Loading...
10-28-2020 HPB Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, October 28, 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 October 28, 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 also register to electronically participate in the meeting via Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_id3yPZaPSyyc8B5LmWxSGQ. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email. The complete agenda packet will be posted to the City's Agenda Center website (https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/Historic-Preservation- Board-4) by the Friday before the Wednesday meeting. Please be advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Historic Preservation Board at, or prior to, the Public Hearing by email to planning@campbellca.gov. Questions may be addressed to Senior Planner Daniel Fama, Board Secretary, at (408) 866-2193 or danielf@campbellca.gov. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Board Members or the Board Secretary may request that agenized items be considered in a different order than shown in the agenda or be postponed to a subsequent meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of September 29, 2020 (Voice Vote)  Meeting Minutes, 9/29/2020 Historic Preservation Board Agenda for October 28, 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 PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS 2. Mayor's Commission Collaborative Liaison Selection (Roll Call Vote) The Board will select a Member to serve as the HPB liaison to the Mayor's new Commission Collaborative.  Email from the City Manager's Office OLD BUSINESS 3. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities to the Board. STUDY SESSION ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of December 9, 2020 (the Board canceled the November meeting and rescheduled the December meeting), 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 Tuesday, September 29, 2020 | 5:00 PM Zoom Meeting CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of September 29, 2020, was called to order at 5:09 p.m., via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Michael Foulkes, Chair Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore Todd Walter Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Minutes of July 22, 2020. Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of July 22, 2020. (3-0-2-0; Commissioners Kendall and Moore were absent) ORAL REQUESTS None BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Member Blake: •Advised that there is an HRI property located at 91. N. First Street, directly across the street from City Hall, that will soon to be put on the market. •Stated that this home has been empty for a long time. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 2 • Reported that the realtor for this property is from Redwood City and contacted her. She provided that realtor with a lot of information. Planner Daniel Fama said he had no updates. Chair Foulkes asked staff if it is safe to assume that HPB would be conducting its meetings on Zoom for the foreseeable future. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. PUBLIC HEARING None NEW BUSINESS 2. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Update Report Chair Foulkes said that he appreciates the work of the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee and the memo prepared. Planner Daniel Fama: • Stated that this memo can be used as a template for today’s discussion. • Suggested the Board go through each item one by one and see if consensus can be reached on any of the items discussed. ISSUE 1 – FEES Chair Foulkes called out Item 1 – Fees – and pointed out that there are many levels of fees being charged throughout the State of California. Some cities charge $1,000. Others $4,000. Others have annual fees of some sort that area charged to holders of Mills Act Contracts. He asked staff what Campbell currently charges. Planner Daniel Fam said he believes it is $1,500. Member Blake stated that seems high based on cities of comparable size. Chair Foulkes: • Asked whether the amount charge is intended to cover the City’s expenses for staff time and effort in processing and managing these contracts. • Pointed out that it is likely with an updated Mills Act Program, there will be more inspections and requirements. Therefore, that existing fee may have to stay as it is in order to attempt to be cost neutral. Member Walter agreed that the fee charged is intended to cover basic expenses of processing and overseeing Campbell’s Mills Act Contracts. Chair Foulkes asked how that particular fee came up to $1,500. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 3 Planner Daniel Fama: • Reported that the City had a Fee Study prepared about three to four years ago. • Said that the consultants looked at all of the City’s fees. • Advised that Campbell’s City Council tends to support subsidizing residential-related fees charged to homeowners. • Added that many fees are less than cost to process, which is a policy decision made by Council. • Stated that the current $1,500 fee to apply for a Mills Act contract does not cover the time of review, inspections, public hearings before HPB, Planning Commission and the City Council. It represents a subsidy already. Member Walter reported that the fee itself is not included in the Ordinance but is included in the contract. Planner Daniel Fama said that it represents an application fee. It is a one-time cost as the City of Campbell does not currently have an established annual fee for Mills Act contract-holders. Member Blake asked if the application fee could be added to the application packet. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. It is currently within the City’s approved Fee Schedule but not on its applications. Member Walter said that as the HPB has no say on fee setting they should move on to the next item. If HPB does have a say, this discussion could continue. Planner Daniel Fama said that HPB’s recommendation to Council would ultimately be forwarded. HPB could recommend a lesser fee. Chair Foulkes: • Said that it is less about fee(s) charged but rather about the existing uncertainty. • Added that he wants to make sure that the process for requesting a Mills Act Contract is as open as possible for those homes on the Historic Resource Inventory or are a Landmark, but not waste time for invalid requests. • Stated that a property owner should have an idea whether their property would meet the City’s criteria so as to succeed in securing a Mills Act property tax exemption. Member Blake supported leaving the existing fee of $1,500 for now. Member Walters agreed. Planner Daniel Fama asked the HPB if they were interested in establishing an annual Mills Act Contract maintenance/oversight fee. Chair Foulkes said it is hard to say right now. He suggested leaving it open for future consideration. Planner Daniel Fama reiterated that filing fees ultimately to be charged are up to Council. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 4 ISSUE 2 – APPLICATION DEADLINES Chair Foulkes: • Said that there are no specified filing deadlines in Campbell currently. • Pointed out that some cities accept applications for Mills Act Contracts once or twice a year. • Admitted that he personally likes that option. • Expressed concern that it currently seems that the first homeowner to file wins and is awarded one. • Said he would like to see a process that allows for competing properties in order to pick the most-worthy property. • Said that having a filing deadline(s) would create more work at one or two times per year. • Asked staff for its standpoint on this. Does staff prefer considering Mills Act applications as they come in or during specified times of year. Planner Daniel Fama: • Agreed there could be a lot of benefits with defined deadlines each year. • Added it would perhaps be more equitable. • Concluded that work comes in waves no matter what. Staff can manage either way. Member Walter said he likes the idea of specific filing deadline(s), but he would leave it up to staff to determine when during a calendar year those deadlines should be set. It doesn’t have to be HPB determining that. Chair Foulkes asked if the HPB prefers just one application process per year or more. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that he sees arguments for both sides. • Suggested that going with specified application periods could be tried out to see how it works. • Admitted that he does not envision a big wave of applications. • Stated that having a defined window for applying would be beneficial if there is/are a restricted number of Mills Act Contracts available. • Cautioned that the City Council would likely maintain its current cap of 10. Member Walter suggested asking Council its preference on this. Chair Foulkes admitted that he would not want to have someone have to wait for a year to apply but doing these requests one at a time means we have no opportunity to compare applications for merit. It would be better to look at them collectively to pick the most- worthy property. Member Blake: • Expressed her preference for establishing two application filing deadlines per year. One in the Spring and the other in the Fall. • Admitted that it is hard to know who is buying HRI potential homes and what they are going to do with that home once they own it. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 5 Chair Foulkes said there are benefits to both options. ISSUE 3 - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs): Chair Foulkes: • Said that he wants to spend a fair amount of time brainstorming on the types of questions potential Mills Act applicants might have. • Suggested establishing specific criteria but not controlling things to think about in evaluating a property. • Added that the focus of consideration should be on the exteriors of this homes and not just routine repair and maintenance. Not flooring or furnishings such as lamps. • Stated the need for a checklist to see if a potential qualifies or not. • Advised that if a property plans just on interior renovations, that property may be dissuaded. Member Blake said that this discussion on FAQs dovetails into the next item – Features Covered. Member Walter: • Said that is a beginning list that he appreciates having had distributed. If it can be approved, it could be passed out. • Advised that Chair Foulkes gave his suggestions to Planner Daniel Fama who can give them to us. ISSUE 4 – CONTRACT DURATION Chair Foulkes: • Said this (contract duration) is a policy issue. • Reminded that currently the City’s Mills Act Contracts carry on. There is not much these contract holders have to do and this Board doesn’t like that notion. • Stressed the need for these contract holders to do what they have said they would do. Make sure that promised work actually gets completed. These contracts should be tied to