The URL can be used to link to this page

04-25-2023 -Agenda PacketREGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California Register in advance for the Zoom webinar: https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. After registration, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. During the registration process, you will be asked if you would like to speak on any of the agenda items. Please provide detail on the items you would like to discuss. April 25, 2023 7:30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers AGENDA This Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person and virtually via video teleconferencing (Zoom) in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person at Campbell City Hall or virtually via Zoom, using the link above. The meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's website, and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofCampbell. Written correspondence will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov until 5:00 PM on the day of the meeting or may be delivered in-person at the public hearing. Written correspondence will be posted to the City’s website and distributed to the Planning Commission. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES April 11, 2023 Meeting Minutes will be reviewed for approval May 9, 2023 COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS ORAL REQUESTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning Commission on matters of community interest that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PLN-2022-123 Public Hearing to consider the request of Northwest Signs, on behalf of Oddwalle Campbell LLC, for a Sign Permit to allow for one additional wall sign totaling approximately 37 square feet on property located at 30 S. 1st Street. The application under consideration is a Sign Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-123. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner 2. PLN-2021-43 Public Hearing to consider the request of Jake Hamilton of Virtual Site Walk LCC, on behalf of Crown Castle, to allow for the establishment of a concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. The application under consideration is a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. File No.: PLN-2021-43. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner 3. PLN-2022-158 Public Hearing to consider the request of Loretz Construction, Inc. on behalf of David M. Foulkes, Trustee, for a Zoning Exception to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") previously approved by a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04), on a Landmark Property listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, located at 1690 Littleton Place in the R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District, including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non-conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties. File No.: PLN-2022-158. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Date: May 16, 2023. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner STUDY SESSION 4. PLN-2023-43 Study Session to consider the preliminary request of Granite Ridge Properties for property located at 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue for a 6-unit "small lot" detached single-family residential development. The application under consideration is a Preliminary Application. File No.: PLN-2023-43. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 2023 at 7:30 p.m. This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person (as space allows while maintaining on-going face covering and social distancing). 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 the Community Development Department, at planning@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2739. ITEM NO. 1 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ April 25, 2023 PLN-2022-123 Merrell, C. Public Hearing to consider the application by Chris Merrell (Northwest Signs), for a Sign Permit (PLN-2022-123) to allow for one additional wall sign totaling approximately 37 square feet for a building located at 30 S. First Street in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Sign Permit (PLN-2022-123) to allow for one additional wall sign totaling approximately 37 square feet, and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of an existing private structure, such as on-premise signs. PROJECT DATA Zoning District: C-3 Central Business District General Plan: Central Commercial Allowed number of wall signs: One wall signs per business, except corner businesses which may have a maximum of 2 wall signs. Allowed square footage of signs: One square foot of sign area for each one linear feet of business frontage. Maximum of 40 square feet is allowed for each business. Maximum allowed sq. ft. of signage: South 1st Street side: 32.93 square feet Orchard City Drive side: 38.85 square feet Proposed number of signs: 2 wall signs Proposed square footage of signs: North 1st Street side: 28 square feet Orchard City Drive side: 36.5 square feet Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2022-123 ~ 30 S. First Street BACKGROUND On September 13, 2022, a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Planning Commission to allow for a professional office use and a bank and financial service use (i.e., Charles Schwab) to locate on the ground floor of a three-story office building. The application before the Planning Commission is for one additional wall sign for the professional office and bank and financial service use previously approved by the Planning Commission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Sign Permit to allow one additional wall sign approximately 37 square feet in size on the side of the building facing Orchard City Drive. Pursuant to Section 21.30.030(C)(5) of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC), additional signs require Planning Commission review. The submitted floor plan (reference Attachment 2 – Project Plans) depicts the business frontage measurement and the proposed location of wall signs. The allowable wall sign is located on the building façade along South First Street and the requested additional wall sign is on the façade of the building facing Orchard City Drive. Figure 1: Allowed wall sign on South First Street and Proposed Additional Wall Sign from Orchard City Drive Project Location: The project site is a three-story building located on the southeast corner of East Campbell Avenue and South First Street. The building is currently occupied by several restaurants, including Mo’s Campbell, Opa! Campbell, and Willard Hicks Campbell. The upper floor will be occupied by a professional office and bank and finance service use (i.e. Charles Schwab). On South First Street Facing Orchard City Drive Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2022-123 ~ 30 S. First Street Figure 2: Project Location ANALYSIS General Plan: The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Central Commercial. The General Plan Land Use designation of Central Commercial is intended to provide shopping, services, and entertainment within a pedestrian oriented, urban environment. The property is also located within the Downtown Development Plan. To further the goals of the General Plan and provide clear guidance for staff and decision makers, the Downtown has an adopted “Development Plan” which establishes clearer direction of how the downtown should be developed. The purpose of the Downtown Development Plan is to provide a vision for Downtown Campbell and a framework for the physical development, business development and preservation of the historic downtown. The project complies with the following General Plan and Downtown Development Plan policies, goals, and strategies: Policy D-3.1 Signs: Require quality sign design. Goal: LUT-18: A vibrant community oriented Downtown that serves as the retail, service, commercial, cultural and historic center of the city. Strategy LUT-19.1a: Mix of uses: Encourage a compatible mix of uses (i.e. professional offices, services and retail uses) with ground floor retail uses. The project complies with the above General Plan policies, goals, and strategies as the proposed additional wall sign of approximately 37 square feet is composed of quality material (aluminum) and individual channel letters. The additional wall sign supports a professional office and a bank and financial use within the downtown area by providing a means of business identification. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2022-123 ~ 30 S. First Street Zoning Code: The project site has a zoning designation of C-3 Central Business District. The C-3 zoning district is applied to the Downtown area in the city, including and surrounding parts of Campbell Avenue in downtown Campbell. The C-3 zoning district was created to enhance the Downtown area as a unique and viable retail and business center serving local and area wide needs. Administrative Procedure: Pursuant to Section 21.10.060(J)(4) of the Campbell Municipal Code, each business may have one wall sign, except for corner businesses, which may have two. However, pursuant to 21.30.030(C)(5) of the CMC, the Planning Commission may approve additional signs upon making certain findings. The business is limited to one wall sign and two wall signs are requested. The allowable wall sign is located on the building façade fronting South First Street and the additional wall sign requested is fronting the city-owned parking lot. Pursuant to Section 21.10.060(J)(4) of the CMC, one wall sign per business is permitted, except for corner businesses, which may have two wall signs. The business is functionally a corner business as it fronts onto South First Street and the city-owned parking lot, and therefore, the building is highly visible from South First Street and Orchard City Drive. The visibility from Orchard City Drive was taken into consideration for the design of the building to ensure the Orchard City Drive façade had presence and articulation. Findings for Approval Sign Permit Findings (Section 21.30.030 of CMC): A Sign Permit requesting additional signs may be granted by the Planning Commission after making all four (4) of the required findings described in italics below. An explanation of how the project does or does not meet each finding follows in plain text below. 1. The signs otherwise allowed by this chapter would not be visible to the public due to issues of distance or obstructions that are beyond the control of the owner of the site on which the signs are or would be located; The signs allowed by the C-3 zoning district standards would not be visible to the public due to distance or obstructions that are beyond the control of the owner of the site on which the signs would be located. The business abuts a city-owned parking lot which places the business approximately 95 feet away from Orchard City Drive. Allowing one additional wall sign facing the city-owned parking lot would allow business patrons to identify the location of the business. 2. The signs could not be made visible and intelligible to a person of normal sight by allowing an increase in the area or height of the sign pursuant to subsection (C)(4), ( 3. The additional signs comply with all the requirements of this chapter, except for the limitation on the number of signs; and The additional sign is 37 square feet in size, which complies with the maximum square footage. The maximum square footage of a wall sign is 40 square feet. Furthermore, the wall sign is constructed of metal, which is considered an appropriate material, pursuant to Section 21.10.060(J)(3) of the Campbell Municipal Code. The wall sign complies with Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2022-123 ~ 30 S. First Street the locational requirements by being placed below the second-floor sill on a multistoried building and is attached to the building wall. 4. The number of signs allowed pursuant to this provision shall not exceed the minimum number of signs necessary to make the signs visible to the public due to issues of distance or obstructions that are beyond the control of the owner of the site on which the signs are or would be located, which could not be accomplished by the number of signs otherwise allowed by this chapter. The applicant is requesting one additional wall sign approximately 37 square feet in size. One additional wall sign is the minimum number of additional signs to ensure sign visibility for the public from Orchard City Drive and the city-owned parking lot. The additional wall sign will help direct business patrons from Orchard City Drive and/or the city-owned parking lot to the business. Public Outreach: The project was noticed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and publicized in the newspaper (Metro). No public comments have been received. Prepared by: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Attachments: A. Draft Resolution B. Project Plans RESOLUTION NO. 46__ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT (PLN-2022-123) TO ALLOW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 37 SQUARE FEET FOR A BUILDING LOCATED AT 30 SOUTH FIRST STREET IN THE C-3 (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Planning Commission did find as follows with regard to application PLN-2022-123: 1. In February 2017, a Site and Architectural Review Permit was approved by the Planning Commission for the construction of a 10,819 square foot addition to an existing building located at 276 E. Campbell Avenue (notable tenants include: Opa! Campbell, Mo’s Campbell, and Willard Hicks Campbell). 2. In March 2017, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed. Broadly speaking, the appeal asserted that the Planning Commission’s decision was inconsistent with the Downtown Master Plan. In April 2017, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission decision and approved a parking modification allowing a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. 3. On September 13, 2022, a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Planning Commission to allow for a professional office and bank and financial service use to locate on the ground floor of a three-story office building. 4. On September 26, 2022, a Sign Permit was submitted to the City to request one additional wall sign approximately 37 square feet located on the façade of the building abutting the city-owned parking lot and facing Orchard City Drive. The wall signs are to serve the professional office and bank and financial service use (DBA Charles Schwab) previously approved by the Planning Commission. 5. The Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.10.060(J)(4) allows one wall sign per business, except corner businesses, which may have two. 6. CMC Section 21.10.060(J)(2) allows each business to have one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of business frontage. A minimum of 20 square feet is allowed and a maximum of 40 square feet is allowed per business. 7. A maximum of approximately 32.93 square feet of signage area is permissible for the business on the South First Street side. 8. A maximum of approximately 38.85 square feet of signage area is permissible for the Orchard City Drive side. 9. The additional requested sign is facing the city-owned parking lot and Orchard City Drive. Planning Commission Resolution No. ____ Page 2 of 4 30 South First Street Sign Permit (PLN-2022-123) – One additional wall sign 10. CMC Section 21.30.030(C)(5), the Planning Commission shall approve additional signs upon making certain findings. 11. The allowable wall sign located on the building façade fronting South First Street is a wall sign, constructed of aluminum and consisting of individual channel letters with internal illumination of approximately 28 square feet in size. 12. The additional wall sign requested is located on the building façade abutting the city-owned parking lot and Orchard City Drive and is constructed of aluminum and consist of individual channel letters with internal illumination of approximately 36.5 square feet in size. 13. The business is functionally a corner business, with frontage on South First Street and the city-owned parking lot located at 36 South First Street. 14. In 2016, the City granted a sign permit for A Bellagio (located at 33 South Central Avenue) to allow one wall sign and one awning sign. Pursuant to Section 21.30.060(J)(5), awning signs may be used in lieu of wall signs. A Bellagio was permitted to have two signs, when one sign per business is normally permissible, unless it is a corner business where two signs may be permissible. 15. Applicable General Plan and Downtown Development Plan policies, goals, and strategies considered by the Planning Commission included, but were not limited to, the following: Policy D-3.1 Signs: Require quality sign design. Goal LUT-18: A vibrant community oriented Downtown that serves as the retail, service, commercial, cultural and historic center of the city. Strategy LUT-19.1a: Mix of uses: Encourage a compatible mix of uses (i.e. professional offices, services and retail uses) with ground floor retail uses. 16. In review the proposed project, the Planning Commission also weighed the public need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the project, against any impacts it may cause. 17. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: Sign Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.30.030): 1. The signs otherwise allowed by this chapter would not be visible to the public due to issues of distance or obstructions that are beyond the control of the owner of the site on which the signs are or would be located; Planning Commission Resolution No. ____ Page 3 of 4 30 South First Street Sign Permit (PLN-2022-123) – One additional wall sign 2. The signs could not be made visible and intelligible to a person of normal sight by allowing an increase in the area or height of the sign pursuant to subsection (C)(4), (Increased sign area or increased sign height) of this section; 3. The additional signs comply with all the requirements of this chapter, except for the limitation on the number of signs; and 4. The number of signs allowed pursuant to this provision shall not exceed the minimum number of signs necessary to make the signs visible to the public due to issues of distance or obstructions that are beyond the control of the owner of the site on which the signs are or would be located, which could not be accomplished by the number of signs otherwise allowed by this chapter. Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 5. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of an existing private structure, such as on-premise signs. 6. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants approval of a Sign Permit (PLN-2022-123) to allow one additional wall sign totaling approximately 37 square feet for a building located at 30 South First Street, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Adam Buchbinder, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-123) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Sign Permit (PLN-2022-123) to allow one additional wall sign totaling approximately 37 square feet for a building located at 30 South First Street. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment 2 in the April 25, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Approval Expiration: Any building permits or sign approvals issued by the City shall be valid for six months from the effective date of Planning Commission approval. Within this six-month period, the sign must be erected in compliance with the approval consistent with CMC 21.30.030 – Permit expiration. 3. Sign Maintenance: The signs shall be maintained in good condition at all times and shall be repaired or replaced as necessary. 4. Building Permits Required: The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or electrical permits from the Building Division prior to the installation of any new signs. 5. Applicability of Additional Wall Sign Approval: The approved additional wall sign adjacent to the city-owned parking lot and oriented towards Orchard City Drive shall be valid for subsequent signage for future tenants, provided that the sign consists of individual channel letters, does not exceed the maximum dimensions (16.40-ft x 2.23-ft), and is located below the second floor sill as shown on the Approved Project Plans. 6. Property Maintenance: The owner/operator of the subject property shall maintain all exterior areas of the business free from graffiti, trash, rubbish, posters and stickers placed on the property. Exterior areas of the business shall include not only the parking lot and private landscape areas, but also include the public right-of-way adjacent to the business. Trash receptacles shall be maintained within their approved enclosures at all times. ITEM NO. 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ April 25, 2023 PLN-2021-43 Applicant(s): Nicole Comach Jake Hamilton Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicole Comach (Crown Castle) and Jake Hamilton (Virtual Site Walk, LLC) to allow for the establishment of a concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. The application under consideration is a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment A), approving a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT DATA Zoning District: M-1 (Light Industrial) General Plan Designation: Light Industrial Existing/Proposed Tower Requirement/Standard Structure Height: 75-feet1 45-feet Proposed Facility Type: Concealed (Faux Tree Pole) with Ground Mounted Equipment Number of Wireless Carriers: Three (3) (i.e., Verizon, Sprint, & Dish Network) PROJECT SITE The project site is located on the east side of S. McGlincy Lane, north of Camden Avenue. The site has an existing 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility which presently supports three carriers (Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile) and includes a chain-link fenced ground mounted equipment area that includes cabinets and an emergency diesel generator. 1 Calculation does not include branches which are considered exempt. Further discussion of eligibility of the facility at the requested height shall be brought forward as part of the Planning Commission discussion. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 2 of 6 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Figures 1 & 2: Project Site & Existing Tower/Enclosure BACKGROUND The existing wireless telecommunications facility was established in 1989 for a single carrier (GTE Mobilenet; now Verizon), at which time the regulation of wireless facilities were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Under the authority of the CPUC, compliance with local development standards (i.e., setbacks, height) and land use permit requirements (i.e., Conditional Use Permit, expiration dates) were not required2. On June 18, 1998, the City of Campbell established a Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1965) which established site development, design, as well as permit time limitations (expiration period) for both new and existing facilities (including those established without a time limit by the CPUC). Under this provision, the facility’s approval expired in 2003. In 2010, the Planning Commission granted two Conditional Use Permits allowing for the continued operation of this wireless facility until 2020 as well as the installation of the equipment for a second carrier further down the pole (Clearwire; now T-Mobile). In 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4140 allowing a Conditional Use Permit allowing for the installation of additional antennas, serving Verizon, and extending operations until March 21, 2024. In 2017, the City Council repealed and replaced the City’s Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance establishing a new Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.34) and associated Wireless Facility Design Requirements. The standards set a higher standard for the design and concealment of all facilities (including those seeking renewal), limited the maximum structure height to that allowed by the zoning district, and established permitting procedures for Eligible Facility Requests (EFR) which may allow for expansion of an existing facility, including the addition of additional carrier equipment without a public hearing or discretionary review when meeting certain requirements. In 2022, the city received and approved an EFR request for Dish Network on the subject property. 