Interior to get the title to the property confirmed to her children (Ibid.). The resulting subdivision was called the Zeri Hamilton Partition and spanned the north and south side of Hamilton Avenue, east of what is now Leigh Avenue and east and west of Meridian Avenue (see Figure 1). Parcels in the Hamilton Partition were mostly sold by the children of Zeri and Jane Hamilton. Jane Hamilton died in 1895 (“A Pioneer Dead,” San Jose Herald, November 1, 1895). It does not appear that the Hamilton family constructed any buildings at the subject site during the time that they owned it, although the area may have been in agricultural use at that time. William F. Groves and Agnes Groves – owners, 1882-c.1898; constructed subject property in 1889 On January 31, 1882, David A. Hamilton sold an “about 10 acres” lot of the Hamilton tract to William F. Groves for $1,450 (“Real Estate Transactions,” San Jose Herald, January 31, 1882). William F. Groves was born in Ireland c. 1844 and immigrated to the United States in 1866 (U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current; 1910 U. S. Federal Census). In 1874 he married Agnes Finley in Santa Clara County (California, County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849- 1980 for William Groves). Agnes was also born in Ireland, in 1852 (1880 U. S Federal Census). The couple had no children. Like many others in the area, William F. Groves was a fruit grower: a small announcement in the San Jose Mercury News on August 11, 1887 states that the staff of the paper was, “indebted to W. F. Groves for a box of Moorpark apricots, as large and fine as ever the longing eye of a man looked upon. They are of the first cop, the trees being three years old. The ranch is on Hamilton Avenue” (“Local Brevities,” San Jose Mercury News, August 11, 1887). An 1888 map shows W. Groves as the owner of a 9.75 acre site where the subject property is now located (see Figure 2). The December 1, 1889 edition of the San Jose Mercury News announced the completed construction of “the new and lovely residence of W. F Groves, on Hamilton Avenue near the Willows [historic name of the area near the intersection of Hamilton and Meridian avenues].” The short article describes a festive Thanksgiving and housewarming party in the new home hosted by Mr. and Mrs. Groves and attended by about a dozen area residents. While research has not uncovered original building permits or other documentation that would conclusive date the subject property’s date of construction, based on the architectural style of the house and the information gathered through newspaper research, it appears strongly likely that the subject property is the house described in this 1889 housewarming announcement. W. F. Groves was listed as a fruit dealer in the 1890 and 1891 San Jose City Directories, residing on Hamilton Avenue. In March of 1894, the Groves’ fates turned sour: Agnes filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery, and William F. Groves was accused of attempted murder against a former employee at Groves’ Hamilton Avenue ranch who was set to testify in the divorce proceedings (“He Shot to Kill,” San Jose Herald, March 12, 1894). Groves does not appear to have been convicted, and the outcome of the divorce proceedings was not uncovered through research. However, DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 9 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ on November 4, 1895, William F. Groves sold property to Agnes Groves for $2,000 and later that year petitioned to be employed as a fire department engineer, suggesting that he intended to leave his apricot ranch, the subject property, and his marriage behind (San Jose Herald, November 4, 1895; Ibid, December 10, 1895). William F. Groves moved into downtown San Jose and worked as an engineer for the last years of his life: he died in San Jose in 1912 (William Groves in the California, Death Index, 1905-1939). Research has not uncovered any additional information about Agnes Groves. Charles C. Cragin and Alice E. and Albert T. Cragin – owners and occupants, 1899-c.1913 Although research has not uncovered the exact date Agnes Groves sold the subject property, in 1899 Charles C. Cragin was listed in the San Jose City Directory residing on Hamilton Avenue near Leigh Avenue. Charles Chester Cragin was born in 1842 in Providence, R. I. and was educated at Brown University and later Beloit College in Wisconsin (“Rev. C. C. Cragin Called by Death,” [Santa Rosa] Press Democrat, August 31, 1917). Following military service in the Civil War, he was called to ministry at a number of large Congregational churches around the United States. Prior to moving to the subject property, Charles C. Cragin lived in Solano County with his wife Hannah and children Alice, born 1874, and Albert, born 1884 (1900 U. S. Federal Census). Rev. Charles C. Cragin and his family lived at the subject property for about six years, during which time he was listed in City Directories as both a minister and an orchardist. His wife Hannah died in 1905, after which Charles C. Cragin moved to Sonoma to serve as the pastor of the Congregational church (California, Death and Burial Records from Select Counties, 1873-1987 for Hannah E. Cragin). Alice and Albert Cragin continued to live at the subject property after their father’s move to Sonoma. Alice Cragin, who graduated Stanford University, worked as a teacher, and Albert Cragin farmed the orchard on the subject site. The 1910 U. S. Federal Census described Alice and Albert Cragin as both single, and Alice was no longer teaching. Albert T. Cragin died in April of 1911, and his ownership stake in the subject property, still a 9.75 acre parcel described as the north half of lot 7 of the Hamilton Partition, transferred to his father and sister (Albert T. Cragin in the California, Death Index, 1905-1939; San Jose Mercury News, April 23, 1911). Alice E. Cragin died in June of 1912 after a protracted illness (“Miss Alice E. Cragin was Buried Yesterday,” San Jose Mercury News, June 19, 1912). At the time of her death, Charles C. Cragin had returned to live at the subject property and worked as the pastor of the Congregational church in Sunol. Following Alice E. Cragin’s death, her share of ownership of the subject property transferred to her father (San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1912). Charles C. Cragin retired from ministry shortly after Alice’s death, and moved to Santa Rosa. He died in 1917 while visiting his brother in Washington ([Santa Rosa] Press Democrat, August 31, 1917). Although research has not uncovered the exact date that Charles C. Cragin sold the subject property, real estate advertisements published between 1908 and 1913 suggest that portions of the 9.75 acre site historically identified as the north portion of Lot 7 of the Hamilton Partition may have been sold in smaller parcels. Research has not uncovered the owners or occupants of the subject property for the eight years between Cragin’s death in 1917 and 1925. The San Jose City Directories published during these years do not include street numbers DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 10 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ for residents on Hamilton Avenue. Likewise, the U. S. Federal Census for 1920 does not include street numbers for residents on Hamilton Avenue: an attempt to cross-reference the names of residents on Hamilton Avenue between Johnson (now Bascom) Avenue and Meridian Avenue in the 1920 census with the City Directory of that year and local newspaper archives uncovered no conclusive information. Similarly, a broad search of local newspaper archives for sale information for the parcel or residents associated with Rural Route 1, Box 334 (a known historic address of the subject property), uncovered no conclusive information. Finally, neither the City of Campbell, the City of San Jose, or the County of Santa Clara holds any historic building permits that would provide information on owners or occupants of the property during these years. Harry M. and Susie Richmond – occupants, c. 1925-1939 Starting in about 1925, the subject property was rented by Harry M. Richmond (1925 San Jose City Directory). Harry M. Richmond was born in Illinois in 1869. By 1917 he had moved to San Jose and was married to Susie Richmond. The 1930 U. S. Federal Census describes Harry M. Richmond as a 60-year-old orchard farmer renting the subject property with his wife Susie Richmond (the subject property is unaddressed, but listed as the first residence east of Leigh Avenue; the Richmonds’ residency at the subject property was confirmed through cross-referencing City Directories). The Richmonds remained at the property through 1939, which was addressed in the City Directories during those years as “RR 1, Box 334.” By 1940, Harry M. and Susie Richmond had moved to Humboldt County (1940 U. S. Federal Census). Onofrio and Carmelo Sciortino and Vicenza Oliviere – owners and occupants (including descendants), c. 1939-2013 The Sciortino family moved to the subject property between 1939 and 1942, and they retained ownership of the property through the remainder of the historic era (ie, more than 50 years ago) until 2013, then the property was purchased by the current owner. Onofrio Sciortino was born in Bagheria (Sicily), Italy in 1891 and immigrated to the United States in 1907 (“Sciortino,” San Francisco Examiner, September 13, 1959; 1930 U. S. Federal Census). He was followed by his older brother Carmelo Sciortino in 1909, and younger sister Vicenza Oliviere in 1910: Vicenza brought a daughter Mary with her from Italy, and had two more daughters, Rose and Dorothy, after she arrived in the U. S. (1930 U. S. Federal Census). The Sciortino family arrived in California around 1919, and by 1930 lived in San Jose at a property they owned on Willow Street, where Carmelo and Onofrio ran a grocery store and Vicenza, who was widowed, raised her three children. Through the 1930s, the brothers operated a bakery, also on Willow Street, described in the City Directory as Sciortino Brothers bakery and later as the Italian American Bakery. Both Carmelo and Onofrio Sciortino registered for the draft in 1942 and listed the subject property as their home, at that time addressed as Hamilton/Rural Route 1, Box 334. Neither man was married. Onofrio Sciortino described himself as self-employed at the Livermore Cheese Factory on Holly Drive in Tracy, California. Carmelo Sciortino described himself as self-employed at the subject property, suggesting that he farmed the land. In 1953, First Congregational Church of San Jose purchased the land directly west of the subject property, presumably from Onofrio Sciortino, who was listed as the owner of that land on a 1953 survey map drawn by Santa Clara County (www.first ccsj.org ; see Figure 6). Based on map research laid out in the previous section of this report, DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 11 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ it appears that Onofrio and Carmelo Sciortino, both in their sixties by 1953, decided to sell off the majority of their landholdings, likely to support themselves and their sister in their old age, and provide financial support for the younger generations of their family. Carmelo Sciortino died in 1955, and Onofrio Sciortino died in 1959 (California, Death Index, 1940-1997; Carew & English, Inc., 1959). After their deaths, Vicenza Oliviere continued to live at the subject property with her daughters Rose and Dorothy Oliviere, her daughter and son-in-law and John B. and Mary A. Tripoli, and her grandchildren Peter, Vincent, and Johnny Tripoli (Carew & English, Inc., 1959). On June 3, 1961, Vicenza Oliviere conveyed a portion of the subject lot to Santa Clara County, presumably for road widening. While research has not uncovered when Vicenza Oliviere died, she lived at the subject property through at least 1977 (1977 Pacific Telephone Street Address and Telephone Directories). Ownership of the subject property passed to her daughters prior to 1996: in January of that year, Rose Marie and Dorothy Ann Oliviere granted the property to the Rose M. and Dorothy A. Oliviere Living Trust. In 1999 the subject property was owned by Rose Oliviere (Dill, 1999). Ownership passed to a third generation of the family in January of 2007 when the John O. Tripoli Trust and Rose M. Oliviere Trust transferred ownership of the subject property to John O. and Peter C. Tripoli. On June 27, 2013, John O. Tripoli and the Peter C. Tripoli Trust sold the subject property to current owner 1940 Hamilton LLC (Santa Clara County Assessor). Style: Folk Victorian 1940 Hamilton Avenue is designed in the Folk Victorian style. As described by architectural historian Virginia Savage McAlester, the development of national rail transportation after 1850 led to standardization of previously-diverse regional building traditions, and once dimensional lumber could be easily moved along rail routes, wooden dwellings with light balloon or braced framing covered by