work that is above and above routine homeowner property maintenance. • Advised that he has a contractor that comes to his property several times a year because things break in an older home. • Said that he is not wedded to one specific time frame or a maximum of 15 years. • Added that he thinks a Mills Act Contract should expire when all historically related work listed on the Mills Act Contract has been completed. If that owner comes up with other qualified work, they can apply again but not just automatically be renewed. Member Walter: • Agreed that the scope of work the applicant wants may dictate how long they want their contract to go on. • Suggested that a property owner may choose to distribute the costs of their planned improvements over a prescribed number of years in order to cover all costs for qualified work. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 6 • Added that it could involve an amended contract or a whole new application. That way if a new property comes up all potential properties can be evaluated to find the worthiest and needed property for a Mills Act Contract. Chair Foulkes: • Said that it gets confusing and hard to have people keep applying when their calculations change. • Added that in an ideal world there would be a difference between perhaps moving an historic house versus changing out windows on another. • Stated that the contracts should be more tailored to a preservation project. • Pointed out that historic homes are costly to maintain. • Suggested providing smaller benefits but each qualified historic homeowner gets one. That would be easier to administer. • Agreed that contracts should not simply renew but rather homeowners should have to come back again with a new application. Member Walter questioned whether the HPB has the ability and/or right to establish such a change in process. Perhaps the City Council and City Attorney can work their magic on that question. Chair Foulkes ask staff if HPB has any say. Planner Daniel Fama: • Explained that there are two mechanisms. • Added that it would be a breach of contract to simply terminate a Mills Act Contract. First there must be a notice of non-renewal. • Said that these contracts are for 10 years and renewed each year for another 10 years forward. These renewals are currently automatically done. Therefore, it would take 10 years to terminate an existing one. • Added that should the program change to allow for longer contracts, such as 15 years, the notice of termination would need to occur by year five to allow for the 10-year termination notification. • Advised that the HPB could recommend the creation of different contract durations moving forward. Chair Foulkes asked if the new contracts could be non-renewable. Member Walter asked why 10-year contract duration was established at the beginning. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reiterated that notice would need to be made to current holders that their contract will not be renewed once expired in 10 years from time of such notification. • Added that these types of legal questions would need to be check with the City Attorney. • Stressed the importance to remember to issue notices of non-renewal once the new Mills Act is adopted. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 7 • Assured that staff has mechanisms in place to follow up on expiration dates. For example, cell towers have 10-year renewals. Therefore, it would be possible to schedule out five to ten years to send out non-renewals to Mills Act Contract holders. Chair Foulkes: • Added that the homeowner has the burden to know to reapply if they want to extend their contract. It is important to put that responsibility on the homeowner. • Said that the application should provide 10 years’ worth of projects. They would need to provide another set of projects in order to reapply. • Stated that homeowners have to have “skin in the game.” Member Blake said or at least accountability. Member Walter asked how we should proceed from here. Chair Foulkes: • Stated that is suggestions include a maximum 10-year contract that is not automatically renewed. They should be required to submit a new application every 10 years. • Said that way that homeowner can decide at that time to either renew or terminate. They must be able to make the case for renewal with a new punch-list of projects. • Added that this process would be much easier to administer. • Pointed out that the oversight will be whether they are keeping up with their list of work committed to be done on their home or not. Right now, we don’t know what they’re doing. • Said this would be a less-burdensome process to administer. Member Blake reported that these property owners submit a report each year to the County. Unfortunately, the County simply throws the updates away and cannot or will not share the information with the City in which the Mills Act Contract is issued. Member Walter agreed that some form of calculations need to be provided to determine if 10 to 15-year contracts make sense. They must be more defined or have a sunset date. Chair Foulkes: • Agreed with Member Walter that makes sense. • Reminded that in the webinar the HPB watched together, one of the featured cities has variable durations for their Mills Act Contracts. • Asked if everyone having the same is easier than having differing durations. Planner Daniel Fama: • Reminded that there is a way for staff to remember to resend notices to Mills Act Contract holders to advise them they must renew or expire their contract. • Added that if the desire of HPB is for a maximum 10-year contract, it would require the immediate notice of non-renewal to set the clock now for 10 years into the future. • Restated that a 15-year contact needs notification in year 5 to terminate at year 15. A 20-year contract would be advised at year 10 that their contract will expire in 10 hears. • Reminded that the current contract is renewed each year for another 10 years forward. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 8 • Concluded that if the HPB wants to see more defined contracts, we can achieve that goal. The question is how. Member Walter said he would do more research on the duration of contracts elsewhere in California to see if 10 years is the strict minimum duration. Chair Foulkes: • Said that information would be helpful to help us to better understand. • Questioned what the Mills Act tax discount rate is received by holders. • Suggested determining the median homeowner benefit to compare that to if someone were to purchase a newly constructed home. • Reiterated the need to encourage the harder more-costly maintenance projects required on an historic home. ISSUE 5 – REGISTER TO QUALIFY Member Walter suggested the importance to require a home to be registered, if not already done, to the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) in order to secure a Mills Act Contract. Planner Daniel Fama agreed that requiring this inclusion on the HRI would serve as an incentive to add homes to that list. Chair Foulkes: • Admitted that he would rather have a tool to give every HRI property homeowner some kind of financial benefit. That would make a Mills Act Contract into a specific benefit of being on the HRI. • Pointed out that come cities give grants out for qualified work on historic homes. • Reminded that Campbell’s current program has a maximum of 10 contracts (not all yet assigned) so the program serves just 10 homes. • Restated his support for shorter duration in order to be able to assist more homes with needed historic repairs. Spread the dollars out to more people to improve more HRI properties. • Suggested that it is a limited benefit right now as it functions. ISSUE 6 – APPROVAL PROCESS Chair Foulkes asked what is currently done? What is newly proposed? Planner Daniel Fama reminded that he has not yet worked on a Mills Act Contract application process since he became the Staff Liaison for HPB. He said if he had to process one now she would want to visit the subject site, talk with the owner, see the proposed materials and do a pre-inspection. Member Blake agreed that we should do those things. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 9 Planner Daniel Fama: • Suggested that perhaps another subcommittee could be convened to provide an initial review of a proposal before it comes to the whole HPB. • Compared that to the Planning Commission, which has its Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC), a subcommittee consisting of two PC members, that meet a month prior reviewing an item coming forward to PC. SARC provides the PC with initial information during the PC public hearing and it is also included in the staff report prepared for the meeting. Chair Foulkes: • Said the idea of a subcommittee is a good one that would be helpful to the process. • Opined that the last application was not that good and included a lot of irrelevant elements. There was no demonstration of economic need. • Admitted that it would be better if that proposal had undergone that sort of subcommittee review discussion ahead of time. Perhaps it could have been encouraged not to apply. Planner Daniel Fama said that this subcommittee would simply be reviewing a proposal to determine the adequacy of the submittal prior to bringing to forth to the HPB. Member Blake said she agrees with that. Member Walter: • Agreed with Member Blake that could be done. • Pointed out that the Mills Act Contract is a contract between the City and the applicant. • Asked if the Council reviews a Mills Act Contract application package prior to the HPB. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that local government has Boards, Committees and Commissions to provide oversight to staff. • Added that a Mills Act Contract would first be brought forth to the HPB and from there onward to the City Council. • Gave as an example the Planning Commission. Staff initially reviews an application subjectively and creates the staff report for the Planning Commission to use to conduct a public hearing. Upon conducting its hearing, the PC makes its decision for final action or, when required, will forward its recommendation for action on to the Council for final decision. The PC is free to disagree with the staff assessment and recommendation. • Said that the HPB can review the existing Mills Act processes and decide as to whether it meets the goals of the Board and City. Again, the HPB can disagree with any staff recommendation and go in another direction. That’s the role of the HPB. • Conclude that review and decision making is not just black and white. There are also grey areas. There are several levels of due process depending on the type of item under consideration. • Suggested that a pre-inspection process could be submitted to the subcommittee as a part of the pre-inspection team. Member Walter said that could be done. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 10 Member Blake agreed and said it would be an appropriate step. Chair Foulkes: • Said that part of the benefit of updated the existing Mills Act Program is to develop more comprehensive reviews of any property under consideration. • Agreed that City staff could conduct an initial pre-inspection and bring their results on to the Sub Committee for review and recommendation onward to the HPB. ISSUE 7 - REQUIREMENTS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Chair Foulkes asked about changing the current project specific list. Member Walter: • Said that the existing list needs to be cleaned up. Currently there are listed items, such as carpets or chandeliers, that don’t qualify as legitimate expenditures for a Mills Act Contract. • Added that the list should reflect the that repairs should be concentrated on exterior updates to a home. Interiors are secondary and lower on the list if included at all. • Supported the concept of limiting any and all supportable repairs to just exteriors. It could include things such as structural repairs. • Said with such strict guidelines being proposed, there may or may not be many people who would want to participate. Chair Foulkes: • Said that the biggest expense and item that most often fails, are window restorations. He added that he didn’t see that option as a criterion. These historic windows operate using pulleys and weights. • Suggested that the list not become too specific. It should include common things that old houses need to repair. Member Walter said he was not opposed to offer enough of a list but with a little wiggle room left for consideration of flexibility when appropriate. Member Blake said that she and Member Walter can come up with an updated draft potential project list for further review and consideration by the whole HBP. Chair Foulkes: • Said that some Mills Act Contract holders may have already maximized the value of the property. It’s hard to gauge that. • Added that the Mills Act Contract needs to have a process for when there is conflicting information being provided. • Said that there should be an ability to state financial need to receive a Mills Act Contract. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that there is an issue with requiring a proof of need for a Mills Act Contract. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 11 • Pointed out that the Mills Act Contract belongs with the property itself and not just its current owner who may have applied for it. • Added that the term “need” can often be temporary. A homeowner can get better paying job or promotion and the “need” changes. • Said it is important whether need can be a consideration from a legal perspective, and he would suggest checking in with the City Attorney. It may well be a very slippery slope. Chair Foulkes: • Advised that per previous HPB Staff Liaison(s), need is not a criterion. • Added that we will need to be clear one way or the other and take that notion out if it is not appropriate. Planner Daniel Fama said he has made a notation to check in with the City Attorney on this issue. Member Walter said that this is in the current contract now, the need for financial assistance, so he’s assuming that it’s okay. Planner Daniel Fama said that while it may be included in the existing application materials, the City Attorney doesn’t see everything that goes out and may be unaware of this provision in this case. Chair Foulkes said that most historic homes located in Campbell are fairly similar in terms of value. ISSUE 8 - REHABILITATION / MAINTENANCE PLANS Chair Foulkes: • Said it would be important to have proof provided by historic homeowners of completed construction permits for any and all approved repairs using Mills Act funds. • Recounted that he had recently processed a Dead Tree Removal Permit. The process required him to provide a site plan and other application information despite being a “dead” tree. ISSUE 9 - PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS Chair Foulkes: • Stated that structural issues are critical. • Reminded that business locations don’t qualify for Mills Act Contracts. • Added the importance of having a home on the HRI and/or being a Landmark. Landmark designation achieves higher prioritization. • Said that seismic retrofitting also equates a higher priority need. ISSUE 10 - ACCOUNTABILITY Chair Foulkes: Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 12 • Said he was stunned to learn that Mills Act Contract homeowners turn in annual documentation to the County but nothing to the City. • Stated that we also need to receive an accounting. • Added that he’s not sure at what level. It could be annually reporting, more often and/or a site inspection conducted every five years. • Advised his support for creating a pre-inspection process for new applications. Planner Daniel Fama said that requesting annual expenditure and completion information yearly is easier. He said it would be challenging for a homeowner to accurate report past work for longer than a year. Member Walter stated his support for a pre-inspection for new applications, provision of annual financial updates to HPB and the requirement for a site inspection every five years a home has an open Mills Act Contract. Member Blake: • Said that some property owners were able to provide information to the City. Some had receipts while others had sent their original information to the