2 The facility did receive approval of a building permit in 1989 (#15263). Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 3 of 6 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a “limited exemption from standards” to retain the height of an existing tower facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested). As the land use entitlement for the existing tower facility is set to expire in 2024, the applicant’s proposal would also serve to extend the operation of the facility for an additional ten (10) years. As proposed, the existing tower would be modified by adding new artificial branches, bark, and leaf socks to resemble the appearance of a eucalyptus tree. Figures 1 & 2: Existing Tower Facility vs. Photosimulation as an Artificial Eucalyptus Tree ANALYSIS Administrative Procedure: The applicant’s proposal to modify an existing telecommunications facility to mimic the appearance of an artificial eucalyptus tree constitutes a type of “concealed facility” that is allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. "Concealed facility" means any wireless communications facility which results in new site or architectural features being added to a property in a manner which complements, enhances, or seamlessly integrates into their surroundings. Examples of concealed facilities include, but are not limited to, the construction of new rooftop, louver, chimney, silo, pole, railing, sign, window, parapets, dormers, steeples, penthouses, water towers, bell towers, artificial trees, and flag poles. Review of the design and placement of a concealed facility is subject to the requirements of the city’s adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and Wireless Facility Design Requirements (see discussion related to “SARC Review”) Separately, in consideration the applicant’s proposal seeks to retain the height of the existing tower facility, which exceeds the maximum height of the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district, approval Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 4 of 6 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane of a “limited exemption from standards” (reference CMC 21.34.160 – Limited exemption from standards.) is also required. Limited Exemption from Standards: While the height of the existing tower is not proposed to change, except for the addition of new artificial branches, the applicant’s proposal requires the approval of a new land use entitlement subject to current development and permit proceedures. In accordance with the city’s adopted Wireless Ordinance, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating why the exemption to height should be granted. For the city to approve the height exemption, the applicant must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence all of the following: A. A significant gap in the applicant's service coverage exists; and B. All alternative sites identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available. In response, the applicant provides an analysis of the service coverage of two of the three carriers served by the existing tower facility (Verizon & T-Mobile) and resulting gap in coverage that would occur without the facility (reference Attachment C – Project Description). The applicant also provides an assessment of alternative locations considered, and why they were found to be infeasible. To support the Planning Commission in its assessment, a third-party consultant, CTC Telecommunications Network Consulting, was hired to determine the impact that reducing the tower height would have on wireless coverage in accordance with Section 21.34.170 (Independent consultant review) of the Campbell Municipal Code (reference Attachment D – Independent Consultant Report, January 2023). Broadly, the report concludes that the requested height may be supported on the basis that it would require multiple (as many as seven) towers in the nearby vicinity to provide equivalent service coverage for Verizon and T-Mobile, while also not accounting for the service needs of Dish Network. Staff believes that this report documents that a significant gap in coverage would occur without the granting of the subject facility at its proposed location, and that the alternative locations considered would be inadequate to meet the service needs of the carriers the existing facility serves at its present height, in accordance with the required findings. The justification for a limited exemption to maintain the existing facility height notwithstanding, conditions of approval have been included as part of the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment A) to limit further expansions of the facility (height or width) beyond what has been depicted on the plans. Wireless Communications Facilities: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.34.110 (Special findings for wireless communications facilities), prior to making the findings for a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review Permit the following findings must be made: 1. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be a stealth or concealed facility as defined in Section 21.34.200; The proposed facility, as conditioned, meets the definition of a concealed wireless facility. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 5 of 6 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane 2. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all requirements of Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities); The proposed facility, as conditioned, will comply with all requirements of Chapter 21.34, including those related to the design, placement, and operation of the facility. 3. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all applicable design guidelines; and The applicant’s proposal to modify the facility to resemble an artificial tree will meet all of the requirements of the Wireless Facility Design Requirements (reference Attachment E, SARC Memo, March 28, 2023). 4. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be consistent with the general plan. The use is considered a ‘concealed facility’ which is allowed within the M-1 zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. Moreover, properties with an industrial land use designation are identified as a “more preferred area” in terms of placement in the city’s Wireless Ordinance which serves to effectuate the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. Conditional Use Permit Findings: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.46.040 (Findings and decision), prior to making the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must first affirmatively establish all six (6) of the findings described in italics below. An explanation of how the project meets each finding follows in plain text below. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code; See related discussion under ‘Administrative Procedure’. The use is considered a ‘concealed facility’ which is allowed within the M-1 zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; Allowing a concealed wireless telecommunications facility will meet the purpose/intent of the Light Industrial General Plan land use designation which is intended to provide for a wide range of uses which include general service and service commercial uses. The applicant’s proposal may also be found to further the following General Plan policies and strategies: Policy LUT-9.31: Neighborhood Integrity: Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure. Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. 3. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area; Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 6 of 6 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane The proposed wireless telecommunications facility has been designed to integrate with the surrounding area by mimicking the appearance of a eucalyptus tree. No changes to fences, walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, or other development features are proposed or necessary to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate; The facility would not be staffed. The project site is located along McGlincy Lane which is identified as Commercial / Industrial Collector in the General Plan’s Roadways Classifications Diagram (Figure LUT-3) which has sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate. 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property; and See response to ‘3’. 6. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. See response to ‘3’. Further, no concerns with the operation or maintenance of the proposed use have been identified that will not be addressed by the Conditions of Approval included in the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment 1). Site and Architectural Review Findings: In addition to satisfying the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must also affirmatively establish all three (3) of the findings related to Site and Architectural Review pursuant to CMC 21.46.050 (Site and Architectural Review) and CMC 21.42.060.B (Action by Planning Commission) captured in italics below. An explanation of how the project meets each finding follows in plain text below. 1. The project will be consistent with the General Plan; As previously stated, allowing a concealed wireless telecommunications facility will meet the purpose/intent of the Light Industrial land use designation. The applicant’s proposal may also be found to further the following General Plan policies and strategies: Policy LUT-9.31: Neighborhood Integrity: Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure. Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. 2. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area; The project as designed and conditioned, will aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding area by enhancing the appearance of an existing wireless telecommunications facility by concealing it as a faux eucalyptus tree. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 7 of 6 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane 3. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s). The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City’s adopted Wireless Facility Design Requirements (see discussion related to ‘SARC Review’, and Attachment E - SARC Memo) and may be found consistent with its provisions as designed and conditioned. Environmental (CEQA) Determination: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, and/or minor alteration of an existing private structure. SARC Review: The application was reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) at its meeting of March 28, 2023 (reference Attachment E – SARC Memo, March 28, 2023). While the SARC considered alternative tree species for concealment (i.e., deodar cedar), as well as different methods of concealment (e.g., bell tower), ultimately supported the project as a eucalyptus tree as presented. Public Outreach: The project was noticed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and publicized in the newspaper (Metro). While no formal public comments have been received, three members of the public have expressed support for the proposed concealment approach (two of which attended the SARC meeting in person). Prepared by: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Attachments: A. Draft Resolution B. Project Plans C. Project Description D. Independent Consultant Report, January 2023 E. SARC Memo, March 28, 2023 RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (PLN-2021- 90) TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CONCEALED WIRELESS FACILITY (ARTIFICIAL TREE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 S. MCGLINCY LANE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT FILE NO.: PLN-2021-43 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Planning Commission did find as follows with regard to application PLN-2021-43: 1.The project site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and designated Light Industrial by the General Plan. 2.The project site is located on the east side of S. McGlincy Lane, north of Camden Avenue. 3.McGlincy Lane is a Commercial/Industrial Collector in the General Plan’s Roadways Classifications Diagram (Figure LUT-3). 4.The project site has an existing 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility which presently supports three carriers (Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile) and includes a chain-link fenced ground mounted equipment area that includes cabinets and an emergency diesel generator. 5.The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility. 6.The facility would be designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree which, as designed and conditioned, may be found to satisfy the requirements of the city’s adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and Wireless Facility Design Requirements. 7.All aspects of the design of the facility, including the size and width of the facility and surrounding canopy of artificial branches, contribute to the concealment of the facility. 8.Any increase to the height and width of the facility as measured to the edge of the exterior branches as depicted on the project plans would defeat the concealment of the artificial tree as designed. 9.The maximum allowable height of a structure in the M-1 zoning district is 45-feet, where the existing/proposed facility would be 75-feet, not including the addition of new artificial branches that will be used conceal the facility as a eucalyptus tree. Attachment - A Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Arch. | Concealed Facility (Artificial Tree) (PLN-2022-43) 10. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating why a limited exemption to standards (height) should be granted. 11. For the city to approve a limited exemption, the applicant must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that a significant gap in the applicant’s service coverage exists (or in this case, would occur without the requested height) and that all alternative sites identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available. 12. The applicant has provided an analysis of the service coverage of two of the three carriers served by the existing tower facility (Verizon & T-Mobile) and resulting gap in coverage that would occur without the facility at the proposed height. 13. The applicant also provided an assessment of alternative locations considered, and why they were found to be infeasible. 14. To assist the Planning Commission in its assessment, a third-party consultant was hired to determine the impact that reducing the tower height would have on wireless coverage. 15. The third-party consultant report concludes that the requested height may be supported on the basis that it would require multiple (as many as seven) towers in the nearby vicinity to provide equivalent service coverage for Verizon and T-Mobile, while also not accounting for the service needs of Dish Network. 16. As the requested height and placement of the facility may be found necessary to avoid a significant gap in coverage, and in consideration that all alternative sites identified in the review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available, the Planning Commission may approve a limited exemption to standards to allow an increase in height at the proposed location. 17. Although the project includes development plans, it does not require a separate architectural review permit application but is subject to site and architectural review in accordance with CMC 21.46.050 (Site and architectural review). 18. Applicable General Plan Policies considered by the Planning Commission included, but were not limited to, the following: Policy LUT-9.31: Neighborhood Integrity: Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure. Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. 19. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Arch. | Concealed Facility (Artificial Tree) (PLN-2022-43) Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: Wireless Communications Facilities Findings (CMC Sec. 21.34.110): 20. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be a stealth or concealed facility as defined in Section 21.34.200; 21. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all requirements of Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities); 22. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all applicable design guidelines; 23. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be consistent with the general plan; Limited Exemption from Standards Finding (CMC Sec. 21.34.160): 24. The applicant has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that without the proposed facility at the requested height that a significant gap in the applicant’s service coverage would occur and that all alternative sites identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available; Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040): 25. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code; 26. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; 27. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area; 28. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate; 29. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property; 30. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Arch. | Concealed Facility (Artificial Tree) (PLN-2022-43) detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B): 31. The project will be consistent with the General Plan; 32. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area; 33. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s); Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 34. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and leasing, and/or minor alteration of an existing private structure; and 35. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow the establishment of a new concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Adam Buchbinder, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow the establishment of a new concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment B in the April 25, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Approval Expiration: The Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring May 5, 2023). Within this one-year period, an application for the Building Permit must be submitted. Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of the Building Permit plan check or issued Building Permit will result in the Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review being rendered void. 3. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Building Permit plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Community Development Director and Building Official prior to Final Inspection. 4. 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. The contractor contact information posting shall be removed upon project completion (building permit final). 5. 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4626 Page 2 of 8 1630 W. Campbell Avenue Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-90) – AT&T b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition. d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses. f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell. 6. Construction Hours/Fines/Stop Work Notice: Failure to comply with permitted working hours that result in verified complaints may result in the issuance of a Stop Work Notice issued to the project with cessation of work for a minimum of seven (7) days from the date of issuance and an Administrative fine of up to $1,000.00. 7. Timely Completion: Once under construction it shall be the obligation of the property owner and contractor to demonstrate continued progress on the project. In the event the building permit expires, the City may impose fines or exercise administrative remedies to compel timely completion of work. 8. No Expansion of Ground Mounted Equipment: The facility is not approved for any expansion of the ground mounted equipment. Accordingly, no expansion of the ground mounted equipment shall be permitted to be added to the site as part of an Eligible Facilities Request (EFR) request made under Section 6409(a) and FCC rules implementing Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455. 9. Cessation of Operations: The service provider shall provide written notification to the community development director upon cessation of operations on the site exceeding a ninety-calendar day period. The service provider, permittee and/or property owner shall remove all obsolete or unused facilities from the site within one hundred eighty calendar days of termination of the lease with the property owner or cessation of operations, whichever comes earlier. a. New Permit Required. If a consecutive period of one hundred eighty calendar days has lapsed since cessation of operations, a new permit shall be required prior to use or reuse of the site. 10. Supersede: The subject permit shall supersede all prior land use entitlements related to the subject facility. 11. Height: The height of the artificial tree pole (tower facility) may not be increased. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4626 Page 3 of 8 1630 W. Campbell Avenue Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-90) – AT&T 12. Length of Approval: The subject permit shall be valid for a period of ten years from the effective date of the approval (expiring May 5, 2033) but may be reduced for public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons pursuant to Government Code Section 65964(b). Use permits and site and architectural review permits approved prior to the effective date of the Wireless Ordinance shall expire pursuant to the previously approved permit term. Nothing contained in this permit is intended to revive or extend any permit or use that expired on or prior to the effective date of the Wireless Ordinance. a. The permit may be renewed for subsequent time periods, subject to the following: i. The renewal application is filed with the community development department prior to expiration, but no earlier than twenty-four months prior to expiration. ii. The subject permit approval may be administratively extended by the community development director from the initial approval date for a subsequent ten years and may be extended by the community development director every ten years thereafter upon verification that the facility continues to comply with the Wireless Ordinance (as may be amended from time to time) and all conditions of approval under which the facility was approved. All costs associated with the review process shall be borne by the service provider, permittee and/or property owner. b. If a request for renewal of the required permit(s) is not timely received and the permit expires, the City may declare the facility(ies) abandoned or discontinued in accordance with Section 21.34.070(A)(16) (Abandonment). 