wood sheathing became nearly ubiquitous in American housing (McAlester, 135). A ready supply of redwood enabled Bay Area builders and architects to push the boundaries of Victorian architectural styles including Italianate, Stick/Eastlake and Queen Anne, which are characterized by picturesque massing and extensive use of wood ornament. However, the Folk Victorian style developed concurrently in the last decades of the nineteenth century, starting in about 1870, as a lower-cost alternative to these larger and more elaborate Victorian styles. The Folk Victorian style was a good match for the rapidly growing residential population in the Bay Area, as it was small, inexpensive to build, and widely adaptable, due to the availability of mass-produced wood ornament. Folk Victorian style buildings are characterized by their small size and simple massing. They are usually one story in height with a square or rectangular footprint and a gable or hipped roof. Cladding is wood clapboard or board-and- batten, although wood shingles were also used. “Victorian” detailing is then applied to this “folk” structure. Folk Victorian buildings can have a symmetrical or asymmetrical primary façade, and asymmetrical examples generally include a front-facing gable. Almost all examples will have a single-story front porch, which is generally the focal point for decorative wood ornament including turned and/or chamfered posts and balusters, spindlework, and intricately cut spandrels, friezes, and decorative brackets. The cornice, overhanging eaves, and gable-ends are trimmed with bands of DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 12 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ decorative millwork. Windows are generally undivided double-hung wood, and window and door moldings are restrained and usually limited to a simple header pediment. Folk Victorian style buildings can sometimes include elements also found in larger Italianate and Queen Anne style buildings, such as patterned wood shingles in gable- peaks, canted or squared bay windows, and divided lite windows. Folk Victorian style buildings are sometimes described as working-class versions of the Italianate, Stick/Eastlake, and Queen Anne Victorian styles designed by architects for wealthier homeowners. The style’s popularity began to wane by 1910, when other small house styles such as Craftsman and Neoclassical Bungalows began to emerge. Evaluation of Significance: California Register The California Register is the authoritative guide to significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. The evaluation criteria used by the California Register are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register. In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register a property must be demonstrated to be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Criterion 1 (Event): Research has not uncovered any association between the subject property and any specific, discrete significant events. Regarding significant patterns of events, the subject property appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and was therefore not part of the earliest settlement of this general area, which took place between 1851 and 1871 and was done by Zeri Hamilton and his immediate family. The subject property appears to have been constructed as the residence of William F. Groves and his wife Agnes; Groves either planted or acquired an apricot orchard through purchase of the subject site in 1882, which historically encompassed 9.75 acres. Horticulture had been present in the Santa Clara Valley since the 1850s, and in the 1880s much of Campbell was planted with orchards and vineyards that were smaller in size – often between 10 and 20 acres – than earlier agricultural holdings and homesteads. Groves appears to have been a participant in this trend towards smaller-scale horticultural production, but research does not indicate that his orchard – or its associated residential property – were particularly early or otherwise influential in the development of the area. Additionally, the residential property alone would not be able to convey the historic character of the horticultural development in the area, as these properties were characterized by the presence of a complex of buildings, usually including a farmhouse, barn(s), equipment shed(s), drying yards, and in some cases fruit processing buildings, none of which, besides the residence, DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 13 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ remain at the subject property (Archives and Architecture, 16). Nor does the subject property appear to have been associated with any later historically significant patterns of events that characterize the development of Campbell, such as urban development or post-War residential and industrial expansion. For these reasons, 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not associated with any events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to local or regional history and is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1 (Event). Criterion 2 (Person): Research has not uncovered any association between the subject property and persons that have played a significant role in local, state, or national history. Although the subject site was first owned by Zeri Hamilton, who was influential in the early development of the area of Campbell around the subject property, as previously introduced, research does not indicate that Hamilton or his immediate family developed the subject property beyond potentially using it for agricultural purposes. William F. Groves and his wife Agnes Groves, who constructed the subject property and farmed the subject site, do not appear to have made any contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area; additionally, they lived at the subject property for only about five years before the dissolution of their marriage, moving away, and sale of the property. Next owner Charles C. Cragin was a Congregationalist minister who moved around to several congregations during the time that he owned the subject property, and does not appear to have been a significant figure in the religious development of Campbell. (According to the “History” section of the website of the First Congregational Church of San Jose, located directly west of the subject property, the church purchased its current site in 1953; research does not indicate that there is any connection between Cragin’s ownership of the subject property, which ended c. 1913, and the current location of the First Congregational Church of San Jose. [www.first ccsj.org,]) Cragin’s children Alice and Albert likewise do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Likewise, later occupants and owners including Harry M. and Susie Richmond and, after 1942, the Sciortino/Oliviere family, do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. For these reasons, 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889, and is designed in the Folk Victorian style. The property includes some of the distinctive characteristics of this style, including relatively small size, one-story height, and simple rectangular massing; an asymmetrical primary façade with a front-facing gable; a single-story front porch with decorative wood ornament including turned posts, scrollwork brackets, and a wood handrail with flat scrollwork balusters; bands of decorative millwork at the cornice, including stepped brackets interspersed with paneled molding; and vertically-oriented double-hung windows. However, the property lacks other distinctive characteristics of this style, either through original design choices, such as the use of a flat-peaked hipped roof rather than a gable or hipped roof, or, more prevalently through alterations, such as the removal or covering of original wood clapboard or board-and-batten siding, including vertical corner and window moldings and replacement with stucco cladding; removal of the original windows at the left side of the primary (north) façade, which were likely paired vertically-oriented double-hung windows or may have been a canted bay window, and replacement with a single large fixed window with a fixed upper lite; removal of some original vertically-oriented double-hung windows on the east façade and installation of smaller, horizontally-oriented fixed and double-hung DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 14 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ windows; removal of the original wood material of all vertically-oriented double-hung windows with ogee lugs and replacement with vinyl or painted wood-clad vinyl double-hung windows; removal of the original primary entry door and replacement with a contemporary door; installation of a construction of a large shed-roof addition and a gabled addition at the rear (south) façade; alterations to the window surrounds, likely in the process of installing stucco cladding; and application of an ahistoric band of flat scalloped molding at the cornice, also likely in the process of installing stucco cladding. Additionally, the historically agricultural setting of the property has been significantly altered, through the reduction of the original size of the subject site, loss of the property’s historic barn and orchards, construction of adjacent properties, paving at the east side of the subject property, and removal of the original U- shaped driveway in front of the house and replacement with contemporary landscaping. Overall, while the subject property retains some characteristics of the Folk Victorian style, a variety of alterations have diluted its ability to accurately convey its original appearance and the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style to a degree that it would be eligible for the California Register. If this property were the sole remaining example of this style in Campbell, it is possible that despite alterations, it could still be historically significant, but there are several other properties in Campbell constructed around the same era that retain a greater degree of material integrity and are able to convey the Folk Victorian style, including 142 N. Central Avenue (b. 1895), 599 El Patio Drive (b. 1896), and 77 S. 1st Street (b. 1894). While research has not uncovered any architect or builder associated with the property it is not likely to be the work of a master architect, as Folk Victorian style houses were generally built for working-class persons, either by the owners themselves or by builders, using widely available plans and mass-produced wood ornament. Additionally, due to its modest architectural style and aforementioned alterations, the property does not possess high artistic values. For these reasons, 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3 (Design/Construction). Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Evaluation of 1940 Hamilton Avenue under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. This criterion is generally applied to sites of potential archeological importance. Evaluation of Significance: City of Campbell Structure of Merit Within the City of Campbell, a resource will be eligible as a Structure of Merit if it does conform with the following Designation Criteria: Criterion A. The proposed resource is associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage; Criterion B. The proposed resource is associated with the lives of persons important to our history; Criterion C. The proposed resource yields, or has the potential to yield, information important to our prehistory or history; Criterion D. The proposed resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction; DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 15 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Criterion E. The proposed resource represents the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder; Criterion F. The proposed resource possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city. Criterion A. 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 as the residence of William F. Groves and his wife Agnes. Groves was an orchardist who purchased the 9.75 acre site which historically encompassed the subject site from David A. Hamilton in 1882. The parcel was part of the Hamilton Partition, the subdivided homestead of Zeri Hamilton, one of the first settlers in the area. In this way, the subject site is associated with the period in which large farms, usually farming wheat, were subdivided into smaller 10- and 20-acre orchards, leading to increased density of settlement in the Campbell area. However, as detailed in the City of Campbell historic context statement prepared by Archives and Architecture, these new subdivided farms were characterized by the presence of a complex of buildings, usually including a farmhouse, barn(s), equipment shed(s), drying yards, and in some cases fruit processing buildings (Archives and Architecture, 16). Over the course of the past 70 years, the subject site has been completely denuded of its historic horticultural uses and all of the buildings and structures and objects (such as fruit trees) that would enable the property to convey its historic use. Solely the residence remains, which in itself is not able to convey the era of horticultural development in Campbell: the building has no innate characteristics that enable it to identify the horticultural history of the site. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion A. Criterion B. 1940 Hamilton is not associated with any persons important to the historic development of Campbell. As previously introduced, first owner Zeri Hamilton, who was influential in the development of the area of Campbell around the subject property, did not develop the subject property beyond potentially using it for agricultural purposes. William F. Groves and his wife Agnes Groves, who constructed the subject property and farmed the subject site, do not appear to have made any contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Next owner Charles C. Cragin was a Congregationalist minister who moved around to several congregations during the time that he owned the subject property, and does not appear to have been a significant figure in the religious development of Campbell. Cragin’s children Alice and Albert do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Likewise, later occupants and owners including Harry M. and Susie Richmond and, after 1942, the Sciortino/Oliviere family, do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion B. Criterion C. While a full evaluation of 1940 Hamilton Avenue for its potential archeological importance is beyond the scope of this report, based on above-ground buildings, structures and objects at this subject site, there is no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of Campbell. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion C. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 16 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Criterion D. 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and is designed in the Folk Victorian style. As previously introduced, while the property includes some of the distinctive characteristics of this style, specifically at its massing, porch and cornice, both through original design choices and more prevalently through alterations it no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style to a degree that it would be described as a representative example of the style. Additionally, while remaining examples of Folk Victorian properties are comparatively rare in Campbell, there are several other Folk Victorian style properties in Campbell that were constructed around the same era as the subject property that retain a greater degree of material integrity, including 142 N. Central Avenue (b. 1895), 599 El Patio Drive (b. 1896), and 77 S. 1st Street (b. 1894), meaning that the subject property is not the last or most unique or rare example of this style in Campbell. For these reasons the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion D. Criterion E. Research has not uncovered any architect or builder associated with 1940 Hamilton Avenue. The property it is not likely to be the work of a notable architect, as Folk Victorian-style houses were generally not designed by architects but were rather built for working-class persons, either by the owners themselves or by builders, using widely available plans and mass-produced wood ornament. There is no indication that 1940 Hamilton Avenue varies from this typical method of conception and construction. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion E. Criterion F. 1940 Hamilton Avenue was designed in the Folk Victorian style, which is sometimes described as a working- class version of the Italianate, Stick/Eastlake, and Queen Anne Victorian styles used in more elaborate structures from the same era. In this style, “Victorian” detailing is then applied to a “folk” structure. While the subject property does retain some of the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style, including its massing and the more “Victorian” detailing at the porch and cornice, both through original design choices and through alterations, the property can not be described as possessing significant artistic value, such that it materially benefits the historic character of the area. Additionally, as previously introduced in the discussion of Structure of Merit Criterion A, the “historic character” of the area surrounding the subject property is one of 10- to 20-acre horticultural properties, established in the 1870s-1880s and characterized by the presence of a complex of buildings that supported agricultural uses. In this way, the residential building at 1940 Hamilton Avenue is not independently able to convey the “historic character” of the area. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Structure of Merit under Criterion F. Evaluation of Significance: City of Campbell Local Landmark Within the City of Campbell, a resource will be eligible as a Landmark if it does conform with the following Designation Criteria: Criterion A. The proposed resource represents a unique, rare, or extraordinary example of an architectural design, detail or historical type; Criterion B. The proposed resource identifies with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the history, culture, or development of the city, the state or the nation; or Criterion C. The proposed resource represents the site of a significant historic event. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 17 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Criterion A. 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and is designed in the Folk Victorian style. As previously introduced, while the property includes some of the distinctive characteristics of this style, specifically at its massing, porch and cornice, both through original design choices and more prevalently through alterations it no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Folk Victorian style to a degree that it would be described as an extraordinary example of the style. Additionally, while remaining examples of Folk Victorian properties are comparatively rare in Campbell, there are several other Folk Victorian style properties in Campbell that were constructed around the same era as the subject property that retain a greater degree of material integrity, including 142 N. Central Avenue (b. 1895), 599 El Patio Drive (b. 1896), and 77 S. 1st Street (b. 1894), meaning that the subject property is not the last or most unique or rare example of this style in Campbell. For these reasons the property is not eligible as a Landmark under Criterion A. Criterion B. As previously introduced, first owner Zeri Hamilton, who was influential in the development of the area of Campbell around the subject property, did not develop the subject property beyond potentially using it for agricultural purposes. William F. Groves and his wife Agnes Groves, who constructed the subject property and farmed the subject site, do not appear to have made any contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Next owner Charles C. Cragin was a Congregationalist minister who moved around to several congregations during the time that he owned the subject property and does not appear to have been a significant figure in the religious development of Campbell. Cragin’s children Alice and Albert do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. Likewise, later occupants and owners including Harry M. and Susie Richmond and, after 1942, the Sciortino/Oliviere family, do not appear to have made any historically significant contributions to the development of Campbell or the broader area. For these reasons, the property is not eligible as a Landmark under Criterion B. Criterion C. Research does not indicate that any significant historic events have taken place at 1940 Hamilton Avenue, and for this reason the property is not eligible as a Landmark under Criterion C. Conclusion 1940 Hamilton Avenue appears through research to have been constructed in 1889 and is designed in the Folk Victorian style. It was initially part of a 9.75-acre horticultural property constructed by first-owner William F. Groves. Later owners included Rev. Charles C. Cragin and his adult children, Harry M. and Susie Richards, and, from 1942 through 2013, the Sciortino/Oliviere family. These later owners also worked the land through approximately 1953 when most of the original 9.75-acre parcel was sold down to its current .54-acre size. None of the owners of the subject site made significant contributions to local, state, or national history, and for these reasons the property is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion B; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit under Criterion B, or as a City of Campbell Local Landmark under Criterion B. The subject property retains some architectural details that characterize the Folk Victorian style, but has undergone alterations that dilute its ability to convey that style, primarily complete recladding in stucco and reconfiguration of windows at the primary (north) façade. For these reasons, the property is not eligible for the California Register DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 18 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ under Criterion C; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit under Criteria D, E, or F, or as a City of Campbell Local Landmark under Criterion A. The property was constructed during a period in Campbell when larger farms were being subdivided into smaller 10- to 20-acre orchards. However, when constructed, the subject property also included a barn, outbuildings, and apricot trees, among other outbuildings. Over the course of the past 70 years, the subject site has been completely denuded of its historic horticultural uses and all of the buildings and structures and objects (such as fruit trees) that would enable the property to convey its historic use. Solely the residence remains, which in itself is not able to convey the era of horticultural development in Campbell. For these reasons the property is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion A; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit under Criteria A or F; or as a City of Campbell Local Landmark under Criterion C. In sum, due to alterations to the subject property and changes to the historically agricultural setting and use of the site, the subject property is not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources; as a City of Campbell Structure of Merit; or a City of Campbell Local Landmark. The property would therefore not be considered a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Preparer’s Qualifications Stacy Farr is an architectural historian and cultural resources planner with 10 years’ experience evaluating historic resources in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Farr has an undergraduate degree in the History of Art and Architecture from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a Masters degree in the History of Architecture and Urbanism from the University of California, Berkeley, and meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History and History. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 19 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ References Archives and Architecture. Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell. Submitted to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division: City of Campbell, 1996. Dill, Leslie A. G. State of California DPR A form, 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell. Submitted to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division: City of Campbell, 1999. Foote, Horace S., editor. Pen Pictures from the Garden of the World, or, Santa Clara County, California. Chicago: The Lewis Pub. Co., 1888. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf, 2015. All historic newspaper articles were accessed through the California Digital Newspaper Archive, managed by UC Riverside’s Center for Bibliographical Studies and Research, www.cndr.ucr.edu. All biographical historical records, including U.S. Federal Census records, California Death indices, World War II draft registration records, and others, were accessed through Ancestry, www.ancestry.com. San Jose City Directories were accessed in the California Room at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. All aerial photographs are in the collection of the California Room at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. Research assistance was provided by staff of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, staff of the Campbell Historical Museum, and staff of History San Jose. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 20 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Maps and Images Figure 1. Official map of the County of Santa Clara, California: compiled from U.S. surveys, county records, and private surveys and the tax-list of 1889, by order of the Hon. Board of Supervisors. Edited by author, Hamilton Partition outlined in red, and the subject site marked by a red star. Source: Library of Congress. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 21 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 2. 1888 Map of Santa Clara County, edited by author, with the outline of the historic boundaries of the subject site outlined in red. Source: Brainard Agricultural Atlas, in the collection of San Jose Public Library. Figure 3. 1899 Map of Santa Clara County, edited by author, subject site outlined in red. Source: USGS Map in the collection of www.oldmapsonline.org. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 22 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 4. 1931 Fairchild Photography aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 23 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 5. 1948 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 24 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 6. 1953 Santa Clara County Survey Map showing the property of Onofrio Sciortino. Source: Santa Clara County Surveyor Record Index. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 25 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 7. 1960 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red, as well as former boundaries of the historic 9.75 acre lot outlined in red. Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 26 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 8. 1968 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 27 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 9. 1981 USGS aerial photograph of San Jose, subject property and lot outlined in red. Source: California Room, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San Jose. DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page _____ of _____ Page 28 of 28 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1940 Hamilton Avenue, Campbell *Recorded by: Stacy Farr *Date 02/19/2020 Continuation x Update ¨ Figure 10. 1999 photograph of 1940 Hamilton included in the DPR form prepared by Leslie A. G. Dill. Source: Campbell Historical Society. Item No. 4 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ JULY 22, 2020 PLN-2020-12 Keyhankhadiv, B. Public Hearing to consider the application of Barzin Keyhankhadiv for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue in the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board take following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board find that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures. PROJECT DATA Zoning Designation: R-1-6-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre) Net Lot Area: 7,371 square-feet Gross Lot Area: 8,621 square-feet Density: 5.2 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max. Allowed) Building Height: 14 ¼ feet 28 feet (Max. Allowed) Building Square Footage: Existing Living Area: 944 square feet Proposed Living Area: 804 square feet 1,748 square feet (Total House Size) Detached Garage: 257 square feet 2,005 square feet (Total Building Area) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .27 (2,005 sq. ft) .45 (3,316 sq. ft.) (Max. Allowed) Building (Lot) Coverage: 28% (2,063 sq. ft.) 40% (2,948 sq. ft.) (Max. Allowed) Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces (Min. Required) Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 3 PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue Setbacks: Proposed Required Front (north): 28 feet 20 feet Side (west): 5 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height Side (east): 17 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height Rear (south): 44 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height DISCUSSION Project Site: The project site is located on Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard (reference Attachment 2 – Location Map). The property is developed with a single-family residence, a non- landmark historic district resource constructed in 1939 in a vernacular style, commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House. According to the City's current DPR form, the home was constructed for Mary Fablinger, a Campbell Grammar School teacher (reference Attachment 3). Background: On November 28, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit with an Historic Exception to allow a 950 square-foot addition and a new detached garage for the subject property.1 This approval expired without a building permit being issued. Proposal: The applicant has applied for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019- 110) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to Mary Fablinger House. The addition would accommodate two additional bedrooms and bathrooms, as well as a walk-in laundry room (reference Attachment 4 – Project Plans). ANALYSIS Zoning District: The project site is located in the R-1-6-H (Single-family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District. As indicated under 'Project Data', the proposed addition conforms to applicable development standards. Additionally, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.080, an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is required for any alteration to a landmark or historic district property. General Plan: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (less than 6 units per gross acre). The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan Land Use policies and strategies by respecting the built environment and maintaining the historic integrity of an historic structure. Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics Policy LUT-8.1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the co mmunity. Strategy LUT-20.1b: Building Patterns: Ensure that new development is designed to blend in with the existing building patterns of the neighborhood. For example, if the majority of the garages on the street are at the rear of the site, the new bui lding should be designed to accommodate a rear garage. 1 The former Historic Preservation Ordinance required a Conditional Use Permit for any alterations to a landmark or historic district structure. Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 3 PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue Design/Historic Guidelines: Approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit requires the Board to find that the project complies with the Campbell Municipal Code and the Historic Design Guidelines (http://bit.ly/CampbellHDG), and would not have a "significant impact" on the historic resource. Additionally, the project must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards such that the decision-making body can affirmatively find: (a) The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size, massing, scale and proportion, and materials. (b) The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource. (c) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible. (d) New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future. The proposed addition would be located entirely behind the structure with the same shape and massing, extending along an existing building line. Materially, the addition would incorporate matching roofing, wood siding, trim, and windows as the existing residence. However, to maintain the historic integrity of the structure, the plans indicate that the new siding will be wider than the original as to maintain a differentiation between old and new. In total, the proposed addition would not adversely impact the existing structure in keeping with the Historic Design Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Location Map 3. DPR Form 4. Project Plans Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2020-04 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A TIER 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2020-12) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 800 SQUARE- FOOT REAR ADDITION TO AN ALICE AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MARY FABLINGER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 20 ALICE AVENUE IN THE R- 1-6-H (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / HISTORIC OVERLAY) COMBINING ZONING DISTRICT. 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-2020-12: 1. The project site is a 7,371 square-foot single-family residential property located on Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard , within the Alice Avenue Historic District. 2. The project site is zoned R-1-6-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) on the City of Campbell Zoning Map. 3. The project site is designated Low Density Residential on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram. 4. The project site is developed with a single-family residence, a non-landmark historic district resource constructed in 1938 in a vernacular style, commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House. 5. The proposed project is an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-110) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition. 6. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Tier 1)) requires that any alteration to a landmark or historic district property be reviewed through "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit. 7. The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy LUT-8.1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources : Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community. Policy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2020-04 Page 2 of 3 PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue 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. 8. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the pr oject, as currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and concludes that: Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080): 1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code; 2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings; 3. The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district; 4. The proposed action is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows: a. The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size, massing, scale and proportion, and materials. b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource. c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible. d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future. Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 5. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the Californ ia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing structures. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board approves a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow an approximately 800 square- foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2020-04 Page 3 of 3 PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of July, 2020, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: ABSTAIN: Board Members: APPROVED: Mike Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-4) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, Cit y 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 here in specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Description stamped as received by the Community Development Department on March 3, 2020, except as may be modified by conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration: The Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit approval shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring August 3, 2021). 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. Side Material: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide an example of the new siding for the Community Development Director’s review and approval. 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. Minor modifications include alterations in floor area of no mo re than 50 square feet on the first floor, alterations to second story windows that are not oriented toward neighboring yards and result in an increase in window area of no more than one square foot and horizontal relocation of no more than one foot from the approved window location, and minor alterations to façade material. All other modifications are subject to review at a public hearing. 6. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 2 Building plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Building Official prior to Final Inspection. 7. 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. 8. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: As a remodel/addition/rehabilitation project with a total project landscape area equal to or less than 2,500 square feet, this project is subject to the landscaping and irrigation standards in Chapter 21.26 of the Campbell Municipal Code. The building permit application submittal shall include compliant Planting and Irrigation Plans and shall include the following: a. A completed Landscape Information Form. b. A note on the Cover Sheet in minimum 1/2” high lettering stating “Planning Final Required. The new landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed prior to final inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning approval.” 