County. • Admitted that there is a lot to check out. • Reported that before the COVID-19 situation, the Planning Intern was able to send copies for four properties over to Member Walter. She did not get any property owner information submitted. Planner Daniel Fama said he would resend the material to Member Blake. Member Walter said that Planner Daniel Fama had previously forwarded the information to him and Chair Foulkes. Planner Daniel Fama said he would re-send it. ISSUE 11 - FEATURES INCLUDED Chair Foulkes: • Stated that one consideration may be the cost of tree maintenance and/or removal. • Added that he has previously seen landscaping as an item for inclusion for one of the contracts. • Recounted that this year he paid $25,000 to have a very large tree removed. • Cautioned that maintenance of heritage trees can be really expensive. He pays between $5,000 and $10,000 each year on tree maintenance on a rotational basis. • Said that tree maintenance might be something to highlight as eligible. That could include the cost for retaining an arborist to supervise the maintenance of these heritage trees. • Added that trees not well tended can become quite a liability if there is some form of failure of the tree. Member Blake said that every three to four years she has her trees pruned at a cost of about $2,000 each time. As her trees are close to her neighbors’ homes it is important to have regular professional maintenance. Having one fall over would be a big deal. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 13 Member Walter said that maintenance of heritage trees located on an HRI property that has a Mills Act Contract, can be considered a task representing qualified work that can be covered by the use of Mills Act funds. Chair Foulkes: • Said he has two thoughts on the subject of regulating what qualifies as eligible work within a Mills Act Contract home. • Stated that the intent of the Mills Act concentrating on exteriors is that represents the part that is visible to the public and community. Whereas no one will see what has been done to the interior. • Stressed for an emphasis of exteriors over interiors. Member Blake: • Agreed with Chair Foulkes. • Said that the exterior of a historic home represents its architectural integrity. • Stated that the interior of a home, not including a bearing wall, and windows are not generally qualifying updates. • Said that it is important to better refine what work is applicable within the interior and for sure it should not include decorative items such as a chandelier. Member Walter said that in addition to what is done to the exterior of a home, items inside that are safety related should be allowed. That could include fireplaces, structural safety and foundation. Those types of interior expenses should be qualified. Chair Foulkes: • Reiterated his support to having most qualified work done as being done to the exterior. • Agreed with the concept of allowing work within the interior as it is related to life and safety and in conjunction with other work being done to the home’s exterior. ISSUE 12 - STRUCTURAL / ARCHITECTURAL / ENGINEERING REPORT REQUIREMENTS Chair Foulkes said that those types of technical reports should be required only when submitted for Building Permits and not while seeking approval for a Mills Act Contract. Planner Daniel Fama said that it may require such reports for a homeowner to be able to property establish just what types of work will need to be done to the home. Member Walter: • Said that having a homeowner spend money up front to show the City what work needs to be addressed may not be necessary. • Added that part of the Building application process could be these supporting reports prepared once that Mills Act Contract gets approved. Member Blake said that proving the need for structural repairs will require a structural report. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 14 Chair Foulkes suggested that such a report may not be needed before the Mills Act actually gets approved for a property. Member Walter: • Said that without such report(s) we will not know the extent of work required during the application process but only after its approval. It will only become known during the building permit process. • Suggested that perhaps the Mills Act Contract not be signed prior to permits being applied for and secured. • Stressed the need for more information up front to better determine the extent of work and to correlate that work with actual costs. Planner Daniel Fama agreed that if a home needs structural repairs the question remains whether it really does and to what extent. Member Walter suggested adding language to the Mills Act Contract that its approval is contingent on the applicant to obtain additional and specific information from an engineer. Planner Daniel Fama said that Council could approve a Mills Act Contract with a condition that structural reports be provided to prove consistency with the projects proposed under the contract. If the application is deemed disqualified the contract would not be executed. ISSUE 13 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CONTRACTS PER YEAR Chair Foulkes sought verification that currently Campbell can have up to 10. Member Blake: • Verified that 10 contracts is correct. • Added that 10 contracts have not yet been assigned to a property. • Reported she had spoken recently with Mayor Landry and she was very encouraging. • Suggested that it might be an opportunity to ask for more contracts but there is more work to do on updating the program first. • Questioned how much in taxes the City loses by granting Mills Act Contracts. Chair Foulkes: • Said that it is a small percentage. • Added he has no problem with having a maximum limit and also to increasing it upward from the current 10 allowed. It is supportable with the clarity and transparency being created with this update to the regulations. • Concluded he hopes this will help encourage more applications. • Said that open questions remain on increasing up to 15 or 20 and whether the contracts should expire or not. ISSUE 14 - PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP Member Blake said “Nah.” Not necessary. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 15 ISSUE 15 - ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL Chair Foulkes asked staff if all submittals are not done electronically. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. ISSUE 16 - APPLICATION CHECK-OFF LIST Chair Foulkes said it makes sense to him. ISSUE 17 - ATTACHMENTS Chair Foulkes: • Said there should be pictures provided showing the changes once completed. • Reported that the current way of uploading pictures into the permitting system (MGO) makes it hard to have decent quality resolution photos. • Suggested to Planner Daniel Fama that the City may want its third-party vendor to increase the pixels. OTHER Chair Foulkes: • Said that it would be nice to figure out the average tax savings per contract. Is it $300 or $3,000 or $30,000 in savings to the holder We don’t know? Member Walter said he would run the numbers first. Planner Daniel Fama said that is a philosophical question. Is the intent for big fixes or routine maintenance? To what extent is parity sought? Chair Foulkes: • Stated that the intent is not for covering costs of customary home upkeep. • Said for an owner should relay to us with really compelling and expensive project(s). Member Walter asked if HPB has missed anything else needed discussion. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that one open question remains regarding the potential for changes to existing contracts with an expiration date. • Stated that he would have a discussion with Director Paul Kermoyan on that topic based on materials gathered from current contract holders. • Advised that Council wants very specific financial aspects of things brought before them. • Added that would include Mills Act Contract holders quantify the extent that their tax benefit is being reinvented into their historic home, which should provide a financial understanding of how well the program/contract works. • Said that those sorts of facts may support whether such contracts should be retained or cancelled. Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 16 Chair Foulkes: • Said that he feels having expiration dates for all contracts is better. • Added that the new Mills Act rules should apply to all existing and future contracts. • Said that the current standard of 10 years is sufficient time for existing owners to show how good a steward they are of their historic home. • Suggested a contract should not be a perpetual ride. Once sufficient work has been completed it is best to put that contract to a better project (site). • Asked if there is anything else. • Listed the following next steps: o Subcommittee to come back with updated information o Staff to check up on questions raised today with Director o Next meeting is set for October 27, 2020, at which time the entire Board can go over a revised draft with the changes talked about today. Planner Daniel Fama said that the emphasis is on more specific improvements such as seismic upgrades and foundation issues. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for October 27, 2020, at 5:00 PM, using Zoom. PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison 1 Daniel Fama From:Diana Johnson Sent:Monday, October 19, 2020 8:44 AM To:Paul Kermoyan; Todd Capurso; Daniel Fama; Bob Lennen; Matthew Jue; Stephen Rose; Lauren Council Cc:Brian Loventhal Subject:Creating a Commission Collaborative Good morning, Earlier this year, Mayor Landry met with the Advisory Commissions to discuss common goals between the Council and Boards and Commissions. As a result, there was interest to improve communication between both. To accomplish this, the Mayor has requested that a Commission Collaborative be formed. Each Commission/Board will vote to appoint a liaison which will form the Collaborative. The Collaborative will then meet periodically with the Mayor to discuss processes and developments of work plan items for the upcoming year. Moving forward, the Mayor has asked that the City liaisons for each Advisory Commission agendize the appointment of this liaison at their next available meeting. The liaison can be the chairperson or any other member from the Commission/Board. Once an appointment is made, a meeting will be setup to discuss how the Collaborative will function, their goals and responsibilities and how the Collaborative can work together. The Mayor will then meet periodically with the Collaborative and the liaisons as needed. This email is intended for the City liaisons to the Advisory Commissions, if you are no longer the City liaison, please forward to appropriate representative. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Diana Johnson City Manager’s Office City of Campbell