13. Business License Required: Each service provider with a wireless communications facility in the City shall obtain and maintain a City business license. 14. Impact on Parking: The installation of wireless communication facilities shall not reduce required parking on the site. For the purposes of this requirement, routine maintenance activities shall not be considered to result in a measurable impact on parking. Applications for eligible facilities requests shall be exempt from this condition provided that any reduction in onsite parking spaces does not violate a prior condition of approval or applicable building or safety code. 15. Implementation and Monitoring Costs: The wireless communications permittee, service provider or its/their successor shall be responsible for the payment of all reasonable costs associated with the monitoring of the conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, costs incurred by the community development department, the office of the city attorney or any other appropriate City department or agency, to the full extent such costs are recoverable or collectible under applicable state and/or federal law. The community development department shall collect costs on behalf of the City. 16. Development and Operational Standards: All facilities shall satisfy the development standards of the district in which they are proposed, as well as the Development and Planning Commission Resolution No. 4626 Page 4 of 8 1630 W. Campbell Avenue Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-90) – AT&T Operational Standards outlined in CMC 21.16 (e.g. Electrical Interference, Light and Glare, Noise, Odor, Vibration, Maintenance) and the Site Development Standards (e.g. as specified in CMC 21.18). Exceptions to development and operational standards shall only be permitted for (A) an eligible facility request to the extent required by law, (B) a subsequent collocation facility to the extent required by California Government Code section 65850.6(a), or (C) for a stealth facility when such exception is limited to maximum allowable heights, or minimum setbacks, and when such exception would not result in a perceivable visual impact. 17. Permits: All permits required for the installation of the facility and associated improvements, shall be completed prior to operation of the facility (or component of that facility). 18. Concealment: Every aspect of the facility design is considered an element of concealment including, but not limited to, the dimensions, bulk and scale, color, materials, and texture. Any modification to the facility shall be considered to defeat the concealment of the facility, and shall not be permitted, except as expressly provided below: a. Adding or Enlarging Antennas: Antennas may be added to, or enlarged in size, within the canopy of the artificial tree tower when they are covered with leaf “socks” that match the color of the foliage and do not encroach within 18- inches of the outer edge of the artificial branches. Branches may not be removed, added, or extended, to provide for the addition or enlargement of antennas on the facility. b. Ground-Mounted Equipment: Equipment may be added to, or enlarged in size, within the existing building, but may not be added within the existing ground- mounted equipment enclosure unless the following conditions are met: i. The existing chain link fencing is removed and replaced with a solid, opaque wooden fence, or masonry wall, approved by the community development director. Note: Fences or walls exceeding the maximum height permitted by the Campbell Municipal Code shall require review and approval of a fence exception. ii. Any equipment added, or enlarged in size, do not exceed the height of the opaque wooden fence, or masonry wall, once established. 19. Compliance with Applicable Laws: The permittee and service provider shall at all times comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), any permit or approval issued under the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. Failure by the City to enforce compliance with applicable laws, rules or regulations shall not relieve any permittee of its obligations under the CMC including, but not limited to, Planning Commission Resolution No. 4626 Page 5 of 8 1630 W. Campbell Avenue Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-90) – AT&T Title 21 (Zoning), any permit or approval issued under the CMC, or any other applicable laws, rules and regulations. 20. Compliance with Approved Plans: The facility shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department. 21. Inspections; Emergencies: The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon reasonable notice to the permittee in times of emergency. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections. The City reserves the right to enter (or direct its designee to enter) the facility and support, repair, disable or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property. 22. Contact Information for Responsible Parties: The permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing address and email address for at least one natural person. All such contact information for responsible parties shall be provided to the community development director upon request. 23. General Maintenance: The site and the facility, including but not limited to all landscaping, fencing, concealment features, and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval. 24. Graffiti Removal: All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within forty-eight hours after notification from the City. 25. FCC (including, but not limited to, RF Exposure) Compliance: All facilities must comply with all standards and regulations of the FCC and any other state or federal government agency with the authority to regulate such facilities. 26. Abandonment: a. To promote the public health, safety and welfare, the community development director may declare a facility (or component of a facility) abandoned or discontinued when: (a) The permittee or service provider abandoned or discontinued the use of a facility (or component of a facility) for a continuous period of ninety calendar days; or (b) The permittee or service provider fails to respond within thirty calendar days to a written notice from the community development director that states the basis for the community development director's belief that the facility (or component of the facility) has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of ninety calendar days; or (c) The permit expires and the permittee has failed to file a timely application for renewal. b. After the community development director declares a facility (or component of a facility) abandoned or discontinued, the permittee shall have sixty calendar days from the date of the declaration (or longer time as the community development Planning Commission Resolution No. 4626 Page 6 of 8 1630 W. Campbell Avenue Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-90) – AT&T director may approve in writing as reasonably necessary) to: (a) reactivate the use of the abandoned or discontinued facility (or component thereof) subject to the provisions of this chapter and all conditions of approval; or (b) remove the facility (or component of that facility) and all improvements installed in connection with the facility (or component of that facility), unless directed otherwise by the community development director, and restore the site to a condition in compliance with all applicable codes and consistent with the then-existing surrounding area. c. If the permittee fails to act as required in Section 21.34.070(A)(16)(b) within the prescribed time period, the City may (but shall not be obligated to) remove the abandoned facility (or abandoned component of the facility), restore the site to a condition in compliance with all applicable codes and consistent with the then- existing surrounding area, and repair any and all damages that occurred in connection with such removal and restoration work. The City may, but shall not be obligated to, store the removed facility (or component of the facility) or any part thereof, and may use, sell or otherwise dispose of it in any manner the City deems appropriate. The last-known permittee or its successor-in-interest and, if on private property, the real property owner shall be jointly liable for all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with such removal, restoration, repair and storage, and shall promptly reimburse the City upon receipt of a written demand, including, without limitation, any interest on the balance owing at the maximum lawful rate. The City may, but shall not be obligated to, use any financial security required in connection with the granting of the facility permit to recover its costs and interest. Until the costs are paid in full, a lien shall be placed on the facility, all related personal property in connection with the facility and, if applicable, the real private property on which the facility was located for the full amount of all costs for removal, restoration, repair and storage (plus applicable interest). The City Clerk shall cause the lien to be recorded with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office. Within sixty calendar days after the lien amount is fully satisfied including costs and interest, the City Clerk shall cause the lien to be released with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office. d. After a permittee fails to comply with any provisions of this Section 21.34.070(A)(16) (Abandonment), the City may elect to treat the facility as a nuisance to be abated as provided in the CMC (including, but not limited to, Chapter 6.10). 27. Indemnities: The permittee, service provider, and, if applicable, the non-government owner of the private property upon which the tower and/or base station is installed (or is to be installed) shall defend (with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City of Campbell its officers, officials, directors, agents, representatives, and employees (i) from and against any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings brought against the City or its officers, officials, directors, agents, representatives, or employees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the City's approval of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4626 Page 7 of 8 1630 W. Campbell Avenue Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-90) – AT&T permit, and (ii) from and against any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, or causes of action and other actions or proceedings of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of, in connection with or relating to the acts, omissions, negligence, or performance of the permittee, the service provider, and/or, if applicable, the private property owner, or any of each one's agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and the property owner, service provider, and/or permittee (as applicable) shall reimburse City for any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in the course of the defense. Building Division 28. Permit Required: A Building Permit application shall be required for the proposed project. The Building Permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 29. Conditions of Approval: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. FIRE DEPARTMENT 30. Formal Plan Review: Review of this development proposal is limited to accessibility of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Division all applicable construction permits. 31. No Violation: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Fire Code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]. Attachment - B SCALE:ELEVATION VIEWNONE2CAMPBELL#814277RF-1SCALE:PLAN VIEWNONE1 SCALE:PERSPECTIVE VIEWNONE2CAMPBELL#814277RF-2SCALE:ISOMETRIC VIEWNONE1 1SCALE:EUCALYPTUS ANTENNA COVERS 3' X 10'NONE 1 0.694 PIECES OF FOLIAGE PER SQ INCH 10.0 PIECES OF FOLIAGE PER SQ FT FOLIAGE DENSITY SCALE:EUCALYPTUS ANTENNA COVER FOLIAGE NONE 2 [300 PIECES]HIGH DENSITY FOLIAGE #branch QTY Recep.Height 1111111234567891101112131415161718 Top cap 4'1 Top Cap 75'-6" Top cap 4'3 Top Cap 75'-6"73'-6" 52 8'3 D 72'-6"45 45 45 51 8'3 C 71'-6"45 45 45 50 10'3 B 70'-6"45 45 45 49 10'3 A 69'-6"45 45 45 48 12'3 F 67'-6"45 45 45 47 12'3 E 66'-6"45 45 45 46 12'3 D 65'-6"45 45 45 45 12'3 C 64'-6"45 45 45 64'-6" 44 12'3 B 63'-6"45 45 45 43 10'3 A 62'-6"45 45 454212'3 F 61'-6"45 45 45 41 10'3 E 60'-6"45 45 45 40 12'3 D 59'-6"45 45 45 39 10'3 C 58'-6"45 45 45 38 10'3 B 57'-6"45 45 45 37 10'3 A 56'-6"45 45 453610'3 F 55'-6"45 45 45 35 10'3 E 54'-6"45 45 45 34 10'3 D 53'-6"45 45 45 33 10'3 C 52'-6"45 45 45 32 10'3 B 51'-6"45 45 45 31 10'3 A 50'-6"45 45 45 30 10'3 F 49'-6"45 45 45 29 10'3 E 48'-6"45 45 45 28 10'3 D 47'-6"45 45 45 27 10'3 C 46'-6"45 45 45 26 10'3 B 45'-6"45 45 45 25 10'3 A 44'-6"45 45 45 24 10'3 F 43'-6"45 45 45 23 10'3 E 42'-6"45 45 45 22 10'3 D 41'-6"45 45 45 40'-8" 21 8'3 C 40'-0"45 45 45 20 10'3 B 38'-9"45 45 45 19 8'3 A 37'-6"45 45 451810'3 F 36'-3"45 45 45 17 8'3 E 35'-0"45 45 45 16 10'3 D 33'-9"45 45 45 15 8'3 C 32'-6"45 45 45 14 8'3 B 31'-3"45 45 45 13 8'3 A 30'-0"45 45 45128'3 F 28'-9"45 45 45 11 8'3 E 27'-6"45 45 45 10 6'3 D 26'-3"45 45 45 98'3C25'-0"45 45 45 86'3B23'-9"45 45 45 78'3A22'-6"45 45 45 66'3F21'-3"45 45 45 58'3E20'-0"45 45 45 46'3D18'-9"45 45 45 36'3C17'-6"45 45 45 26'3B16'-3"45 45 45 16'3A15'-0"45 45 45 TOTAL 160 NEW RECEPTACLES 2'39 4'4 6'21 8'39 10'72 12'24 199 NEW BRANCHES 2' Branches Tophat for [1] MW antenna at 64'-6" rad center with [3] 2' branches 2' Branches Tophat for [6] panel antennas at 40'-8" rad center with [15] 2' branches #814277 CAMPBELL-REV-A SCI Branch Receptacle Fab Sheet - 06/29/2021 Clock Settings [1] mount for 4' branch at 90 degrees [3] mounts for 4' branches at 60 degrees 2' Branches Tophat for [7] panel antennas at 73'-6" rad center with [21] 2' branches June 21, 2022 FINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE NAME/# 814277 Campbell CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PLN2009-80 CARRIERS: VERIZON & SPRINT SITE ADDRESS: 910 S. McGlincy Lane, Campbell, CA 95008 Dear City of Campbell Planning Department, We have been asked to summarize our final application material based on our last year of working with The City of Campbell on an appropriate design for our existing cellular communication facility. We made an original submittal in March of 2021 and have subsequently received 2 formal incomplete letters and various email requests. The below narrative and attached documentation are a summary of that process and our final product. Crown Castle GT Company, LLC ("Crown Castle"), herein referenced as the Applicant and Tower Owner, requests the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit (PLN2009-80). The facility is currently constructed as an unmanned monopole. This department approved the project as currently constructed. We have been asked by your department to disguise the monopole and submit the proposed changes along with the permit renewal application. The following scope of work is proposed: •Install new faux Eucalyptus branches on the existing monopole •Install new faux Eucalyptus socks on existing antennas •NO new electrical work or batteries are to be installed from this project. The tower is currently 75 feet in height. With the addition of the faux Eucalyptus branches, the branches will add 4’ to the overall height due to the branches attached to the top of the monopole for stealthing. Please see the attached branching plan for reference. There are 2 carriers on this tower, Verizon and Sprint. The equipment areas are located on the ground directly next to the wireless facility. The tower and equipment are all behind a locked enclosure and a chain linked fence. Please see the submitted photo simulations and site plans for a view of what the facility looks like as existing and what it will look like with the proposed changes. The drawings and sims have been revised based on feedback from our various vendors and The City of Campbell over the last year. Attachment - C The City of Campbell Development Standards for Siting of Telecommunication Facilities encourage co-location of new antennas on an existing telecommunication facility. We are currently hosting 2 wireless carriers (Verizon & Sprint) with room for at least one more based on our current design. We are not proposing a tower height increase or any new wireless equipment as part of this project. The Applicant agrees to continue complying with all cosmetic and other maintenance requirements required in the existing Conditions of Approval. Along with the Application for renewing the Conditional Use Permit for this facility, the applicant is submitting an updated Radio Frequency Report (FCC), as well as existing site plans with proposed changes, photo simulations, Noise Study and other required documentation. The applicant is not proposing any change in the use or technology with this application. We are only submitting changes to make the tower more aesthetically pleasing. This site provides continued telecommunications coverage to the community, including enhanced emergency response, better reception quality and higher security and privacy for telephone users. The project continues to fit the intended goals because it would reduce risk of injury or death through enhanced cellular phone service, would promote efficiency of public services through enhanced cellular phone service, and does not generate a large amount of traffic, noise, congestion, or odors. The use will not be contrary to the character or performance standards established for the City of Campbell, in which it is located. The subsequent Incomplete letters from 04/20/2021 and 09/24/2021 focus on the height of the facility and the need to justify our height in relation to the current M-1 (Light Industrial) height limit of 45’. The comment from Campbell is below from the 09/24/2021 Incomplete Letter: We responded to each of these requests with the attached ASA & Height Narrative (2022-2-22). The original tower was legally permitted in The City of Campbell at the current height of 75’6”. Replacing this tower with a code compliant 45’ high tower would significantly degrade the coverage and capacity of our tenants (Verizon & Sprint). Furthermore, the M-1 zone is the 2nd most preferred location for siting a wireless facility as noted in the attached ASA & Height Narrative response. There is no “more preferred” zone near this facility, so moving the tower does not further the City’s goals of siting wireless facilities in more preferred zones. We also detail other potential locations near our existing site as recommended by The City of Campbell in the attached ASA. Those potential rooftop locations are much too low and will not work for other reasons mentioned in the analysis. Thank you for your consideration. Jake Hamilton Virtual Site Walk LLC www.virtualsitewalk.com Jake@virtualsitewalk.com Mobile: (619) 341-9208 June 10, 2022 MAXIMUM HEIGHT & LIMITED EXEMPTION FROM STANDARDS RE: FILE # PLN-2021-43 ADDRESS: 910 S. McGLINCY LANE As noted and requested in the review letter from your department, received on September 24, 2021, below is a response for item #2: “The materials provided do not support the conclusion that a significant gap in coverage would occur as the alternative sites analysis fails to conclude that multiple sites of a lower, code compliant, height would not resolve the gap in coverage.” Here is a response for each of the address proposed as examples: • The roof of the office buildings at 675 Campbell Technology Parkway: The office buildings appear to be around 30’ tall. Our rad center is shown at 43’ in the attached coverage maps. The coverage in green is already significantly suffering at a 43’ rad center. There are large gaps in coverage on all sides of our facility from moving the rad center lower. The gaps are shown in red. We start to lose the connection with the network as indicated by the red areas between our proposed site and the rest of the network in green. Furthermore, by moving the site north, the southern gap in coverage would be more prominent than shown on the coverage map. We get too close to the site on Civic Center Drive to the north of our existing site. • Carlyle Hotel at 1300 Camden Avenue: This potential site has the same issues as the building above, but to the south. It’s too short (around 30’ tall) and there would be a large gap to the north. This building is literally adjacent to residential also. • Extra Space storage building at 50 Curtner Avenue: This building is more centrally located than the other 2, so it would likely fit into the network with enough height, but it’s too low just like the other 2 buildings above. We need to be much higher than the building rooftop. There’s also a large existing solar system that would be difficult to work around with our lines and equipment. There’s a tall parapet around the rooftop that we need to clear. We would need to build from the rooftop, but place our antennas well above the parapet roofline to clear the roof with our signal. With windloading and seismic requirements, we would need a substantial structure that would likely need structural upgrades to the building making this a bad candidate. • A-1 Self Storage building at 3260 S. Bascom Avenue: This building suffers from all the problems of the potential sites above. It’s too short, too far south, and not buildable due to the rooftop structure and parapet. It’s also adjacent to residential. There’s 2 existing sites to the east and west of this building. A site is needed between the 3 existing sites shown on the coverage map. That’s why our current site is placed where it’s currently at. ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS The section below is taken from our last submission with a few edits to reflect the current propagation maps. The existing WCF is an integral part of Verizon and Sprint’s existing network. Without the site, the network will be significantly impacted and result in a gap in coverage and disruption of service for the community and travelers in the area. The gap would be especially pronounced considering there’s 2 wireless carriers located on this tower. Propagation modeling systems are meant to assess coverage and capacity gaps. They haven’t been required to reverse engineer an existing site that’s already firmly built into the network. However, we’ve done the best we can with the attached maps from each carrier. Since the code compliant height is 45’, we modeled Verizon with a 38’ antenna center line. That gives Verizon a 4’ to 6’ antenna with room for branches extending from the top of the pole up to 45’. With a required 10’ vertical separation between carriers, that puts T-Mobile with an antenna centerline height of approximately 24’. That could move slightly up or down depending on Verizon’s center line and T- Mobile’s antennas. Verizon: Verizon’s modeling software system can only propagate a signal at the current center line height of 71’ and 33’ or lower. The software won’t show much difference between 38’ and 33’. That’s why we’re showing a centerline of 33’ on the propagation map. Again, their modeling software doesn’t have the detail to show exactly what is being requested by Campbell. Verizon is adamant about maintaining the current rad center of 71’ and local topographical interference would significantly degrade the signal at a center line of 38’. T-Mobile: T-Mobile provided the attached propagation map showing the current rad center and a 24’ rad center. Their modeling software also isn’t built to show the differences in rad centers for a site that’s existing. The level of detail provided is meant to show coverage and capacity gaps, not different rad centers for an existing site. T-Mobile also can’t move down the pole from their existing centerline due to local interference and topography. The amount of “Outdoor” poor coverage significantly increases when removing the site or lowering the rad center by 40’. There would be a major gap in coverage by removing the site or lowering it to a code compliant height as requested in the Incomplete Letters. When removing or significantly lowering a site already integrated into the network, it severely limits the coverage in that area and in the surrounding areas. The entire network becomes compromised due to the removal or serious degradation of one site. Almost the entire search area for this site is in Residential zoning to the West or Planned Development zoning to the west. With our existing site there is a buffer of industrial use between us and the Residential units to the east. Per Campbell’s Wireless Code Section 21.34.090 A(2) (Location of wireless communications facilities): the most preferred zone for a wireless communication facility is 1) City owned or controlled parcels; then 2) Industrial, research and development & institutional designated parcels Edith Morley Park is owned by The City of Campbell and is .75 mile north. The Park does not look like a suitable place for a cellular facility based on it being a pristine park and community garden. It’s too far north from the search ring also. We didn’t find any other City owned properties that have enough space within a half mile of our site. The 2nd most preferred zones are Industrial zoned parcels. The only Industrial zoned parcels within the search ring are in the cluster of properties where we are located. Furthermore, we are proposing a broadleaf tree stealth design (referred to as “concealed” in Campbell wireless code). Thus, the only properties we would contact would be other M-1 zoned properties next to our current location. This would not satisfy the goal of finding a more preferred zone to locate a wireless facility as we would be proposing the same stealth design in the same zone at the same height. The environmental disturbance and community disruption of taking down a tower and excavating a new one would be more detrimental than beneficial. Please let us know if you have additional questions or comments. Sincerely, Jake Hamilton Virtual Site Walk LLC www.virtualsitewalk.com Jake@virtualsitewalk.com Mobile: (619) 341-9208 910 McGlincey Lane Campbell CA 95008 814277 Campbell Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking north from adjacent propertyProposed View 1 Existing proposed replacement monoeucalyptus with relocated existing and new replacement antennas proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx ©2021 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking east from McGlincey LaneProposed View 2 Existing proposed replacement monoeucalyptus with relocated existing and new replacement antennas proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 910 McGlincey Lane Campbell CA 95008 814277 Campbell ©2021 Google Maps CAMPBELL CELL SITE Surrounding Coverage with and without Campbell Topographical Map LTE CAMPBELL BEST SERVER PLOT @ 700 MHz LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL DEACTIVATED @ 700 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 700 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 700 MHz In-building => - 80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE CAMPBELL BEST SERVER PLOT @ 2100 MHz LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL DEACTIVATED @ 2100 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 2100 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 2100 MHz In-building => - 80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm Supplemental Verizon has plan to address coverage and capacity with Small Cell Densification Program but unable to move forward without MLA with City of Campbell (planned small cell not shown) Seen on the map are macro and small cell (San Jose) plan for the next 2 years CTC Telecommunications Network Consulting Wholly owned subsidiary of CTC Media Group, Inc. 1202 Pollock Street • New Bern, NC 28560 • Tel: 252-633-1490 • www.ctctnc.com Review of the Application of Crown Castle to Modify an Existing Wireless Facility Prepared for City of Campbell, California January 2023 Draft Findings Report for Client Preliminary Review Attachment - D Review of Wireless Applications – Campbell City of Campbell – January 2023 ii Contents 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Background on Cellular Antenna Siting Issues .............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Wireless Coverage ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels ................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Wireless Network Capacity .......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Overview of Verizon’s & T-Mobile Wireless Spectrum .................................................................................. 6 4 Analysis of Existing Verizon Coverage ........................................................................................................... 7 4.1 CTC'S Independent Coverage Modeling Results ........................................................................................... 8 5 Analysis of Existing T-Mobile Coverage ....................................................................................................... 11 5.1 CTC's Independent T-Mobile Coverage Modeling Results .......................................................................... 13 6 Impact lowering tower height with Respect to Radio Frequency Exposure ................................................. 16 7 Appendix – Technical Reference Documentation ........................................................................................ 20 Tables Table 1: Verizon & T-Mobile Wireless Band ........................................................................................................... 6 Figures Figure 1: Calculated Reliable 700 MHz Wireless Coverage Area ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Verizon 700 MHz Without McGlincy Lane Site ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map at 73.5' ........................................................................ 9 Figure 4: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 43.5' ......................................................... 10 Figure 5: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL ................................................ 11 Figure 6: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL without site SF64242S ............ 12 Figure 7: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map at 40.75' ................................................... 14 Figure 8: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 33.5' ....................................... 15 Figure 9: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 10: Area above the Tower RF Exposure Exceeds FCC Guidelines at Antenna Height .................................. 17 Figure 11: Existing RF Exposure Level with 75' Monopole (bearing 0 degrees) ..................................................... 18 Figure 12: Existing RF exposure level with 45' Monopole (Bearing 0 degrees) ..................................................... 19 Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 1 1 Executive Summary The City of Campbell, California, received an application from Crown Castle GT Company to modify an existing wireless facility at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. The application includes upgrading the monopole design to a stealth design (mono-eucalyptus). The following scope of work is proposed: • Install new faux eucalyptus branches on existing monopole • Install new faux eucalyptus socks on existing antennas • No change to the monopole structure, wireless radio equipment or backup powering is proposed The existing 75-foot monopole tower was constructed to accommodate co-location for three wireless carriers; currently there are two carriers on this tower, Verizon, and T-Mobile. The City has retained the engineering services of CTC Telecommunications Network Consultants, an independent telecommunications consulting firm, to provide a third-party review of Crown Castle's application. 1.1 Overview of Analysis CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the application concerning the applicant’s communications engineering materials and justification for modification of site. This report describes the documents we examined and the technical analysis we performed to reach conclusions about the application. Our analysis is confined to the technical aspects of the application and includes: • The are no technical changes proposed in the application to the existing wireless technical equipment; instead, the applicant is proposing to extend the overall height of the existing monopole tower by 4 feet to accommodate the faux eucalyptus branches and their mounting brackets. • The existing tower has a height of 75 feet, which exceeded the City's zoning code standards for wireless towers to a maximum height of 45 feet. • At the City's direction, CTC has prepared an independent examination of existing Verizon & T-Mobile coverage within the City of Campbell to determine the impact that reducing the antenna height will have on the coverage of wireless for both T-Mobile and Verizon. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 2 1.2 Summary of Findings We examined current coverage provide by both T-Mobile and Verizon from this site using site specific technical information provided by Crown Castle (the tower owner), coverage maps provided by both carriers (T-Mobile & Verizon) and independently prepared computer modeling software coverage maps to develop our findings. Our analysis covers the multiple wireless radio bands used by the wireless carriers. We also rely on information we have received from the wireless carriers on other similar Bay area wireless sites. Our report provides significant technical details on our findings and the methodology employed. In summary, reducing the existing tower from the current 75 feet to a total height of 45 feet-- including the adding the faux eucalyptus branches-- will have the following impact: • The Verizon antennas (currently mounted at 72.5' elevation) will be repositioned to 43.5'. Doing this will reduce Verizon's in-building coverage (this comparison is using the low- band 750 MHz which has the greatest reach) from 4.4 mi² to 3.4 mi² reduction of in- building coverage of 22.73%. For in-vehicle service, the coverage would decrease from 33.1 mi2 to 28.4 mi2 or by 14.2%. Likewise, for on-street service, the coverage would decrease from 94.7 mi2 to 83.5 mi2 or by 11.82%. • The existing tower is currently configured to support three wireless carriers (potential candidates include Dish and AT&T Wireless). Lowering the tower height will preclude adding any additional wireless carrier. Unfortunately, we have been advised by City staff that there is already an approved Dish Network deployment for this tower at a 53-foot RAD center elevation. While it may not have been constructed as of this report, the building permits have already been issued by the City. • The T-Mobile antennas which are currently mounted at 43.5' elevation would be repositioned to 38'. This will reduce T-Mobile's in-building coverage (this comparison is using the mid-band 2400 MHz band) from 0.5 mi² to 0.4 mi², a reduction of in-building coverage of 20%. For in-vehicle service, the coverage would decrease from 2.2 mi2 to 1.6 mi2 or by 27.3%. Likewise, for on-street service, the coverage would decrease from 9.3 mi2 to 7.4 mi2 or by 20.43%. • If there were to be another location acceptable for a new 75’ tower, it would have to be in close vicinity to the existing tower in order to satisfy the carriers’ coverage requirements, no more than 800 feet from the current location. If only 45-foot towers were available, we estimate that you would need a minimum of 4 45-foot towers (one at the original site to accommodate T-Mobile and 3 more for Verizon scattered nearby) to provide similar coverage. This does not account for the aforementioned newly approved Dish Network antennas and whatever their service coverage is expected to be. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 3 • Lowering the T-Mobile antennas will also increase the RF exposure level to persons working/traversing the area at ground level and on nearby rooftops. The increase will not exceed FCC guidelines for public safety; however, it may limit upgrades on T-Mobile radio equipment or buildings on adjacent lots. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 4 2 Background on Cellular Antenna Siting Issues This following brief discussion presents a framework for understanding our analysis of current wireless service provided by both Verizon and T-Mobile from the existing 75-foot monopole tower along with the methodology we employed to develop our findings. 2.1 Wireless Coverage Wireless coverage signal levels for modern 4G and 5G broadband services are determined by a carrier’s RF signal amplitude and signal quality within a desired service area. Signals need to be at a minimum amplitude to override radio frequency noise and interference other wireless radio towers (i.e., interference from other wireless sites). Signal levels also need to be maintained at a power intensity such that user devices are not constantly connecting and reconnecting (either because of a loss of signal or because an existing connection is receiving interference from an adjacent wireless access point). Handing off a user from one access site to another is part of the mechanics of dealing with users who are in motion. Verizon and T-Mobile use sophisticated encoding technology which permits higher transmission speeds in areas where signal levels are higher than those required for minimum data rate transfers. 2.2 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels The FCC has not set blanket technical standards for RF signal amplitude/quality for the networks that support commercial wireless services. Guidelines and target signal levels for the three recognized primary commercial services environments—outdoor coverage, in-vehicle coverage, and in-building coverage—have instead been generally established by the individual wireless service providers and wireless equipment manufacturers. For 4G technology—the wireless technology proposed by the carriers in this case—target signal power levels are specified in terms of logarithmic power ratios expressed in decibels (dB), with a reference level of 0 dBm being equal to 1 milliwatt of signal power. Signal power levels increase with positive dBm numbers and decrease with negative dBm numbers. A larger negative number correlates with a lower signal amplitude (e.g., -95 dBm is a weaker signal than -85 dBm) and a decreased ability to receive a signal and use the wireless service. Typically, in order to provide reliable in-building coverage, network engineers specify signal power levels of -85 dBm or greater, which is more than adequate to compensate for the attenuation of signal power caused by the absorption of signals through structural walls and internal wall partitions. Network designers target a lower signal power level (i.e., -95 dBm or greater) for in-vehicle service. Based on field tests we have conducted for numerous communities, our experience indicates that voice communications, texting, and email transmittal can often be reliably Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 5 conducted in vehicles at even lower signal power levels of -105 dBm. Adequate service in open- air, outdoor areas are typically achieved at even lower levels than in-vehicle settings. Wireless signal power intensity is graphically depicted on wireless coverage maps employing different color bands to indicate a range of signal powers. Typically, a color band covers a range of 5 to 10 dBm. For example, in the figures in this report, a yellow band corresponds to a signal power in the range from -95 dBm to -86 dBm to denote target in-vehicle levels. 2.3 Wireless Network Capacity Network capacity is a parameter associated with the ability of the network to address user requirements to wirelessly transfer voice, data, and video through radio signals. While signal amplitude (power) represents a key parameter for establishing a high-quality and stable signal, network capacity represents the volume of data the network can transport to concurrent users over a given time, often expressed as megabits per second. Wireless network capacity is determined by the complex interrelationship of factors such as the number and location of antennas, the number of concurrent users, and the number of wireless bands deployed in the service area. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 6 3 Overview of Verizon’s & T-Mobile Wireless Spectrum Verizon and T-Mobile currently deliver commercial wireless service in the City of Campbell via antennas mounted on buildings and towers. These traditional wireless facilities, which are designed to serve users in a 1- to 1.5 -mile radius or less in urban environments, are often referred to as “macro” sites. Both T-Mobile and Verizon provide commercial wireless service in six wireless bands in which FCC licenses (Table 1). The lower-bandwidth (data transmission capacity) 600 – 850 MHz bands can serve users that are located at greater distances from the antenna, absent any other factors that interfere with transmission/reception. The actual availability and quality of service surrounding the existing tower can vary based on ground topography and the signal attenuation caused by the clutter of buildings; this significantly affects coverage with radio spectrum in the 1,900 – 2,400 MHz mid-band. While each carrier has their own exclusive frequencies licensed by the FCC, all active subscribers to the carrier in the vicinity are actually sharing the same frequencies. So, it is possible (depending on the number of users served by the same antenna, as well as other factors) that users whose phones indicate that a signal is available will still have trouble connecting to the network or may experience a dropped call. Both T-Mobile and Verizon’s national wireless spectrum licenses give the companies substantially greater network bandwidth/capacity resources in the higher-frequency PCS, AWS, C-band, and millimeter wave bands (Table 1). Table 1: Verizon & T-Mobile Wireless Band1 Licensed FCC Spectrum Service Frequency UHF (low-band) 600/700 MHz Legacy voice cellular spectrum (low-band) 850 MHz Personal Communications Service (PCS) (mid-band) 1,900 MHz Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) (mid-band) 2,100 MHz Broadband Radio – T-Mobile (mid-band) 2,400 MHz C-band -Verizon (mid-band) 3,700 MHz 1 Source: Universal Licensing System (ULS), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 7 4 Analysis of Existing Verizon Coverage The existing wireless tower supports Verizon antennas at a radiation center 72.5 feet above ground level. Verizon delivers wireless service to customers in their FCC licensed 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1,900 MHz, and 2,100 MHz bands. Figure 1 is a computer-generated coverage map prepared by Verizon that depicts the coverage provided by McGlincy Lane (labeled Campbell on the map) along with the service areas of neighboring Verizon sites surrounding the McGlincy site in the 700 MHz band. The color of the coverage plot corresponds to the signal power intensity. The green areas define signal power intensity required to provide reliable in-building coverage. The yellow areas correspond to sign level adequate to serve in-vehicle communications. Red areas are the lowest signal threshold, adequate outdoor coverage. Figure 1: Calculated Reliable 700 MHz Wireless Coverage Area Figure 2 is a computer-generated plot of the Verizon service without the coverage provided by the McGlincy site. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 8 Figure 2: Verizon 700 MHz Without McGlincy Lane Site Without the McGlincy Lane activated, there would be no reliable in-building Verizon coverage within a radius of approximately 1 mile of the McGlincy site. In fact, would not be adequate Verizon coverage from adjacent sites to support reliable in-vehicle coverage in substantial portions of the McGlincy site coverage area. It should be noted that 700 MHz wireless provides the greatest coverage range of the FCC wireless radio bands. The higher frequency mid-band spectrum (See Table 1) supplements the 700 MHz service by increasing network capacity nearer the tower site. 4.1 CTC'S Independent Coverage Modeling Results CTC performed an independent analysis of existing Verizon coverage employing radio frequency propagation algorithms developed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The computer modeling software we use in our analysis employs satellite mapping databases that integrate terrain topology and clutter losses that impact radio coverage in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) wireless radio bands. Figure 3 is a coverage map in Verizon's 700 MHz wireless band generated by the ITU-based software. For this model we specified a minimum signal intensity of -85 dBm for in building coverage at 90% of the locations 95% of the time (Green contour). For in-vehicle, a signal power of 1/10 the in-building level (-95 dBm) and a minimum signal power of -105 dBm in open areas. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 9 Under the assumed performance parameters, the calculated in-building service area for the existing Verizon site is 4.4 square miles. Figure 4 is a coverage map illustrating the existing tower location maintaining the same performance criteria used for Figure 3. The only difference is the reduction of the Verizon antenna height. The lowering of the antenna reduces the net in-building coverage area from the current 4.4 mi² to 3.4 mi², a reduction of 1.0 square mile or 22.7% less. The Appendix contains details two pairs of similar coverage map plots for both 700 MHz low- band and the 2150 MHz mid-band, along with assumptions made in preparing the Verizon coverage exhibit. The lowering of the antenna reduces the net in-building coverage area in the Verizon 2150 MHz band from the current 0.7 mi² to 0.5 mi², a reduction of 0.1 square mile or 28.6% less. Figure 3: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map at 73.