9. 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 i ntensity 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 regulation s. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 10. 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. 11. 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. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 3 f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell. Building Division: 11. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed addition to and remodeling of the existing structure. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 12. Plan Preparation: This addition may require plan prepared under the direction and oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. When applicable, plans submitted for building permits shall be “wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying professional person. 13. Construction Plans: The conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. 14. Size of Plans: The minimum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24 in. X 36 in. 15. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include a competent site plan that identifies property and proposed structures with dimensions and elevati ons as appropriate. Site plan shall also include site drainage details. 16. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. Compliance with the Standards shall be demonstrated for conditioning of the building envelope and lighting of the building. 17. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance with C.B.C Chapter 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of Campbell, Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter. 18. Non-Point Source: The standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan submittal. The specification sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division service counter. 19. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to issuance of the building permit: a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407) b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010) c. San Jose Water Company (279-7900) d. School District: i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405) ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960) iii. Moreland School District (379-1370) iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 4 Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved the building permit application. 20. P.G.& E.: Applicant is advised to contact Pacific Gas and Electric Company as early as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or relocations may require substantial scheduling time and can cause significant d elays in the approval process. Applicant should also consult with P.G. and E. concerning utility easements, distribution pole locations and required conductor clearances. 21. Intent to Occupy During Construction: Owners shall declare their intent to occupy the (e) dwelling during construction. The Building Inspection Division may require the premises to be vacated during portions of construction because of substandard and unsafe living conditions created by construction. 22. California Green Building Code: This project shall comply with the mandatory requirements for new residential structures (Chapter 4) under the California Green Building Code, 2016 edition. 23. Build It Green: Applicant shall complete and submit a “Build it Green” inventory of the proposed new single family project prior to issuance of building permit. 24. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water run-off from impervious surface created by this permitted project shall be directed to vegetated areas on the project parcel. Storm water shall not drain onto neighboring parcels. 25. Site Management: This project shall use the following Site Management policies: • Job Site Manager. Every permitted job must have an identified person to manage the work and be responsive to issues that come up during constru ction. It is important to identify this person and provide contact information to the Building Inspector at the beginning of the construction process. When a change is made concerning site manager, the inspector should be made aware of the new person and contact information. • Construction Debris. At the end of each construction day, attention should be made to collect and manage construction waste and debris. Trash must be covered and removed from the site as soon as reasonable. Respect the neighbors and keep a clean site! Sites that fail to manage trash can and will be cited. • Construction Hours. Every Permitted job is required to observe the permitted hours of construction. Construction work is allowed from 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday thru Friday. Construction is allowed on Saturdays from 9:00am to 4:00pm. No work is allowed on Sundays or Legal U.S. Holidays. Workers showing up at job sites before the permitted times may create a problem and should be discouraged from arriving earlier than 15 minutes before permitted times. Material deliveries should never be scheduled before permitted hours. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to manage and coordinate deliveries. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 5 Citations and/or Stop Work Notices will be issued to Contractors violating the permitted hours. • Dust and Dirt. Many jobs will create dust and dirt on the street. When it rains, sites may have mud running into the sidewalk and street. All job sites must keep all rain runoff on the site and prevent water from running from the site into the gutter and street. Vehicles tracking mud and dirt into the street require cleanup and keeping the sidewalks and streets clean. If you fail to manage your dirt, dust and mud, your site may be issued a ‘Stop Work’ notice and/or a citation. • Music and Unnecessary Noise. Radios and loud music or other noise not related to construction is discouraged and will keep the neighbors from complaining. Earbuds are a good way to keep the music playing and not a problem for the neighbors. Job sites are not a good place for a worker’s dog. Animals should be left at home. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The scope of this project triggers the requirement for Frontage Improve ments 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. 26. 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 $357.00 27. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff to the bay. Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start at the Source: A Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999; and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document to Start at the Source (“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003. 28. Utilities: All on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 21.18.140 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requi rements of the serving utility companies. Utility locations shall not cause damage to any existing street trees. Where there are utility conflicts due to established tree roots or where a new tree will be installed, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 6 alternate locations for utilities shall be explored. Include utility trench details where necessary. 29. Water Meter(s) and Sewer Cleanout(s): Existing and proposed water meter(s) and sewer cleanout(s) shall be relocated or installed on private property behind the public right-of-way line. 30. Utility Coordination Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a utility coordination plan and schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation and/or abandonment of all utilities. The plan shall clearly show the location and size of all existing utilities and the associated main lines; indicate which utilities and services are to remain; which utilities and services are to be abandoned, and where new utilities and services will be installed. Joint trenches for new utilities shall be used whenever possible. 31. Pavement Restoration: The applicant shall restore the pavement in compliance with City standard requirements. In the event that the roadway has recently received a pavement treatment or reconstruction, the project will be subject to the City’s Street Cut Moratorium. The applicant will be required to perform enhanced pavement restoration consistent with the restoration requirements associated with the Street Cut Moratorium. The City’s Pavement Maintenance Program website (https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/219) has detailed information on the streets currently under moratorium and the enhanced restoration requirements. 32. Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement, cause plans for public street improvements to be prepared by a registered civil engineer, pay various fees and deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by the City Engineer. The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: a. Show location of all existing utilities within the existing public right of way along Alice Avenue and the alley project frontages. b. Remove and replace broken existing driveway apron and necessary sidewalk, curb and gutter along Alice Avenue project frontage. c. Remove and replace broken and uplifted sidewalk along Alice Avenue project frontage. Sidewalk replacement should be from score mark to score mark. d. Remove and replace broken curb along Alice Avenue project frontage e. Install City approved 2 - 24 inch box Sapium sebiferiums aka chinese tallow tree along. Alice Avenue project frontage. Spacing to be determined at encroachment permit stage. f. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as necessary. g. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 7 33. Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Buildi ng Permit Final: Prior to allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings, the applicant shall have the required street improvements installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. 34. Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future, are required to maintain the landscaped park strip in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Street trees shall not be pruned by the property owner. 35. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate encroachment permits for the installation of utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. 36. Additional Street Improvements: Should it be discovered after the approval process that new utility main lines, extra utility work or other work is required to service the development, and should those facilities or other work affect any public improvements, the City may add conditions to the development/project/permit, at the discretion of the City Engineer, to restore pavement or other public improvements to the satisfaction of the City. 188 This map is based on GIS Information and reflects the most current information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for reference purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors. 20 Alice Ave. 2,257Campbell IT, GIS Services 376 1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet 3760 Scale DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: Mary Fablinger House P1. Other Identifier: Campbell Historic District Property *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 20 Alice Ave. City Campbell Zip 95008 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN: 412-04-052 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Historic Single-Family Residence. This channel rustic clad Vernacular residence has a rectangular floor plan. Covered with composition shingles, the hipped roof has a small gabled awning. The eaves are overhanging with exposed rafter tails. The façade includes a detail within the front gable of vertical scalloped boards. The partial porch is recessed and its shed roof is supported by square posts. There is a continuation of the scalloped detail on the frieze of the porch. The side and one front window are all one-over-one double-hung, while the front gable has new vinyl- clad fixed window. The building is intact and in good condition with a detached single garage and light landscaping. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) 02- Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Front Façade, 07/09/07 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:  Historic  Prehistoric  Both 1939 *P7. Owner and Address: Scott Brooks, Et Al *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) G. Laffey, Archives & Architecture 3553 Surber Dr. San Jose, CA 95130 *P9. Date Recorded: September 1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Inventory Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Phone interview, Martin C. Shadle, owner (February 13, 1978) by Tom M. King. Initial notes taken by Tom M. King (October 22, 1977) *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information *NRHP Status Code Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: Mary Fablinger House B2. Common Name: Mary Fablinger House B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same *B5. Architectural Style: *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built, 1939. *B7. Moved?  