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 10 Figure 4: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 11 5 Analysis of Existing T-Mobile Coverage The existing wireless tower supports Verizon antennas at a radiation center 40.75 feet above ground level. T-Mobile delivers wireless service to customers in their FCC licensed 600/700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1,900 MHz, and 2,500 MHz bands. The applicant has submitted an analysis of the coverage area impact imposed by a height limitation of 45' for this wireless facility. Figure 5 is a computer-generated coverage map prepared by the applicant that depicts the coverage provided by McGlincy Lane (labeled SF64242S) along with the service areas of neighboring T-Mobile sites surrounding the McGlincy site in the 2,500 MHz band. The red shaded color code of the coverage plot corresponds to the signal power intensity. The darkest red areas define signal power intensity required to provide reliable in-building coverage. The lighter red areas correspond to sign level adequate to serve in-vehicle communications. The white areas indicate no reliable coverage from the sites depicted in the exhibit. Figure 5: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 12 Figure 6 is a computer-generated plot of the applicant coverage without any service provided by the McGlincy site, here depicted as tower “SF642425”. Figure 6: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL without site SF64242S As with the Verizon example, without the McGlincy Lane activated, there would be no reliable in-building Verizon coverage in the 2,500 MHz band within a radius of approximately 1 mile of the McGlincy site. Other exhibits provided by the applicant indicate that the adjacent sites operating in the T-Mobile 600 MHz band would address in-vehicle coverage in most areas currently served by the McGlincy site. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 13 5.1 CTC's Independent T-Mobile Coverage Modeling Results As with our Verizon Coverage analysis, CTC performed an independent analysis of existing T- Mobile coverage using radio frequency propagation algorithms developed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The computer modeling software we use in our analysis employs satellite mapping databases that integrate terrain topology and clutter losses that impact radio coverage in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) wireless radio bands. Figure 7 is a coverage map in T-Mobile 2,500 MHz wireless band generated by the ITU-based software. For this model we specified a minimum signal intensity of -85 dBm for in building coverage at 90% of the locations 95% of the time (Green contour). For in-vehicle, a signal power of 1/10 the in-building level (-95 dBm) and a minimum signal power of -105 dBm in open areas. Under the assumed performance parameters, the calculated in-building service area for the existing T-Mobile site is 0.5 square miles. Figure 8 is a coverage map illustrating the existing tower location, maintaining the same performance criteria used for Figure 7. The only difference is the reduction of the T-Mobile antenna height. The lowering of the antenna reduces the net in-building coverage area from the current 0.5 mi² to 0.4 mi², a reduction of 0.1 square mile or 20%. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 14 Figure 7: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map at 40.75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 15 Figure 8: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 33.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 16 6 Impact lowering tower height with Respect to Radio Frequency Exposure The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985. The current guidelines were adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65.2 The guidelines are expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field strength and power density. The guidelines, which cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz, address two separate tiers of exposure: 1. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. 2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Figure 9 is a plot of MPE as a function of radiofrequency (RF) human exposure as a function of the frequency spectrum. Note that the spectrum between 30 and 300 MHz is the most restrictive. All commercial wireless networks operate in spectrum above 600 MHz. Figure 9: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure 2 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65 Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 17 We received specifications for the radio equipment that are currently in use and are planned for this site. This information has been used to examine the radiation levels compliant with the FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals as adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65. We concur that the proposal is fully compliant with FCC’s limits of radiofrequency exposure. Figure 10 is a Google Earth map depicting the maximum distance radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna. Figure 11 is a graph depicting the maximum distance (in meters) radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna mounted on a 75' tower at a bearing of 0 degrees. Figure 12 is a graph depicting the maximum distance (in meters) radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna mounted on a 45' tower at a bearing of 0 degrees. Figure 10: Area above the Tower RF Exposure Exceeds FCC Guidelines at Antenna Height Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 18 Figure 11: Existing RF Exposure Level with 75' Monopole (bearing 0 degrees) Distances in meters Verizon Antenna T-Mobile Antenna Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 19 Figure 12: Existing RF exposure level with 45' Monopole (Bearing 0 degrees) Verizon Antenna T-Mobile Antenna Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 20 7 Appendix – Technical Reference Documentation Appendix A- 1: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHz – 75’ ............................................................................. 21 Appendix A- 2: Coverage Map Verizon 75' ........................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A- 3: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHZ – 43.5' .......................................................................... 23 Appendix A- 4: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' ........................................................................................................ 24 Appendix A- 5: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 2150 MHZ – 75' ........................................................................... 25 Appendix A- 6: Coverage Map Verizon 75' ........................................................................................................... 26 Appendix A- 7: Verizon RadioPlanner – 2150 MHZ – 43.5' ................................................................................... 27 Appendix A- 8: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' ........................................................................................................ 28 Appendix A- 9: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 40.75' .................................................................... 29 Appendix A- 10: Coverage Map T-Mobile 40.75' .................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A- 11: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 33.5'..................................................................... 31 Appendix A- 12: Coverage Map T-Mobile 33.5' .................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A- 13: Clutter Map of Study.................................................................................................................. 33 Appendix A- 14: Clutter Map Key ......................................................................................................................... 33 Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 21 Appendix A- 1: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHz – 75’ Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 22 Appendix A- 2: Coverage Map Verizon 75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 23 Appendix A- 3: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHZ – 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 24 Appendix A- 4: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 25 Appendix A- 5: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 2150 MHZ – 75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 26 Appendix A- 6: Coverage Map Verizon 75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 27 Appendix A- 7: Verizon RadioPlanner – 2150 MHZ – 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 28 Appendix A- 8: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 29 Appendix A- 9: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 40.75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 30 Appendix A- 10: Coverage Map T-Mobile 40.75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 31 Appendix A- 11: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 33.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 32 Appendix A- 12: Coverage Map T-Mobile 33.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 33 Appendix A- 13: Clutter Map of Study Appendix A- 14: Clutter Map Key To: Site and Architectural Review Committee Date: March 28, 2023 From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facility Address: 910 S. McGlincy Lane File No.: PLN-2021-43 (Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review) PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to allow for an increase in height (45-feet permitted, 75-feet requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. PROJECT SITE The project site is located on the east side of S. McGlincy Lane, north of Camden Avenue. The site has an existing 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility which presently supports three carriers (Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile) and includes a chain-link fenced ground mounted equipment area that includes cabinets and an emergency diesel generator. Figures 1 & 2: Project Site & Existing Tower/Enclosure BACKGROUND The existing wireless telecommunications facility was established in 1989 for a single carrier (GTE Mobilenet; now Verizon), at which time the regulation of wireless facilities were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Under the authority of the CPUC, compliance with local development standards (i.e., setbacks, height) and land use permit requirements (i.e., Conditional Use Permit, expiration dates) were not required1. 1 The facility did receive approval of a building permit in 1989 (#15263). MEMORANDUM Community Development Department Planning Division Attachment - E SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane On June 18, 1998, the City of Campbell established a Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1965) which established site development, design, as well as permit time limitations (expiration period) for both new and existing facilities (including those established without a time limit by the CPUC). Under this provision, the facility’s approval expired in 2003. In 2010, the Planning Commission granted two Conditional Use Permits allowing for the continued operation of this wireless facility until 2020 as well as the installation of the equipment for a second carrier further down the pole (Clearwire; now T-Mobile). In 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4140 allowing a Conditional Use Permit allowing for the installation of additional antennas, serving Verizon, and extending operations until March 21, 2024. In 2017, the City Council repealed and replaced the City’s Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance establishing a new Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.34) and associated Wireless Facility Design Requirements. The standards set a higher standard for the design and concealment of all facilities (including those seeking renewal), limited the maximum structure height to that allowed by the zoning district, and established permitting procedures for Eligible Facility Requests (EFR) which may allow for expansion of an existing facility, including the addition of additional carrier equipment without a public hearing or discretionary review when meeting certain requirements. In 2022, the city received and approved an EFR request for Dish Network on the subject property. PROJECT DATA Zoning District: M-1 (Light Industrial) General Plan Designation: Light Industrial Existing/Proposed Tower Requirement/Standard Structure Height: 75-feet2 45-feet DISCUSSION The purpose of the Site and Architectural Review Committee's (SARC) review is to provide feedback on site design, circulation, architectural form, materials, colors, and landscaping. To aid in the SARC review, staff has provided an analysis of key project details and raised points as appropriate to facilitate discussion of the subject Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Architectural Design: The design of any new wireless communications facility is largely governed by the City’s Wireless Facility Design Requirements (hereinafter “WFDR”). As the applicant is proposing a faux Eucalyptus tree pole (a type of concealed tower facility), the design requirements specify that the review should include “an assessment of the appropriate tree species, shape, and size, as well as the quality and longevity of materials (branches & bark), color, and finish in consideration of the facilities’ surroundings”. In addition to the general review criteria, all faux tree facilities are required to comply with the following standards, which substantively overlap with the assessment criteria (responses from staff below each point in italics): a. The tree species shall be selected based on its proposed surroundings and ideally placed in an established grove of trees of comparable size, height, species and shape as the proposed. 2 Calculation does not include branches which are considered exempt. Further discussion of eligibility of the facility at the requested height shall be brought forward as part of the Planning Commission discussion. SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane While a ‘faux’ eucalyptus tree is generally a preferred tree species by the WFDR (as they offer the greatest screening where the antennas are mounted), in consideration of the project site and surrounding area there are no other observed eucalyptus trees. The nearest trees of a comparable size are deodar cedars located approximately 150-feet to the north, and southeast of the existing tower. Figures 3 & 4 – Surrounding Trees (Views from the North and South) Given the presence of existing deodar cedar trees in the area, staff would recommend revising the tree species to mimic a deodar cedar and requiring additional deodar trees to be planted onsite (preferred). Alternatively, the SARC may consider maintaining the eucalyptus tree or reconsidering the selection of a tree design entirely in favor of an alternative concealment approach – such as a bell tower, art feature, or similar concealment approach. While not recommended by staff, two examples of such an approach from the WFDR are presented below for reference: Figures 5 & 6 – Alternative Tower Concealment Methods b. Utilize faux trees that replicate the shape, structure, height, and color of live trees. Depending on the species selected, the faux tree should be designed to mimic the design of the tree it is intended to represent. While examples of deodar cedar trees were previously provided (see Figures 3 & 4) examples of eucalyptus trees (while recognizing there are many species) in comparison to the applicant’s proposal have been provided for reference as follows: SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Figures 7 to 9 – Photosimilation vs. Real Eucalyptus Trees In consideration of the shape/color staff finds the applicants proposal fairly representative of a eucalyptus tree given the location and constraints of trying to retrofit an existing tower. c. The canopy shall completely envelop all tower-mounted equipment and extend beyond the tower-mounted equipment at least 18 inches. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-3 of the project plans. d. The canopy shall be naturally tapered to mimic the particular tree species. See related discussion under ‘b’ above. e. All faux trees must incorporate a sufficient number of branches (no less than 3 branches per foot) and design materials so that the structure is as natural in appearance as possible. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. f. Where branches are connected to the pole, the branches shall make a seamless connection with the faux bark cladding. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. g. All tower-mounted equipment, including, without limitation, antennas, equipment cabinets, cables, mounts and brackets, shall be painted flat, natural colors to mimic the bark or branches of the particular tree species based on the predominant backdrop. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. h. All antennas and other tower-mounted equipment cabinets shall be covered with leaf or needle “socks” to blend in with the faux foliage. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. i. The entire vertical structure shall be covered with permanently-affixed three- dimensional faux bark cladding to mimic the particular tree species. SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. j. All coaxial cables must be routed directly from the ground up through the pole. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. CONSIDERATIONS The SARC should discuss the proposed project's design, with a specific emphasis on the following discussion points: • Should the facility be designed as a eucalyptus tree, alternative tree species, or a different concealed facility type (i.e., bell tower)?  Staff Recommendation: The facility should be designed to mimic a deodar cedar tree in consideration of the site context; additional deodar cedar trees should be required to be planted onsite to meet the intent of the WFDR. • Should the shape of the tree be altered in any way to better mimic the desired species?  Staff Recommendation: The facility should be redesigned as a deodar cedar tree. • Should a non-tree stealth option be considered (e.g., bell tower)?  Staff Recommendation: See above; staff recommends redesign of the facility as a deodar cedar tree. Attachments: A. Project Plans Item No. 3 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ March 22, 2023 PLN-2022-158 Public Hearing to consider the request of Loretz Construction, Inc. on behalf of David M. Foulkes, Trustee, for a Zoning Exception to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") previously approved by a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04), on a Landmark Property listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, located at 1690 Littleton Place in the R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District), including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non-conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment A), recommending that the City Council approve a Zoning Exception (PLN-2022-158). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the determination that this application is Categorically Exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources, provided that the activity is consistent with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. PROJECT DATA Zoning Designation: R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential (less than 4.5 units/gr. acre) Net Lot Area: 25,996 square-feet 9,000 square-feet (Min. Required) Density: 1.5 units/gr. acre 4.5 units/gr. acre. (Max. Allowed) Building Height ("Carriage House"): 25-feet (Max. Height) | 18-feet (Proposed Addition) Building Square Footage "Carriage House" (ADU): Existing Living Area (1st-flr): 916 square feet Existing Living Area (2nd-flr): 515 square feet Proposed Living Area (1st-flr): 109 square feet Proposed Attached Garage: 557 square feet 2,096 square feet (Total "Carriage House") Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 2 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. Primary Residence (Landmark) Existing Living Area (1st-flr): 2,037 square feet Existing Living Area (2nd-flr): 2,042 square feet 4,089 square feet (Total Primary Residence) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .25 ± .45 (Max. Allowed) Building (Lot) Coverage: 15% ± 40% (Max. Allowed) Parking: 2 spaces (covered) 2 spaces required Setbacks ("Carriage House"): Proposed Required Front (north): 70 feet 20 feet Side (east): 7 feet 4 feet Side (west): 105 feet 4 feet Rear (south): 6 feet 4 feet DISCUSSION Project Site: The 0.60 acre project site is located along Littleton Place, a small cul-de-sac off Harriet Avenue, between Westmont and Hacienda Avenues, within the San Tomas Area, as shown on the aerial map, below. The property is surrounded by residences on all sides. The property is developed with a single-family residence in a neo-classical style constructed circa 1905, commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House (reference Attachment B – Site Photographs). The house was designated as a landmark by the City Council on February 19, 1991, through adoption of Ordinance No. 1831 (reference Attachment C)1. According to the City's DPR form (reference Attachment D), the home was constructed by the Littletons, an English couple who sold the property shortly thereafter to A.J. and Harriet Martin (for whom Harriet Avenue is named). A more detailed synopsis of the property's origin and history is provided in the Project Evaluation prepared by Mark Sandoval Architects, Inc., and submitted by the applicant, included as Attachment E. 1 Prior to the estate's subdivision, the property had been addressed as1228 Harriet Avenue Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 3 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. Property Background: The property is currently developed with the Littleton-Martin House along with a secondary structure colloquially referred to as the "carriage house". The "carriage house," and a separate barn structure were part of the original estate but became separated from the principal residence when the property was subdivided shortly after its landmark designation. Although the City allowed demolition of both the "carriage house" and the barn structure, the "carriage house" was ultimately preserved by its relocation onto the same newly created parcel as the Littleton-Martin House. The use of the "carriage house" as a legal second dwelling was formalized to what today would be classified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) by the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04 ) on June 11, 1996 (reference Attachment F – PC Resolution No. 3031). During this period, ADUs were not ministerial and instead required approval of a Conditional Use Permit and were limited to a height of 14-feet. In addition, the Planning Commission approved a Variance (V 96-01) that allowed an exceedance to the 14-foot building height maximum to allow a 25-foot building height, in recognition of the unusual circumstances of the Landmark property. Additionally, during this period ADUs were also limited to a maximum living area of 640 square- feet, compared to the current standard of 1,200 square-feet. However, the Zoning Code had also provided an exception to the 640 square-foot maximum for properties that exceeded 250% the minimum lot area of their zoning district (e.g., a 15,000 square-foot lot in an R-1-6 Zoning District). Such properties were permitted to have an ADU as large as the applicable floor-area- ratio (FAR) and Building Lot Coverage would allow. As such, the 1,431 square-foot "carriage house" was permissible without a Variance for its size in 1996. This exception was eliminated when the City adopted its modern ADU ordinance in 2016 largely due to its very limited use.2 Proposal: The application for a Zoning Exception would allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion of the existing "carriage house," including the proposed 557 square-foot garage and 109 square-foot additional living area accommodating a walk-in closet and additional bathroom (reference Attachment G – Project Plans). The project would include removal of an existing deck located to the rear of the "carriage house," and construction of a concrete driveway to replace existing asphalt through the interior of the property. Administrative Procedure: The following explains the need for the requested Zoning Exception and why neither a Historic Resource Alteration Permit nor a Tree Removal Permit are required for the project.  