No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Garage B9a. Architect: Samuel E. Barth, not an Architect b. Builder: Joseph Astrita *B10. Significance: Theme Area Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Alice Avenue was created in 1915 on a portion of the site of the fruit drying yards owned by the George E. Hyde Company, a canning and fruit dehydrating plant occupying 17 acres in Campbell. The land was originally owned and utilized by Flamming’s Fruit Dryer (1887); sold to Frank Buxton’s Dryer (1890, and again sold to Campbell Fruit Grower’s Union (1892) which owned and controlled the drying yards and packing house until its sale to George Hyde in 1909. The residential subdivision, “Hyde Residential Park” was built primarily for housing cannery workers, though George and Alice Hyde (the Street’s namesake) resided there too. House built for Mary Fablinger, Campbell Grammar School teacher. John Brown’s son-in-law, who we called “Grandpa” Fablinger, was a Custodian for Campbell High School (1947-September 31, 1976). Martin C. Schadle worked for Navy as aircraft Inspector. Then service station for 28 years. Mary Fablinger was 6th or 7th grade teacher of Mr. Martin C. Schadle. Parents of Martin C. Schadle bought the house and he has lived there since 1947. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See P11 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: See P8 *Date of Evaluation: See P9 State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) 20 ALICE AVE., CAMPBELL, CA 95008APN: 412-04-052ADDITION & REMODELING FOR:xxxxxxxx “”’ Item No. 5 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ JULY 22, 2020 PLN2019-110 Kovacs, K. Approval of windows as required by an approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-110) for property located at 204 Alice Avenue. (Roll Call Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Make a Motion, to approve the selected windows or provide other direction to staff. DISCUSSION At its July 24, 2019 meeting, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2019-03 approving the application of Stephanie Patience for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-110) to allow exterior alterations, including replacement/repair of siding, roofing, gutters, and foundation, to the William and Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House. As a condition of approval, the homeowner is required to provide manufacture's specifications for the new materials prior to their installation. The property was subsequent sold by Ms. Patience to Marie Jasinsky and Kornel Kovacs. The new owners are pursuing an interior remodel at this time, which includes replacement of the windows. They are proposing Marvin Elevate Collection casement windows for the two upstairs windows to comply with egress (reference Attachment 1) and double hung for the four downstairs windows (reference Attachment 2). For the Board’s reference, the elevation drawings are included as Attachment 3. Mr. Kovacs has also indicated that he intends to replace the shutters like-for-like that he himself will build. Attachments 1. Casement Window Specifications 2. Double Hung Window Specifications 3. Elevation Drawings Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Available with IZ3 (Excludes Narrow Frame option)18MARVIN ELEVATETM COLLECTION19MARVIN®• Multi-point sequential locking system provides superior PG50 performance rating with single lever operation.• Interior screen features an aluminum surround and concealed pressure mounting points for ease of operation and enhanced aesthetics.• Operating, transom, and picture units available.• Folding handle neatly stows out of the way. Stainless steel coastal hardware available.• Casement available in standard and special sizes up to 3 feet wide by 6 feet high.• Awning available in standard and special sizes up to 4 feet wide by 4 feet high.• Coordinating Picture and Transom windows also available.• Narrow frame option with 3 ¼ inch insert replacement frame, flat sill, and through jamb installation.CASEMENT + AWNINGCASEMENT + AWNINGCASEMENT NARROW FRAME + AWNING NARROW FRAMECASEMENT + AWNINGPicture and Casement windows with Oil Rubbed Bronze hardwareCasement and Awning Narrow Frame windows with Satin Nickel hardware 21MARVIN®20MARVIN ELEVATETM COLLECTION• Equipped with a standard full screen; optional half screen is available.• Tilt latches are ergonomically designed and easy to operate making tilting and cleaning effortless.• Sash lock provides a positive detent, reassuring user that the window is either locked or unlocked.• Up to PG50 performance rating.• Equal, Cottage, and Reverse Cottage sash provide a variety of looks and checkrail heights.• Available in standard and special sizes up to 4 feet 6 inches wide by 7 feet high.• Coordinating Picture and Transom windows also available.• Double Hung Insert option features ¾ inch insert replacement frame with through jamb installation and up to PG40 performance rating.DOUBLE HUNGDOUBLE HUNGDOUBLE HUNGAvailable with IZ3 (Excludes Insert option)DOUBLE HUNG INSERTDouble Hung windows with Oil Rubbed Bronze hardwareDouble Hung windows with Window Opening Control Devices FRONT (NORTH)ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"A2[E] COMP. SHINGLE ROOFING.REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"RIGHT SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"LEFT SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"SHEETSSHEETOFSCALE:DATE:DRAWN:JOB:PERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETPRELIMINARY SETPLAN CHECK SETDESIGN REVIEW SETREVISIONSBYA R C H I T E C T CHRIS SPAULDING(510) 527-5997 FAX (510) 527-5999BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94710801 CAMELIA STREET SUITE EDRAWINGS PREPARED BYCAMPBELL CALIFORNIA204 ALICE AVECS/DBKOVACS - JASINSKY5-11-203KOVACS & JASINSKY RESIDENCE AS NOTEDPROPOSED INTERIOR REMODEL 4-13-20 Reduce Scope6-11-20 Add Window Note[E] HORIZ.SIDING[E] WOODSHUTTERWINDOW NOTE:ALL EXISTING WINDOWS ARE TO BE REPLACED INEXISTING OPENINGS - SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR DETAILSNOTE: INSTALLATION OFNEW WINDOWS ON FRONTFACADE REQUIRES PRIORCITY AUTHORIZATIONNOT FOR DUPLICATION Item No. 6 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report ∙ July 22, 2020 City Action Review and approve the 2018-2019 Certified Local Government Annual Report. (Resolution/ Roll Call Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action: 1. Adopt a resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving the 2018-2019 Certified Local Government Annual Report and directing staff to transmit it to the California Office of Historic Preservation. DISCUSSION As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City of Campbell must submit an annual CLG report to the California Office of Historic Preservation every year. Staff has prepared a draft report for the Board’s review (reference Attachment 2). In -line responses to the questions are italicized in red text for increased legibility. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Draft CLG Report Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING THE 2018- 2019 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TRANSMIT IT TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WHEREAS, the Congress under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the establishment of a Certified Local Government program; and WHEREAS, the State of California, represented by the State Historic Preservation Officer, is responsible for the administration of the program within the state and the establishment of necessary rules and procedures governing the application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9808, allowing the City of Campbell to enter the Certified Local Government Program and appointing the Community Development Director to coordinate, process, and execute all contracts, agreements, amendments, and ancillary documents; and WHEREAS, as a requirement of the Certified Local Government Program the City must submit an annual report to the California Office of Historic Preservation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.030 (Reviewing authority), the reviewing authority for matters of historic preservation shall be the Historic Preservation Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Board has reviewed the draft Certified Local Government annual report and found it satisfactory. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD hereby approves the 2018-2019 Certified Local Government Annual Report and directs staff to transmit it to the California Office of Historic Preservation. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July 2020, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board Members: NOES: Board Members: ABSENT: Board Members: ABSTAIN: Board Members: APPROVED: Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, Secretary Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 1 Complete Se Name of CLG City of Campbell Report Prepared by: Daniel Fama Date of commission/board review: July 22, 2020 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION I. Enforce Appropriate State or Local Legislation for the Designation and Protection of Historic Properties. A. Preservation Laws 1. What amendments or revisions, if any, are you considering to the certified ordinance? Please forward drafts or proposals. REMINDER: Pursuant to the CLG Agreement, OHP must have the opportunity to review and comment on ordinance changes prior to adoption. Changes that do not meet the CLG requirements could affect certification status. N/A 2. Provide an electronic link to your ordinance or appropriate section(s) of the municipal/zoning code. https://library.municode.com/ca/campbell/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT21ZO_ART3DEOPST_CH21.33H IPR INSTRUCTIONS: This a Word form with expanding text fields and check boxes. It will probably open as Read-Only. Save it to your computer before you begin entering data. This form can be saved and reopened. Because this is a WORD form, it will behave generally like a regular Word document except that the font, size, and color are set by the text field. • Start typing where indicated to provide the requested information. • Click on the check box to mark either yes or no. • To enter more than one item in a particular text box, just insert an extra line (Enter) between the items. Save completed form and email as an attachment to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov. You can also convert it to a PDF and send as an email attachment. Use the Acrobat tab in WORD and select Create and Attach to Email. You can then attach the required documents to that email. If the attachments are too large (greater than10mb total), you will need to send them in a second or third email. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 2 B. New Local Landmark Designations (Comprehensive list of properties/districts designated under local ordinance, HPOZ, etc.) 1. During the reporting period, October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019, what properties/districts have been locally designated? REMINDER: Pursuant to California Government Code § 27288.2, “the county recorder shall record a certified resolution establishing an historical resources designation issued by the State Historical Resources Commission or a local agency, or unit thereof.” 2. What properties/districts have been de-designated this past year? For districts, include the total number of resource contributors? Property Name/Address Date Removed Reason N/A Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. C. Historic Preservation Element/Plan 1. Do you address historic preservation in your general plan? ☐ No ☐ Yes, in a separate historic preservation element. ☒ Yes, it is included in another element. Provide an electronic link to the historic preservation section(s) of the General Plan or to the separate historic preservation element. https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/15684/General-Plan-Excerpt-Historic-Preservation D. Review Responsibilities 1. Who takes responsibility for design review or Certificates of Appropriateness? ☐ All projects subject to design review go the commission. Property Name/Address Date Designated If a district, number of contributors Date Recorded by County Recorder N/A Type here. Type here. Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 3 ☒ Some projects are reviewed at the staff level without commission review. What is the threshold between staff-only review and full-commission review? The Community Development Department provides an initial review of all applications affecting a historic resource. Any exterior alteration or material change to a structure of merit that alters its character defining features will be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board. All Landmarks and Historic District properties are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. The decision making body will depend on the type of permit or decision, pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code section 21.38.030. 