Zoning Exception: Listed under the "Incentives for preserving Historic Resources" section of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Sec. 21.33.150), a Zoning Exception is a land use permit intended to "provide a degree of flexibility from the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to minimize impact to the historic character of a historic resource." This mechanism may be utilized to consider a deviation from any zoning code standard, provided that the City Council, as the decision-making body, can affirmatively establish the findings for approval, as discussed under 'Analysis'. 2 Additionally, per California Government Code § 65589.5, in cases where the general plan and zoning ordinance do not match, a project is only required to comply with the general plan. As such, properties with an R-1 "single-family" zoning designation that are sufficiently large to accommodate two dwellings on a gross acre basis per their General Plan designation are permitted to construct two primary dwelling units. As a result, there is no need to grant a special allowance to overly-sized properties to allow for larger ADUs. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 4 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. The Zoning Exception was restructured in the 2018 Historic Preservation Ordinance update having previously been called a "Historic Exception". Although the Zoning Exception process in its current iteration has yet to be used, the City did approve two Historic Exceptions prior to 2018. This included a 2015 Historic Exception approval that allowed an increase of the maximum FAR to permit an expansion of a mezzanine into a full-level floor within the Grower's National Bank Building. In 2017, a Historic Exception approval allowed an addition to the single-family residence located at 20 Alice Avenue that resulted in a 5-ft building separation between the house and detached garage where 10-feet would normally be required. Because of the 2016 ADU Ordinance update, the "carriage house" is now a legal non- conforming structure because it exceeds the current living area maximum of 1,200 square- feet (CMC Sec. 21.23.030.G). It also became non-conforming with regard to the placement, height, and design requirements for ADUs on historic properties (CMC Sec. 21.23.060), adopted as part of the 2019 ADU Ordinance update. As a result, any additional living area or attachment of a garage, no matter the size, is prohibited under the Zoning Code's non-conforming ("grandfathered") provisions (CMC Sec. 21.58.050.D.1). The requested Zoning Exception would allow exceptions to these limitations to allow the proposed addition. Note that the proposed Zoning Exception request does not include a setback exception because the proposed addition exceeds the State requirement of 4-feet for ADUs.  Historic Resource Alteration Permit: The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that "any alteration to a landmark or historic district property" must be approved through a Historic Resource Alteration Permit request (CMC Sec. 21.33.080). The definition for the term "alteration," below, makes reference to changes to the "historic resource," which itself is defined as the "building or structure or portion thereof or assemblage thereof…" located on a designated property. "Alteration (alter)" means any exterior modification or change to a historic resource, including, but not limited to, material change, addition, and new construction. Alteration shall not include ordinary maintenance and repair. "Historic Resource" means a structure of merit, landmark, or historic district property that has been officially designated on the historic resources inventory as having aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value of a historical nature in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, and supported under city, state, or national review criteria (e.g., completed DPR 523 Forms, architectural questionnaire). A historic resource can be a building or structure or portion thereof or assemblage thereof, object, site, place, district or contributing member to a district, sign, landscape, natural feature. This application was initially accepted as an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit under the assumption that the "carriage house" structure was a defined component of the property's landmark designation. However, the City Council's landmark designation—per Ordinance No. 1831—was limited to the Littleton-Martin House only, not any ancillary structures or the grounds. This was specifically noted in a July 11, 1994, HPB Staff Report to consider the historical assessment of the Littleton-Martin House that stated, "the carriage house, barn, and the property surrounding the historic landmark were not included in the historic landmark designation." As such, this proposal does not require a Historic Resource Alteration Permit because the "carriage house" is not considered a component of the designated historic resource. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 5 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl.  Tree Removal Permit: This application proposes to remove nine (9) trees, as listed in the applicant's tree inventory table (of trees in the immediate area of the proposed addition): The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance establishes two sets of rules governing the specific types of trees that are considered "protected" and therefore require approval of a Tree Removal Permit to remove. The general rule is that the removal of any tree (excepting Eucalyptus) larger than 12-inches in diameter (DBH) requires a permit, except for "developed single-family residential properties," as defined, below, where only Oak, Redwood, Cedar, and Ash trees are "protected." "Developed single-family residential property" means any legal lot of record with a minimum net lot area of six thousand square feet that is developed with a main dwelling unit and zoned either "single-family" (R-1), or "planned development" (PD), and cannot be further subdivided into additional lots under its current zoning designation. Although the definition of developed a "single-family residential property" would generally exclude a property as large as the project site, due to the potential for further subdivision, the property's landmark designation actually precludes its subdivision without an amendment to the landmark boundary, which would constitute a Zoning Map Amendment. As a result, the subject property is defined as "developed single-family residential property," such that none of the trees proposed for removal require a Tree Removal Permit. ANALYSIS Findings for Approval: In order to recommend approval of the Zoning Exception, the Commission must affirmatively determine the project meets findings for approval. Findings establish the evidentiary basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval necessary to meet the findings. The applicant has submitted a statement (reference Attachment H) that provides a background of the property, the personal basis for the request, and his assessment of the required findings for a Zoning Exception. The following identifies each finding in italics, followed by the applicant's statements and staff's assessment: Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 6 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. 1. The zoning exception will facilitate development and use of a historic resource in a manner that is more consistent with its historic character than would be possible under strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; Applicant Statement: The proposed location of the garage would have no impact on the historical character of the home or carriage house for the following reasons:  My property is unique, having the original house now backwards on the property with the dramatic front of the house facing the back yard. Next to it the carriage house is facing the street, so to preserve the two historic vantage points, I cannot put a garage in front of the carriage house nor behind the main house.  The property has a 300 plus year old heritage oak tree on the property and with the canopy and root system takes up a large part of the yard which otherwise could house a garage.  There is an easement running through the property from one side to the other for storm drain access by the city, so that cannot be built on, eliminating the other corner of the property.  Given those restrictions, there is no place on the property that a garage can be built without impacting the character of the house except the small notch of land behind the carriage house – which is now a rickety and relatively recently build deck.  The location of the garage would not impact the historic views of either house. It would not obstruct any historic characteristics of the carriage house as the rear of the house was remodeled and changed sometime in the 1970’s.  The neighbors would not be impacted as their garages line both sides of the notch property – one being 2 feet from my fence line and the other being around 4 feet. Our project would have a larger setback that either of those with landscaping to hide the garage from the neighbors.  Finally, as the carriage house originally held carriages and subsequently cars, it would be returning to its original function, in the same location vis a vis the building where the carriages/cars would have been historically – before the carriage house was moved onto the current parcel from across the street. Staff Assessment: At question with this finding is, could the applicant construct the proposed garage (the primary purpose of the proposal), as a detached structure, in a manner consistent with the applicable zoning standards without impairing the landmark structure. Several factors weigh in this question:  Firstly, the property is encumbered by a 15-foot storm-drain easement that crosses the extent of the property, limiting a wide-swath of property from development.  Secondly, the Zoning Code precludes placement of accessory structures in the front half of the lot and/or in front of the main house, requiring such structures to be placed behind (or to the side of) the main house and on the rear half of the lot. However, placement of a detached garage behind the house would obscure the view of the structure's principal frontage by restricting the ability of a viewer to see structure head-on. This placement could, arguably, diminish the historic integrity of the landmark structure in a manner that could be seen as inconsistent with The Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 7 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which speaks to the need to not overly disturb the relationship between buildings and site features on a property.  Lastly, a large "protected" Oak tree at the southwest corner of the property would make it challenging to construct a detached garage in that location due to the need to stay away from the critical root zone of the tree. As illustrated, below, the combination of these factors restricts placement of a detached garage on the property, such that the applicant's proposed location would be more consistent with the landmark's historic character than would be possible under strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The zoning exception will not adversely impact property or public rights-of-way in the surrounding neighborhood or within a historic district; Applicant Statement: The original home was a large farm with a large barn and carriage house in the back of the property which is now the cul de sac and other homes. With the carriage house moved onto the current property and the house now backwards facing the back yard – the goal of this project would be to unify the property and reincorporate the carriage house and yard into a seamless and beautiful homestead. With the addition of the garage – my historic cars would be preserved and visible while not creating an eyesore on the property or something out of character. I would be able to then remove a great deal of pavement in the yard and return it to the wonderful gardens it once was. The carriage house would lose its “separate” identity with gates and a separate entrance (currently making it appear to be a separate property) and be unified with the main house. This would return both homes in a single unified property as it had been in the past. Strict complying with the current zoning is inconsistent with any of the surrounding homes, and would diminish rather than enhance the views of the historic home and its functionality. Staff Assessment: The proposed addition would not be generally visible from the right-of- way, given its placement to the rear of the "carriage house". Although the project would result in a structure closer to the rear property line, State law has already established the permissibility for ADUs to be located as close as 4-feet against side and rear property lines. In comparison, the proposed addition would result in a 6-ft+ setback, comparable to the setback requirement for detached accessory structures under the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP). Not allowed in front half of the lot Not allowed in front half of the lot or in front of the main house Not allowed in storm- drain easement Should not obscure the view of the landmark's principal frontage. Large oak tree would have an expansive critical root zone, making it difficult to construct a detached garage. Easement Street Proposed Location Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 8 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. 3. The zoning exception will not negatively impact the integrity or historic characteristics of the historic resource; Applicant Statement: As mentioned above, the historic aspects of the carriage house are the front and sides with the original architectural features and siding. The rear of the property where the garage would be added was re-done in the 1970’s with aluminum windows and non-original siding. The deck off the house is poor newer construction. None of the historic features of the house would be damaged, the new roof and painting would do much to protect the entire structure from the decay is it currently experiencing, and the addition would have architectural features which match the historic nature of the building while meeting all of the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for additions. Staff Assessment: The proposed project would not physically alter the Landmark structure. And as noted, in Finding No. 1, the proposal would not obscure the view of this resource, in keeping with the guidance of The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 4. The zoning exception is the minimum departure from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and Applicant Statement: We have spent several months with my architect who specializes in historic preservation and restoration looking for the absolute best way to minimize impact on the property and to meet the zoning ordinance. I believe this plan achieves those goals. As mentioned, we would have a much larger setback than either of the garages that currently line the fence where the garage would be located. The dimensions of the garage are necessary to fit the cars, and my mother’s need for a closet, but do not go beyond that. Our original plans for a 4-car garage were scrapped because of the impact on the property. Of the 6 properties that connect to my fence line – none of them meeting current zoning requirements. We are asking for the minimum needed in the only feasible space on my larger than ½ acre property to allow me to bring my cars home. Staff Assessment: As noted, the requested Zoning Exception is only required because the City's 2016 and 2019 ADU Ordinance updates rendered the "carriage house" a non- conforming structure, preventing any expansion. To the extent the request allows a modest expansion of the structure that otherwise would have been permitted prior to 2016, which complies with current setback and height requirements for an ADU, and with the property's FAR and Lot Coverage maximums, this proposal can be said to be a minimum departure from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Moreover, the exceedance of the maximum 1,200 square-foot ADU area is nominal because attached garages are not included against this maximum, only living area is. In this regard, the 109 square feet addition for the walk-in closet and bathroom would only increase the "carriage house" living area by 7.5%, from 1,431 square-feet to 1,540 square- feet, which is also minimum departure from current requirements. 5. The zoning exception is in conformance with the General Plan, adopted area plan, and applicable design guidelines. Applicant Statement: The carriage house was moved onto the property from its original site across the street and treated by the city as an ADU before current ADU guidelines were Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 9 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. established. Thus, it was grandfathered in. The setbacks for the garage exceed any of the setbacks for other garages that abut my property. The General Plan and design guidelines for Campbell require that this project be located in the area behind the carriage house as any other location on the lot would have a much greater violation of the city’s guidelines. Thus, the need for the zoning exception. Staff Assessment: As an ADU, the proposed structure is not subject to the design standards of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. However, one of the requested deviations of the Zoning Exception is relief from the design standards for ADUs on historic properties:  Type. Only detached and interior accessory dwelling units shall be permitted. The current "carriage house" would continue to comply with this requirement.  Placement. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be placed behind the primary dwelling unit and be located on the rear half of the lot. The existing "carriage house" is already situated on the property in a manner inconsistent with standard, such that an expansion to the rear of the structure would not result in a materially different relationship between the structures or the visibility of the "carriage house" from the street.  Height. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be a maximum of eighteen feet in height and not exceed one story. The proposed addition would comply with this standard.  Design. The design of the detached accessory dwelling unit shall maintain the appearance of the primary dwelling unit, by using similar wall cladding, trim detail, roofing material, building color(s), window frames/trim and divisions, and the predominant roof form and roof pitch. The "carriage house" already had a distinct architectural style from the landmark structure. The proposed garage addition would maintain this distinction in order to ensure that the addition is architecturally consistent with the "carriage house". Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC): This application did not require review by the SARC. Historic Preservation Board (HPB): The HPB reviewed this application at its March 22, 2023 meeting and recommended approval on a 3-0-1-1 vote (Board Member Foulkes abstaining, and Board Member Corteway absent). The Board’s discussion was brief, with a question as to why the Board was reviewing the application since the “carriage house” was not a component of the landmark designation (reference Attachment J – Meeting Minutes). Public Comment: One email was received from a neighbor in opposition to the project (reference Attachment I). Attachments: A. Draft Resolution Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2023 Page 10 of 10 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. B. Site Photographs C. City Council Ordinance No. 1831 D. DPR Form E. Project Evaluation, Mark Sandoval Architects, Inc F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3031 G. Project Plans H. Applicant Statement I. Neighbor Email J. HPB Meeting Minutes Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 46__ BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 666 SQUARE-FOOT EXPANSION (INCLUSIVE OF A 557 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE ADDITION AND 109 SQUARE-FOOT LIVING AREA ADDITION) OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ("CARRIAGE HOUSE") PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (UP 96-04), ON A LANDMARK PROPERTY LISTED ON THE CAMPBELL HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY (HRI), COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE LITTLETON-MARTIN HOUSE, LOCATED AT 1690 LITTLETON PLACE IN THE R-1-9-H (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / HISTORIC OVERLAY) COMBINING ZONING DISTRICT), INCLUDING EXCEEDANCE OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AN EXCEPTION TO THE EXPANSION PROHIBITION FOR LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES. FILE NO.: PLN-2022-158 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2022-158: 1.The Project Site is zoned R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District), on the City of Campbell Zoning Map and within the boundaries of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP). 2.The Project Site is designated Low Density Residential (<4.5 units/gr. acre) on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram. 3.The Project Site is an approximately 26,000 square-foot parcel located along Littleton Place, a small cul-de-sac off Harriet Avenue, between Westmont and Hacienda Avenues. 4.The Project Site is developed with a single-family residence in a neo-classical style constructed circa 1905, commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, a designated Landmark on the City of Campbell Historic Preservation Inventory. 5.The Landmark designation was granted by the City Council on February 19, 1991, through adoption of Ordinance No. 1831. This designation was limited to the principal structure—the Littleton-Martin House—and did not extend to the "carriage house", barn, or grounds. 6.On June 11, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3031 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow use of the "carriage house" as an "additional living unit" (Accessory Dwelling Unit). Attachment - A Planning Commission Resolution No. ____ Page 2 of 4 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. – Zoning Exception 7. Due to changes to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) requirement made in 2016 and 2019, the "carriage house" ADU was rendered a non-conforming structure because it now exceeds the current living area maximum of 1,200 square- feet (CMC Sec. 21.23.030.G) and with regard to the placement, height, and design requirements for ADUs on historic properties (CMC Sec. 21.23.060), respectively. As a result, any additional living area or attachment of a garage, no matter the size, is prohibited under the Zoning Code's non-conforming provisions (CMC Sec. 21.58.050.D.1). 