2. California Environmental Quality Act • What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to CEQA documents prepared for or by the local government? See below What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing CEQA documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Most of the projects brought forward to the HPB are found exempt from CEQA. When necessary, City of Campbell staff either prepares the CEQA document or manages a consultant contract for the preparation of the CEQA document. City staff assists the HPB in reviewing the CEQA documents and providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 3. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • What is the role of the staff and commission in providing input to Section 106 documents prepared for or by; the local government? See below • What is the role of the staff and commission in reviewing Section 106 documents for projects that are proposed within the jurisdiction of the local government? Most of the projects brought forward to the HPB are not subject to Section 106 review. If Section 106 review is found necessary, both staff and the HPB would provide input. City staff would assist the HPB in providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding the adequacy of any Section 106 documents relevant to the City of Campbell. II. Establish an Adequate and Qualified Historic Preservation Review Commission by State or Local Legislation. A. Commission Membership Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 4 Attach resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all members. 1. If you do not have two qualified professionals on your commission, explain why the professional qualifications not been met and how professional expertise is otherwise being provided. The City of Campbell’s second qualified professional resigned in September 2017. There were no “qualified professional” candidates to replace her. However, the newly appointed member owns a historic home in Campbell and is the Director of State and Local Government Affairs for a multinational technology company based within the county. He is a champion for historic preservation, understands how government works, and provides a fresh perspective to the Historic Preservation Board. 2. If all positions are not currently filled, why is there a vacancy, and when will the position will be filled? N/A B. Staff to the Commission/CLG staff 1. Is the staff to your commission the same as your CLG coordinator? ☒ Yes ☐ No If not, who serves as staff? Click or tap here to enter text. 2. If the position(s) is not currently filled, why is there a vacancy? N/A Name Professional Discipline Date Appointed Date Term Ends Email Address Michael Foulkes Public Role February 2017 October 2021 MikeF@campbellca.gov Todd Walter Architecture September 2011 October 2023 ToddW@campbellca.gov Susan Blake Public Role January 1999 October 2022 SusanB@campbellca.gov Laura Taylor Moore Public Role October 2010 October 2022 LauraM@campbellca.gov Yvonne Kendall Public Role December 2017 October 2021 YvonneK@campbellca.gov Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 5 Attach resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for staff. C. Attendance Record Please complete attendance chart for each commissioner and staff member. Commissions are required to meet four times a year, at a minimum. If you haven’t met at least four times, explain why not. D. Training Received Indicate what training each commissioner and staff member has received. Remember it is a CLG requirement is that all commissioners and staff to the commission attend at least one training program relevant to your commission each year. It is up to the CLG to determine the relevancy of the training. Name/Title Discipline Dept. Affiliation Email Address Daniel Fama City Planning Community Development danielf@campbellca.gov Commissioner/Staff Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Michael Foulkes ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ Todd Walter ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Susan Blake ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Laura Taylor Moore ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Yvonne Kendell ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ Daniel Fama - staff ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Cindy McCormick – staff (former) ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Type here. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 6 Commissioner/Staff Name Training Title & Description (including method presentation, e.g., webinar, workshop) Duration of Training Training Provider Date Michael Foulkes Webinar - Planning & Zoning – Part 2: Effective Community Advocacy -How to effectively advocate historic preservation in your community. -Role of advocacy in the discretionary process. -Role government entities play in advocacy. -Ways to effectively promote historic preservation with different audiences. 2 hours California Preservation Foundation September 25, 2019 Todd Walter See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Susan Blake See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Laura Taylor Moore See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Yvonne Kendell See above Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 7 III. Maintain a System for the Survey and Inventory of Properties that Furthers the Purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act A. Historical Contexts: initiated, researched, or developed in the reporting year (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: California CLG procedures require CLGs to submit survey results, including historic contexts, to OHP. (If you have not done so, submit an electronic copy or link if available online with this report.) Context Name Description How it is Being Used Date Submitted to OHP No update to the City’s Context Statement in reporting year Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. B. New Surveys or Survey Updates (excluding those funded by OHP) NOTE: The evaluation of a single property is not a survey. Also, material changes to a property that is included in a survey, is not a change to the survey and should not be reported here. How are you using the survey data? N/A Survey Area Context Based- yes/no Level: Reconnaissance or Intensive Acreage # of Properties Surveyed Date Completed Date Submitted to OHP No formal surveys were performed. However, a preliminary survey of the “Kenendy Tract” neighborhood was performed. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 8 IV. Provide for Adequate Public Participation in the Local Historic Preservation Program A. Public Education What public outreach, training, or publications programs has the CLG undertaken? How were the commissioners and staff involved? Please provide an electronic link to all publications or other products not previously provided to OHP. Item or Event Description Date Electronic Outreach and education A Board Member has an ongoing biographical series of historic homes on the City’s website (https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/999/This-Place-Matters). Additionally, to further engage the public, the Board coordinated with the City’s museum to create “History Mystery” postings on the City’s Twitter account (https://twitter.com/CityofCampbell) Ongoing ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANNUAL PRODUCTS REPORTS FOR CLGS NOTE: OHP will forward this information to NPS on your behalf. Please read “Guidance for completing the Annual Products Report for CLGs” located at http://www.nps.gov/clg/2015CLG_GPRA/FY2013_BaselineQuestionnaireGuidance- May2015.docx. A. CLG Inventory Program During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) how many historic properties did your local government add to the CLG inventory? This is the total number of historic properties and contributors to districts (or your best estimate of the number) added to your inventory from all programs, local, state, and Federal, during the reporting year. These might include National Register, California Register, California Historic Landmarks, locally funded surveys, CLG surveys, and local designations. Program area Number of Properties added N/A Type here. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 9 B. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a local register program to create local landmarks and/or local districts (or a similar list of designations) created by local law? ☐Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been added to your register or designated from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? N/A C. Local Tax Incentives Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a Local Tax Incentives Program, such as the Mills Act? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many properties have been added to this program from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? Two Name of Program Number of Properties Added During 2018-2019 Total Number of Properties Benefiting From Program Mills Act Program two eight D. Local “bricks and mortar” grants/loan program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a local government historic preservation grant and/or loan program for rehabilitating/restoring historic properties? ☐Yes ☒No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? N/A Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here. Type here. E. Design Review/Local Regulatory Program Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 10 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did your local government have a historic preservation regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance) authorizing Commission and/or staff review of local government projects or impacts on historic properties? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If the answer is yes, how many historic properties did your local government review for compliance with your local government’s historic preservation regulatory law(s) from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? 10-15 F. Local Property Acquisition Program 1. During the reporting period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019) did you have a local program to acquire (or help to acquire) historic properties in whole or in part through purchase, donation, or other means? ☐Yes ☒ No 2. If the answer is yes, then how many properties have been assisted under the program(s) from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019? N/A Name of Program Number of Properties that have Benefited Type here. Type here. IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM CLG REQUIREMENTS, OHP IS INTERESTED IN A SUMMARY OF LOCAL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS A. What are your most critical preservation planning issues? Championing the community benefits of historic preservation in the face of increasing property values and heighted development pressure . B. What is the single accomplishment of your local government this year that has done the most to further preservation in your community? The City Council, with recommendation by the Historic Preservation Board, adopted special provisions for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) located on historic properties. C. What recognition are you providing for successful preservation projects or programs? When warranted, the Board has provided letters of commendation to property owners who have performed exemplary restorations projects. D. What are your local historic preservation goals for 2018-2019? To complete a comprehensive update of the City’s Mills Act Program. Certified Local Government Program -- 2018-2019 Annual Report (Reporting period is from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) 11 E. So that we may better serve you in the future, are there specific areas and/or issues with which you could use technical assistance from OHP? Establishing local government incentives to encourage greater community participation. F. In what subject areas would you like to see training provided by the OHP? How you like would to see the training delivered (workshops, online, technical assistance bulletins, etc.)? Training Needed or Desired Desired Delivery Format Adaptive reuse strategies Online Webinar G. Would you be willing to host a training working workshop in cooperation with OHP? ☐Yes ☒ No H. Is there anything else you would like to share with OHP? Click or tap here to enter text. XII Attachments (electronic) ☒ Resumes and Statement of Qualifications forms for all commission members/alternatives and staff ☒ Minutes from commission meetings ☒ Drafts of proposed changes to the ordinance ☒ Drafts of proposed changes to the General Plan ☒ Public outreach publications Email to Lucinda.Woodward@parks.ca.gov To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: July 22, 2020 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Subject: Desk Item (Agenda Item No. 7 - Mills Act Update Memo) Please see the attached Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee memo for discussion on July 22, 2020. City of Campbell MEMORANDUM Planning Division Page 1 of 3 City of Campbell Suggested Mills Act Additions Date: 3/18/20 To: HPB members, Daniel Fama and Michael Shwe From: Mills Act Subcommittee – Susan Blake and Todd Walter The subcommittee reviewed a number of different Mills Act programs throughout California Cities and the following are items this subcommittee suggests to be included in the revised City of Campbell Mills Act Program. Fees: Although the fee should be developed by the city most fees we found were around $1,000 and one as high as $4,000. Some cities required an annual fee to manage the contract per property. Campbell may want to include a fee for the 5 yr inspection or other city required services to maintain each Mills Act contract. Application deadline: Many cities had one or two times a year when the Mills Act application was due. We suggest implementing a similar approach but Campbell will need to review their typical staffing requirements to determine what time each year would be the most appropriate for a due date, along with how this will impact time for HPB and City Council to review the application. FAQ: Many cities had FAQ and we suggest including this in the program to assist owners. One specific item to include is a statement that depending how long the applicant has owned the property their prop 13 taxes will be lower than the Mills Act calculation therefore, applying for this program is not warranted. Contract Duration: Most cities listed a 10 year contract with the automatic renewal so that the contract was always a 10 year duration. One city set the limit to 15 years max. Campbell and their legal team should review this item and determine what is appropriate that still meets the Mills Act requirements. HRI/Register: All cities required the property to be designated in order to apply for the Mills Act. Approval process: Most cities require the application to be submitted to planning for review. Once planning completed their review and found it was acceptable there was a public hearing to review the application. This occurred either at the historic commission or some cities had this occur at the city council level with no historic commission review. Some cities required a pre‐inspection with the applicant and the city within a few weeks after the application is submitted. This appears to assist the owner and the city to determine if the proposed scope of work meets the Mills Act intent and the cities intent prior to reviewing or approving the application. We feel the pre‐inspection is a good idea and will assist everyone by setting a base line of what the property looks like and the most appropriate items to be rehabilitated. It also makes sense to continue with our current process which requires the applicant to submit to the planning department, they review for completeness and accuracy, then HPB reviews via a public hearing and then the final recommendation goes to city council for their review. Requirements/Conditions of Approval: Most cities cite the work to be done shall follow the Secretary of Interiors Standards and they did not list specific elements like the Campbell application. Most cities also indicate the work shall cover health and safety items such as foundations, roofing, electrical, plumbing and mechanical but not in any great detail. We suggest following this similar approach and remove our current project specific list from the application. Some cities also included a requirement regarding the max value of the property. Houses could not exceed $1.5m and commercial properties could not exceed $3m. We may or may not want to include such similar language. Page 2 of 3 Rehabilitation / Maintenance Plan: All cities had some sort of a requirement to include a plan indicating the proposed work, when it will be completed and a professional cost estimate. Some cities also require photos of the structure and the areas of proposed work. They also required a site plan and some required proof that all previous and current permits were closed. Priority consideration: Most cities indicated the following would be the priority for consideration and we suggest following these items as well. 1. Structure in danger of deterioration or structural upgrades requiring substantial rehabilitation. 2. Financial assistance. 3. Additions do not qualify for program, so do not submit this type of work. 4. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. _____________________________________________________________________________ Oversite/Accountability: As noted above some cities require a pre‐inspection as part of the application process. Most cities require annual reports from the owner and periodic inspections at 5 year intervals. One city required inspections every 2 years up to 10 years and then every 5 years after the first 10 years. We suggest a pre‐ inspection, annual reports with photos and receipts for completed work and inspections every 5 years. What features does the contract cover (exterior / interior): All cities stated the Secretary of Interiors Standards is the basis of the program and includes exterior and interior. We need to discuss if we agree the interior should be included? Some cities stated that landscape was included but not costly rehabilitation. We have a heritage tree program so we can address trees under this program and not include it in the application process unless we feel the cost of the repairs and maintenance of the trees should be allowed in the Mills Act? Again, we should discuss if we feel this is appropriate to include in our program. Is an architectural/engineering report required: One city required this report if structural repairs were included in the application. We suggest the applicant include a letter stating if any structural repairs are included and they would submit plans and calculations to the building department as required to receive a permit if their Mills Act application was approved. This way they do not have to spend more money up front to have an engineer prepare a report, unless the applicant has an engineer reviewing their property prior to the application and request they provide a simple letter stating what they found. Then the applicant can include this document in their application. Maximum number of contracts awarded per year: Some cities set a limit on the number of contracts they would approve each year. This is open to discussion if Campbell should or needs to add this provision to the program. Currently there are less than 10 contracts and not many owners have submitted an application over the years so limiting contracts per year may not be necessary. Pre‐application workshop requirement: Once city required the owners who were planning to submit an application attend a 2 hour workshop. We do not suggest adding this to our program, but the information that would be provided at this workshop may be useful if we provided it on our website so potential applicants can review. Electronic submittal: Some cities had an online application process and others required the application to be submitted via a thumb drive, DVD or other similar electronic process. We suggest implementing the latter so Campbell can be “Green” and the documents would already be archived and easy to access. Application package check‐off list: Most cities include an application check list to assist the applicants in preparing and submitting the correct documents. We agree a check list should be included in our application. Page 3 of 3 Attachments: Once the above items have been discussed and we agree with the broad picture changes we can then discuss detailed items such as the proper forms and attachments we want to include in the revised application. Other: 1. Should we include language that the applicant should spend roughly equal to or exceed the property tax savings? 2. ? 3. ? To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: July 22, 2020 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Subject: Desk Item (Agenda Item No. 7 - Mills Act Update Discussion) Attached is an email from Debbie Craver regarding the Mills Act. City of Campbell MEMORANDUM Planning Division 1 Daniel Fama From:Debbie Craver <dcrave007@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:54 PM To:Daniel Fama Cc:Geri Ledvina; Susan Blake Subject:Feedback regarding Mills Act program Hello Daniel, We truly appreciate participating in the Mills Act Program and wanted to give you some feedback having completed our first full year of the contract. We hope the HPB will consider during their process to improve the program going forward and attract more participants while holding owners accountable. First and foremost, we know well that all homes require maintenance. We have been home owners five times over the past 35 years, including new construction to 100 years plus homes. The fact is owning an older home requires much more of a commitment and ongoing expense. We were prepared to take on a historic property with a clear understanding that maintenance and preservation would be ongoing and unpredictable for the duration of our ownership. We were encouraged by the possibility of committing to a Mills Act contract which would help offset the additional maintenance and preservation costs required to keep a 108-year-old home going for many years to come. We have learned owning and maintaining a Mills Act Program home definitely requires additional obligations from the homeowner. The initial work to put the application package together is time consuming and requires a certain level of administrative skills, not to mention a hefty fee just to apply. Getting quotes from multiple contractors and putting together the application packet was a large time commitment. The upkeep of a Mills Act Program property requires another level of responsibility by the homeowner an "unrecognized" piece, not included on the annual report of expenses and projects. This translates to requirements including project management, administrative time, and plain old sweat equity. Our personal time input includes but is not limited to sourcing vendors, managing multiple projects, planting shrubs, staining fences, prepping and painting two oversized garage doors, pruning, hand watering, blowing the front lawn area, and sweeping and scrubbing the front porch on a regular basis- all of which is to keep the street view beautiful for people parking, driving, and walking by. A requirement of the Mills Act program is to maintain the home to a high standard, enhancing the view for the public which we are happy to do. So far, our financial output exceeded our tax savings as the house needed immediate and necessary work. We hope to keep this more in line as we progress through the years. As the HPB considers various ideas for the future, we would suggest two points to consider… 1. Limiting projects to the “big ticket” infrastructure items then considering the homeowner “done” is unrealistic. The Mills Act program includes maintenance and preservation- elements which are ongoing and unpredictable. Capping the program or setting a time limit does not provide for the homeowner to address maintenance and preservation issues as they present. 2. Making allowable projects too restrictive may discourage participation. There are many people who prefer a newer home. We personally know of neighbors on S. 3rd and S. 2nd who had their homes removed from the historic resource inventory. The homeowner on S 3rd demolished the existing structure and built a new house, therefore the historic resource has been lost. Allowing homeowners broader options of qualifying projects may encourage more interest and participation in the program. Allowing broader projects across all four categories (restoration, rehabilitation, maintenance & preservation) such as landscaping to keep the home attractive to buyers in a competitive market is good for the city and the homeowner. Landscaping also enhances the view for the public. Keeping an older home cosmetically attractive and functional will certainly support the longevity of the structure. 2 In closing we would like to share that frequently people will stop and comment on our house, the yard and the picture- perfect view of the house with the back drop of the Campbell water tower. Participation in the Mills Act Program and the time and effort we put forth is a considerable commitment. This is our gift to the City and community. We view our participation as a partnership with the City of Campbell and State of California. We hope more homes can get on the program in the future to preserve historic Campbell. Respectfully, Deb Craver & Geri Ledvina 110 S 2nd Street