8. The Proposed Project is an application for a Zoning Exception to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of the "carriage house" ADU, including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non-conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties. 9. The Proposed Project does not include a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit because the alteration to the "carriage house" does not directly affect the "historic resource," which per Ordinance No. 1831 is limited to the principal structure only. 10. The Proposed Project is limited in such a way that construction of a garage as a detached structure cannot reasonably be achieved in a manner consistent with the applicable zoning standards without impairing the landmark structure in that the subject property is encumbered by a 15-foot storm-drain easement that crosses the extent of the property; the Zoning Code precludes placement of accessory structures in the front half of the lot and/or in front of the main house, requiring such structures to be placed behind (or to the side of) the main house and on the rear half of the lot; placement of a detached garage behind the house would obscure the view of the structure's principal frontage by restricting the ability of a viewer to see structure head-on, diminishing the historic integrity of the landmark structure in a manner that could be seen as inconsistent with The Secretary of the Interior's Standard; and a large "protected" Oak tree at the southwest corner of the property restricts construction activity due to the need to avoid the critical root zone of the tree. 11. 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 CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible. Strategy LUT-9.3j: Landmark Preservation: Encourage preservation of existing landmark features on buildings and on building sites. Planning Commission Resolution No. ____ Page 3 of 4 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. – Zoning Exception 12. Approval of a Zoning Exception does not relieve the property owners from the requirements of the Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Campbell Municipal Code. 13. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project. 14. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the Proposed Project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The zoning exception will facilitate development and use of a historic resource in a manner that is more consistent with its historic character than would be possible under strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The zoning exception will not adversely impact property or public rights-of-way in the surrounding neighborhood or within a historic district; 3. The zoning exception will not negatively impact the integrity or historic characteristics of the historic resource; 4. The zoning exception is the minimum departure from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 5. The zoning exception is in conformance with the General Plan, adopted area plan, and applicable design guidelines; and 6. This project is is Categorically Exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources, provided that the activity is consistent with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a Zoning Exception to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") previously approved by a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04), on a Landmark Property listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, located at 1690 Littleton Place in the R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District), including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non- conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties, subject to the attached Recommended Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). Planning Commission Resolution No. ____ Page 4 of 4 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. – Zoning Exception PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Adam Buchbinder, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Zoning Exception PLN-2022-158 Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division: 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Zoning Exception to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") previously approved by a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04), on a Landmark Property listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, located at 1690 Littleton Place, including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non-conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment 'G' in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 25, 2023, except as may be modified by conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration: The Zoning Exception ("Approval") shall be valid for one (1) year from the effective date of City Council approval (expiring May 16, 2024). Within this one-year period a Building Permit for the project must be issued pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.030.B.1. Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of an issued Building Permit shall result in the Approval being rendered void. 3. Minor Revisions: Architectural refinements and other minor revisions to the Approved Project Plans may be administratively approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.060. 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. Deed Restriction: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall sign a new deed restriction in conformance with Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Campbell Municipal Code. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 3 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. 6. Fences/Walls: Except as noted below, any newly proposed fencing and/or walls shall comply with Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.18.060 and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 7. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: As a new construction project with a total project landscape area equal to or less than 2,500 square feet, this project is subject to the updated California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and may comply with the Prescriptive Compliance Option in Appendix D. This document is available on the City of Campbell's website at: http://www.cityofcampbell.com/DocumentCenter/View/176 or on the Planning Division’s Zoning and Land Use webpage through www.cityofcampbell.com. The building permit application submittal shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable MWELO and landscaping requirements and shall include the following: a. Planting and Irrigation Plans that meet all requirements of the Prescriptive Compliance Option in Appendix D. b. A completed Landscape Information Form. c. 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.” Note: If the project landscape area increases during the course of the project, additional requirements will apply. 8. On-Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 9. Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements during construction: a. The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 3 PLN-2022-158 ~ 1690 Littleton Pl. c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition. d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses. f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell. Building Division: 11. Permit Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed project. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 12. Conditions of Approval: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. 13. Construction Fencing: This project shall be properly enclosed with construction fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the site during construction. The construction site shall be secured to prevent vandalism and/or theft during hours when no work is being done. All protected trees shall be fenced to prevent damage to root systems. Attachment - B Attachment - C Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #:Littleton- Martin House P1. Other Identifier: Campbell Landmark *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 1228 Harriet Ave. (now 1690 Littleton Place) 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: 403-13-129 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Two story house, red brick foundation, with wood shiplap exterior siding. Low gable composition shingled roof, with monumental triangular pediment over main entrance. Boxed cornices, plain, with enclosed rafter ends. Half-round window over entry, which consists of glass door, framed by narrow rectangular windows at either side. Balcony over open front porch area; pediment is supported by four large round columns. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Front Façade, 07/24/07 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Historic  Prehistoric Both Estimated 1905 *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: (Name,affiliation, and address)Peggy Coats Campbell Museum 51 N. Central Campbell, CA 95008 *P9. Date Recorded: May 1986 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) *P11. Report Citation: (Citesurvey report and other sources, orenter "none.") Inventory Update *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Attachment - D *NRHP Status Code Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: Littleton House – A.J. and Harriet Martin House B2. Common Name: Littleton- Martin House B3. Original Use: Farm House B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: Portico suggests shades of classical Greek revival, and Victorian Gothic characteristics, the rest of the house is “traditional Clapboard” *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: 1228 Harriet Ave *B8. Related Features: Many ancient oak trees, and two carriage houses. B9a. Architect: b. Builder: J. W. Littletons *B10. Significance: Theme Architecture Area Period of Significance Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This house was built around 1905 on a 26 acre site owned by the Littletons, and English couple, who occupied it for only a short while before returning to England, reported due to displeasure over the noise emanating from the Vasona Junction cutoff railroad (built 1907) near Pollard road. Harriet and A.J. Martin then purchased the place, where she lived after his death prior to 1936. Harriet Avenue in Campbell was named after her. In 1936, Mrs. Martin married Arthur Michael Roesch, and the house was sold in 1938. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of July 11, 1994 Telephone Interview with Mrs. Ralph (Mary Barbara Roesch) 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.) New Garage Addition To the Existing Littleton/Martin Carriage House Located at 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation Prepared for Mike Foulkes 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA 95008 Date: 11/5/22 Attachment - E 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project EvaluationM. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 1 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT The current owner of the property located at 1690 Littleton Place wishes to add a two-car garage, walk-in closet, and small bathroom to an existing one-and-a-half-story residence that shares the property with the Historic Littleton/Martin House. Improvements shall include both restoration work to existing areas of the small structure affected by the new addition, including replacement of the roof, limited electrical and plumbing upgrades, and painting of the exterior of the building, along with site work and new driveway improvements. All new construction work including the proposed new garage addition will be located at the rear of the building, and shall be attached to the single-story portion of the building that is not original. LITTLETON/MARTIN HOUSE (HISTORICAL CONTEXT) The subject property is located on a relatively flat 0.6-acre lot situated on the western side of Littleton Place between Westmont Avenue and Harriet Avenue in the City of Campbell. The largest of the six individual family lots found within this subdivision, the lot is occupied by two residential structures. The first is a very large two-story historic neoclassical-styled farmhouse designed by the notable San Jose architectural firm of Frank Wolfe and Charles McKenzie in the early 1900s and is also a City Historic Landmark known as the Littleton/Martin House (designated in 1989). The second is a smaller one-and-a-half-story residential structure, also referred to as the “Carriage House.” Records show, albeit not necessarily conclusively, that both residential structures, along with a barn (previously demolished), may have been constructed around the same time by Augustus W. Littleton as part of his original 15-acre estate property, which he had purchased from Ella and George Beaver in 1901. It is believed that Littleton began to acquire additional adjacent properties, eventually acquiring an estate totaling over 70 acres. The noise from the newly constructed railroad line, however, apparently disturbed Mrs. Littleton’s peaceful recuperations, and when she could no longer tolerate the noise of the trains passing by the nearby Vasona Junction, the Littletons sold the property to Mr. W. J. Conatser and returned to Oxford, England, in 1908. The ownership chronology appears to be unavailable between this period and the property’s acquisition by A. J. and Harriet Martin. Oral tradition tells us that around the 1920s, the Martins were credited with constructing a small residence. Although no evidence has surfaced to prove or disprove the notion, this small new residence may have simply been a conversion of the Littletons’ original carriage house, constructed sometime before 1908, into a habitable guest or servant quarters space. After the death of her husband, Harriet married her widowed next-door neighbor, Arthur M. Roesch, in 1936. Roesch was employed as a supervisor for the Flying A Gas Company and maintained an orchard and a chicken ranch near the intersection of Fawn Avenue and Archer Way. Formally known as Allendale Avenue, Harriet Avenue was dedicated in 1937. Harriet Roesch would sell 15 acres to Felice and Mary Helen Bersano in 1938. The Bersanos were the owners of Villa Felice restaurant in Saratoga. An active member of the Orchid Society, Mrs. Bersano raised orchids on the property in addition to maintaining the orchards. 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 2 Project Evaluation In 1953, the Bersanos sold 5 acres containing the farmhouse, barn, and small residence to James and Louise Tolosano. The Bersanos retained the remaining 10 acres, but as a provision of the sale, they recorded an easement for irrigation and water lines between the two properties. The Tolosanos had resided for many years on North Fourth Street in San Jose, where James worked for a trucking company and Louise worked as an office manager. After their move to Campbell, they also harvested fruit from their small orchard. In the 1960s, the Tolosanos subdivided the property, moing several rental houses on the lots facing Harriet Avenue. In 1977, they sold the property fronting Hacienda Avenue to a townhouse complex. Later, Mrs. Tolosano split the remaining acreage so that she retained a half-acre with the farmhouse and her son James the remaining 1.39 acres of land occupied by the original barn and small residence, in addition to other outbuildings. In 1992, the City Council approved the subdivision of the property, with the Littleton/Martin neoclassical farmhouse occupying the largest of six individual lots. On July 20, 1994, the Preservation Board for the City of Campbell conditionally approved the demolition of both the barn and the small residence by the then-current owner of the property, James Tolosano, subject to the photo documentation and salvage of the two buildings. Fortunately, the demolition of this small one-and-a-half-story residence was avoided because of an agreement reached by the developer Bruce Bowen and David Rogers (who owned the lot occupied by the Littleton/Martin Home) to relocate the building to the eastern corner of his 0.6-acre property to be used as a second living unit. In 2011, the property was purchased by Michael Foulkes. SMALL RESIDENCE/CARRIAGE HOUSE The one-and-a-half-story residence is similar in form and features a hipped roof with a centered gable. It also reflects the neoclassical style of the main house, with boxed eaves, a wide frieze band, dentil molding, and tri-lap bungalow wood siding with fluted milled corner boards. Fenestration is mixed with single and paired sashes, with small multi-pane transoms over fixed and operable sash windows, and large multi-pane fixed putty-glazed picture windows that flank the front entrance door to the home. The entrance is placed below a small covered porch supported by vertical wood posts (two posts set next to the wall and three posts at each outer corner). A small open balcony with a wood constructed guardrail is accessed by a five-horizontal-divided-pane French door from the half-story above. In 1963, a single-story addition of a covered carport and shop was added to the building. It was later enclosed and its interior remodeled to add two small bedrooms and a bathroom to this small residential structure. Other visible building alterations include upper and lower balcony railings on the north exterior elevation; the two larger fixed-putty glazed kitchen and living room windows on the north elevation; the small wood-framed gable roof on the east exterior elevation; the metal stovepipe and flue located on the west elevation; the raised main entry aluminum porch handicap ramp accessing the driveway; and the wood constructed steps, handrails, and deck placed at the rear of the building to the south. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK: THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 3 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides the legal framework by which historical resources are identified and given consideration during the planning process. The law was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§ 21000–21177. CEQA’s basic functions are to: • Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities; • Identify ways to reduce or avoid adverse impacts; • Offer alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and • Disclose to the public if significant environmental effects are involved in an approved project. CEQA applies to projects undertaken, funded, or requiring the issuance of a permit by a public agency. The analysis of a project required by CEQA usually takes the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Negative Declaration (ND), or Environmental Assessment (EA). Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines will be considered mitigated to a less than significant level, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(b)(3). THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION (CRHR) The CRHR is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e., retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register criteria. 1. Criterion 1: (NRHP Criterion A) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Criterion 2: (NRHP Criterion B) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3. Criterion 3: (NRHP Criterion C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. Criterion 4: (NRHP Criterion D) Yields important information about the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. CRHR criteria are similar to the National Register of Historic Places criteria and are tied to CEQA, as any resource that meets the above criteria and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity is considered a historical resource under CEQA. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity, evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. INTEGRITY 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 4 Project Evaluation When evaluating a potential historic resource, one must determine and clearly state the significance of that resource to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A resource may be considered individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) if it meets one or more of the above-listed criteria for significance and it possesses historic integrity. Historic properties must retain sufficient historic integrity to convey their significance. The National Register of Historic Places recognizes seven aspects or qualities that define historic integrity. These are also used in evaluations of integrity for the CRHR and are as follows: Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. To retain historic integrity, a resource should possess several of the above-mentioned aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is essential for a resource to convey its significance. Resources that are significant, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR. Although this structure does retain what are believed to be many of its original historical features, it has unfortunately gone through numerous changes over time, making it difficult to distinguish its original construction features from those which may have been added. When applying the above criteria to this small building, under Criterion 2, if judged independently without the assistance of the neighboring landmark home, this structure does not appear to meet the minimum eligibility threshold needed for its individual listing in the CRHR. HISTORICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR 1222 HARRIET AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CAMPBELL In July of 1993, a historical evaluation and assessment was prepared by Glory Ann Laffey, Principal of Archives and Architecture, on the property located at 1222 Harriet Avenue (APN 403-13-125). At the time, the property was occupied by the two-story farmhouse along with two other buildings, a small 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 5 barn and a one-and-a-half-story small residence. The property would eventually become the six-lot subdivision with its own cul-de-sac known as Littleton Place. At the time, the report’s conclusions and recommendations based on the evaluation of the two subordinate structures indicated that both had limited architectural significance under Criterion B, and based on this evaluation analysis, the following four project options were offered. No Project. The no project alternative would leave the barn and the small residence in place and retain what remained of the historic setting of the landmark farmhouse. Project Redesign and Relocation of the Buildings On-Site. Redesigning the project to integrate the buildings into the project would provide for the preservation of the buildings but would probably make the project economically unviable. Relocate the Buildings Off-Site. Relocation of the buildings would allow the project as presently designed to go forward. It would require, however, that an off-site location be found for the buildings. Demolition. Demolition of the barn and the small residence would allow the project to move forward. MOVING OF BUILDINGS AS A METHOD TO PRESERVE LOCAL HISTORY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS It is important to point out that, throughout history, buildings have been moved for many reasons, including environmental, personal, and financial, to name a few. In the United States, evidence of building relocation dates to the early 1800s. Moving historical buildings is sometimes the only way to save them from demolition, but such actions are undertaken only as a last resort when all other preservation options have been exhausted. Usually, when a historic building is moved, it loses its integrity of setting and its “sense of place and time”—important aspects of the historic character of a building and its environment. All too often, however, historic and architecturally significant structures are subjected to intense economic or planning pressures, so no reasonable alternatives except relocation may be available. The one-and-a-half-story small residence mentioned in the above project historical evaluation is an excellent case study for this preservation intervention method. In relocating it to its present location (sharing the same property as the Littleton/Martin House), its original historical association with the original Littleton estate property is still retained. Furthermore, in recognizing that relocation of historic buildings may be the only reasonable means to preserve and/or readapt them for continued use and function, the U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Technical Preservation Services Division (Washington, D.C.) in 1979 published a technical publication called Moving Historic Buildings, written by John Obed Curtis, to lend assistance if this preservation method must be undertaken when all other alternatives 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 6 Project Evaluation have been exhausted. This publication outlines the many important strategies in addition to precautions and procedures to follow during the relocation process to achieve a successful building relocation with minimum harm to the building’s existing important historical fabric and character- defining features. Since this small building is the only subordinate structure believed to have been constructed before 1908 as part of the original Littleton estate, even with the many alterations made over the years that may have obscured its original features, any alterations, additions, or other remodeling improvements made to this building should follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are common-sense historic preservation principles in non-technical language. They promote historic preservation best practices that will help to protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. These standards offer a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions and making alterations. The guidelines, on the other hand, offer general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the standards to a specific property. Together, they provide a framework and guidance for decision-making about alterations and/or changes that are to be made to historic properties. APPLYING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS EVALUATION The ten standards are evaluated below. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Standard 1: Although the proposed design does add a new garage addition to this small building, it is placed at the rear of the building and will not be visible from the primary street elevation, and it is within the area of the existing structure that was added as a single-car garage and later enclosed sometime in the 1960s. With only minimal changes to what remaining historical character and defining features can be traced back to the building’s original construction period (sometime before 1908), the project appears to conform to this standard. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Standard 2: The proposed project does not remove any historic materials or features that specifically characterize this property or diminish and/or obscure its historic defining features. Therefore, the project appears in conformance with the above standard. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 7 Standard 3: The proposed project does not propose features that could create a false sense of historic development or add other more conjectural design elements. The design for the new garage addition does draw somewhat on the primary hip roof that caps the original structure compositionally but stops short of trying to mimic, replicate, or superimpose stylistic elements that are incompatible with the original small building. In doing so, the project under consideration appears to conform to the above standard. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Standard 4: This standard is not applicable since none of the recent alterations and additions are found to have acquired any historical significance in their own right. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques of fine craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Standard 5: This standard is not applicable because the proposed addition is located in an area of the building where no such distinctive features exist. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacements of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Standard 6: This standard does not apply because the new addition is located within an area of the structure that has been significantly altered over time and where no such features exist or are in need of repair. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Standard 7: This standard is not applicable. The proposed project does not include chemical or physical treatments of the historic property. Any measures taken to clean the existing historic fabric will use the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Standard 8: Archaeological resources are outside the scope of this assessment. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 8 Project Evaluation Standard 9: The project does not propose the removal of historic materials or features that specifically characterize this property. The new garage addition is designed in a manner that clearly delineates the old from the new areas of the home and is designed in a manner that is compatible in both scale and massing so as to not diminish the historical character or the integrity of this resource. In doing so, the project conforms to the intent of this standard. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Standard 10: The new garage addition is designed in such a way that, if it were to be removed, such an undertaking would be possible without destroying the essential form of the original building. If a future owner of this property desired to remove this addition, albeit highly unlikely, it appears that this project conforms to the intent of this standard. CONCLUSION To summarize from the above standards: Standards, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are not applicable to the proposed project. The remaining Standards 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 are applicable to this project for the reasons stated above, and as such, the project appears to comply with the intent of these standards and will not have any substantial or adverse change in its own limited historical significance or that of the adjacent historic Littleton/Martin House that also occupies the same property, which is a designated city landmark and also a historic resource as defined per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). QUALIFICATIONS MARK SANDOVAL, AIA, meets the professional qualification requirement for both Architect and Historic Architect used by the National Park Service and as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61; has been licensed to practice in the State of California since 1993; and is registered as Public Works Contractor with State of California Department of Public Relations. He is a Professional Member of the American Institute of Architects and has served as a past member of the Board of Directors for the Santa Clara Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Mark has served on the Planning Commission for the City of Larkspur, the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Campbell, and the Historical Commission for the City of Los Altos. He has also had the privilege to lecture before a number of undergraduate classes offered by the Urban Studies Program Department at Stanford University as a guest speaker. Mr. Sandoval also has extensive experience in repurposing historical buildings and utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the State of California’s Historic Building Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the performance of all historic preservation-related projects. Clients include the City of Los Altos, City of Belvedere, City of Capitola, City of Campbell, City of Mountain View, and Redevelopment Agency of the City of San José, in addition to private groups and organizations such as the Los Altos Community Foundation, the Los Altos History Museum, the Farrington Foundation, and the Community of Rossmoor at Walnut Creek. 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 9 REFERENCES The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, rev. 1990. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. (Authors: W. Brown Morton III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl. Project Directors: Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/tps/. Espinola, George. Cottages, Flats, Buildings & Bungalows: 102 Designs from Wolf & McKenzie 1907. San Jose, CA: Bay & Valley Publishers, 2004. Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns. (Authors: Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/tps/how-to- preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions. Curtis, John Obed. Moving Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Technical Preservation Services Division, 1979. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Technical Bulletin No. 15. 1997. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 10 Project Evaluation PPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS All pictures taken on 10/26/22 by the Architect Photograph 1: Picture showing part of the east side of the Carriage House as viewed from The front yard 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 11 Photograph 2: Picture of the north exterior elevation Photograph 3: Picture of the west exterior façade as viewed from the driveway Photograph 4: Picture of the Carriage House south exterior elevation with deck 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 12 Project Evaluation APPENDIX B: DRAWINGS AND EXHIBITS Figure 1: Proposed Project Site Plan Figure 2: Proposed Carriage House First Floor Plan First Floor Plan 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA Project Evaluation M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5 2022 Page: 13 Figure 3: Proposed Carriage House Second Floor Plan Figure 4: Proposed Carriage House Roof Plan 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Date November 5, 2022 Page: 14 Project Evaluation Figure 5: Proposed Carriage House Exterior Elevations Figure 6: Proposed Carriage House Exterior Elevations Attachment - F Attachment - G ' ' # $' ' ' % ' # $ &' ' ' ' ' ' ' # $' ' ' ' ' $ ' '! ' % ' # ' ' '# $' ' ' %' ' " ' '' '' # $ &' ' ' # $' ' ' %' # '# $ &'' ' ' $ ' % ' # ' ' '# $' ' ' %' ' ! ' '' ' ' $' ' +!,, , ' ' # $' ' ' %' ' % ' # ' !'/ / / %/ / )$,*/ -/ / "$(+ /./ / / / #&/#',$,%*,,& "()',%#, ' , , , , , ARCH D Size -24x36STAMP: 21x32 4x3STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 1 of 8) Project Name: Page 1 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019This compliance document is only applicable to simple alterations that do not require HERS verification for compliance. When HERS verification is required, a CF1R-ALT-01 shall first be registered with a HERS Provider Data Registry. Alterations to Space Conditioning Systems that are exempt from HERS verification requirements may use the CF1R-ALT-05 and CF2R- ALT-05 Compliance Documents. Possible exemptions from duct leakage testing include: less than 40 ft of ducts were added or replaced; or the existing duct system was insulated with asbestos; or the existing duct system was previously tested and passed by a HERS Rater. If space conditioning systems are altered and are not exempt from HERS verification, then a CF1R-ALT-02 must be completed and registered with a HERS Provider Data Registry.Alterations that utilize close Cell Spray Polyurethane Foam (ccSPF) with a density of 1.5 to less than 2.5 pounds per cubic foot having an R-value greater than 5.8 per inch, or Open Cell Spray Polyurethane Foam (ocSPF) with a density of 0.4 to less than 1.5 pounds per cubic foot having an R-value of 3.6 per inch, shall complete and register a CF1R-ALT-01 with a HERS Provider Data Registry.If more than one person has responsibility for installation of the items on this certificate, each person shall prepare and sign a certificate applicable to the portion of construction for which they are responsible. Alternatively, the person with chief responsibility for construction shall prepare and sign this certificate for the entire construction. All applicable Mandatory Measures shall bemet. Temporary labels shall not be removed before verification by the building inspector.A. General Information01 Project Name:02 Date Prepared:03 Project Location:04 Building Front Orientation (deg or cardinal):05 CA City:06 Number of Altered Dwelling Units:07 Zip Code:08 Fuel Type:09 Climate Zone:10 Total Conditioned Floor Area (ft2): 11 Building Type: 12 Slab Area (ft2): 13 Project Scope: Foulkes Addition9-Sept-2022Foulkes Addition9-Sept-20221690 Littleton Place338°Campbell195008Gas041428Single Family0Replace existing windows throughout the home.STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 2 of 8) Project Name: Page 2 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019B. Building Insulation Details(Section 150.2(b)1)01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11Tag/ID Assembly TypeFrame TypeFrame Depth(inches)Frame Spacing (inches)Proposed RequiredCommentsCavity R-valueContinuous Insulation R-value U-factorAppendix JA4 ReferenceU-Factorfrom Table150.1-A orBTable CellFoulkes Addition9-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 3 of 8) Project Name: Page 3 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019C. Roof Replacement(Prescriptive Alteration, Section 150.2(b)1H)01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13Method of ComplianceRoof Pitch ExceptionCRRC Product ID Number Product TypeĞĐŬ/ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶZͲsĂůƵĞProposed Minimum RequiredInitial SolarZĞĨůĞĐƚĂŶĐĞAged SolarZĞĨůĞĐƚĂŶĐĞThermalŵŝƚƚĂŶĐĞSRI;KƉƚŝŽŶĂůͿAged SolarZĞĨůĞĐƚĂŶĐĞThermalŵŝƚƚĂŶĐĞNOTES:xRoof area covered by building integrated photovoltaic panels and solar thermal panels are exempt from the above Cool Roof requirements.xLiquid field applied coatings must comply with installation criteria from Section 110.8(i)4.D. Fenestration/Glazing Allowed Areas and Efficiencies(Section 150.2(b)1)01 02 03 04 05 06 07Alteration TypeMaximum AllowedFenestration Area For All Orientations (ft2) Maximum Allowed West-Facing Fenestration Area Only(ft2)Existing Fenestration Area for All Orientations(ft2)Existing West-Facing Fenestration Area(ft2)Maximum AllowedU-factor(Windows)Maximum AllowedU-factor(Skylights)Maximum Allowed SHGC(Windows)Maximum Allowed SHGC(Skylights) CommentsSRI;KƉƚŝŽŶĂůͿFoulkes Addition9-Sept-20228:12 GAdd<75sf 285.6 71.4 199.7 51.7 0.30 n/a 0.23 n/a.05 These don't printSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 4 of 8) Project Name: Page 4 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019E. Fenestration Proposed Areas and Efficiencies – Add (Section 150.2(b)1A)Note: Doors with greater than or equal to 25 percent glazed area are considered glazed doors and are treated as fenestration products.01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14Tag/IDFenestration TypeFrame TypeDynamic GlazingOrientation N, S, W, ENumber ofPanesProposed Fenestration Area ft2Proposed West Facing Fenestration Area ft2ProposedU-factorProposed U-factorSourceProposedSHGCProposed SHGCSourceExteriorShadingDeviceCombined SHGC from CF1R-ENV-03 15 Total Proposed Fenestration Area16 Maximum Allowed Fenestration Area17 Compliance StatementǆŝƐƚŝŶŐнWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂчDĂǆŝŵƵŵAllowed Fenestration AreaYes NoEͬ18 Total Proposed West-Facing Fenestration Area19 Maximum Allowed West-Facing Fenestration Area20 Compliance Statement Existing + Proposed West-&ĂĐŝŶŐ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂчDĂǆŝŵƵŵůůŽǁĞĚtĞƐƚ-Facing Fenestration Area21 Proposed Fenestration U-factor (Windows)22 Required Fenestration U-factor (Windows)23 Compliance Statement Proposed Fenestration U-ĨĂĐƚŽƌчZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶh-factor24 Proposed Fenestration SHGC (Windows)25 Required Fenestration SHGC (Windows)26 Compliance StatementWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^,'чZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^,'27 Proposed Fenestration U-factor (Skylights)28 Required Fenestration U-factor (Skylights)29 Compliance Statement Proposed Fenestration U-ĨĂĐƚŽƌчZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶh-factor30 Proposed Fenestration SHGC (Skylights)31 Required Fenestration SHGC (Skylights)Yes NoEͬYes NoEͬYes NoEͬYes NoEͬTypicalDual Wood No N 2 98.5 0 0.30 NFRC 0.23 NFRCNo S 2 49.6 0 0.30 NFRC 0.23 NFRCNo E 2 0 0 0.30 NFRC 0.23 NFRCNo W 2 51.7 51.7 0.30 NFRC 0.23 NFRC51.771.4.30.30.23.23n/an/aFoulkes Addition9-Sept-2022✔✔✔✔✔STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 5 of 8) Project Name: Page 5 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 201932 Compliance StatementWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^,'чZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚFenestration SHGCYes NoEͬF. Fenestration/Glazing Proposed Areas and Efficiencies – Replace (Section 150.2(b)1B)Note: Doors with greater than or equal to 25 percent glazed area are considered glazed doors and are treated as fenestration products.01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 9 10 1112 13 14Tag/IDFenestration TypeFrame TypeDynamicGlazingOrientationN, S, W, EArea Removed (ft2)Area Added (ft2)Net Added Area (ft2)Proposed U-factorProposed U-factorSourceProposed SHGCProposed SHGC SourceExterior Shading DeviceCombined SHGC from CF1R-ENV-0315 Net Added West-facing Fenestration Area16 /ƐEĞƚĚĚĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂчĨŽƌǁĞƐƚ-facing fenestration?YesNo17 Net Added Fenestration Area (all orientations)18 /ƐEĞƚĚĚĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂчϬĨŽƌĂůůŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͍YesNo19 Proposed Fenestration U-factor (Windows)20 Required Fenestration U-factor (Windows)21 Is the proposed Fenestration U-ĨĂĐƚŽƌчƚŚĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶh-factor?YesNo22 Proposed Fenestration SHGC (Windows)23 Required Fenestration SHGC (Windows)24 /ƐƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^,'чƚŚĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶSHGC?YesNo25 Proposed Fenestration U-factor (Skylights)26 Required Fenestration U-factor (Skylights)27 Is the proposed Fenestration U-ĨĂĐƚŽƌчƚŚĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶh-factor?YesNo28 Proposed Fenestration SHGC;^ŬǇůŝŐŚƚƐͿ29 Required Fenestration SHGC;^ŬǇůŝŐŚƚƐͿ30 /ƐƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^,'чƚŚĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^,'͍YesNo00n/a0.30n/a0.23n/a0.55n/a0.30Foulkes Addition9-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 6 of 8) Project Name: Page 6 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019G. Space Conditioning (SC) Systems – Heating/Cooling(Prescriptive Section 150.2(b))Alterations to Space Conditioning Systems shall be exempt from HERS verification requirements as prerequisite for use of the CF1R-ALT-05 and CF2R- ALT-05 Compliance Documents. If new space conditioning systems are installed or existing systems are altered and are not exempt from HERS verification, then a CF1R-ALT-02 shall be completed and registered with a HERS Provider Data Registry. In each row below for each dwelling unit in the building, check the box that indicates the exemption from HERS verification compliance:a: space conditioning system was not altered;b: less than 40 ft of ducts were added or replaced;c: (exempt from duct leakage testing) if: the existing duct system was insulated with asbestos;d: (exempt from duct leakage testing) if: the existing duct system was previously tested and passed by a HERS Rater.01 020304 Dwelling Unit Name SC System Identification or Name SC System Location or Area Served Exemption from HERS VerificationabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdΎZŽŽŵŚĞĂƚƉƵŵƉƐĂƌĞĞǆĞŵƉƚĨƌŽŵ,Z^ǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘Foulkes Addition9-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 7 of 8) Project Name: Page 7 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019H. Water Heating Systems(Section 150.2(b)1G)01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15Dwelling Unit NameWater Heating System Identification or NameWater Heating System Location or Area ServedWater Heating System TypeWater Heater Type# of Water Heaters in SystemWater HeaterStorageVolume (gal)Fuel TypeRated Input TypeRated Input ValueHeating Efficiency TypeHeating Efficiency ValueStandby Loss (%)Exterior InsulationR-ValueBack-Up Solar Savings FractionNO CHANGEFoulkes Addition9-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIAPrescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationCEC-CF1R-ALT-05-E (Revised 01/19)CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ALT-05-E Prescriptive Residential Alterations That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification(Page 8 of 8) Project Name: Page 8 of 8 Date Prepared:CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential ComplianceJanuary 2019DOCUMENTATION AUTHOR'S DECLARATION STATEMENT1. I certify that this Certificate of Compliance documentation is accurate and complete.Documentation Author Name:Documentation Author Signature:Company:Signature Date:Address:CEA/ HERS Certification Identification (if applicable):City/State/Zip:Phone:RESPONSIBLE PERSON'S DECLARATION STATEMENT I certify the following under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California:1. The information provided on this Certificate of Compliance is true and correct.2. I am eligible under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to accept responsibility for the building design or system design identified on this Certificate of Compliance (responsible designer).3. That the energy features and performance specifications, materials, components, and manufactured devices for the building design or system design identified on this Certificate ofCompliance conform to the requirements of Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations.4. The building design features or system design features identified on this Certificate of Compliance are consistent with the information provided on other applicable compliance documents, worksheets, calculations, plans and specifications submitted to the enforcement agency for approval with this building permit application.5. I will ensure that a registered copy of this Certificate of Compliance shall be made available with the building permit(s) issued for the building, and made available to the enforcementagency for all applicable inspections. I understand that a registered copy of this Certificate of Compliance is required to be included with the documentation the builder provides to the building owner at occupancy.Responsible Designer Name:Responsible Designer Signature:Company :Date Signed:Address:License:City/State/Zip:Phone:;ϰϬϴͿ ϮϬϮͲϵϬϳϱƵŝůĚĞƌƐΖŶĞƌŐǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ϰϲϬtĞƐƚĚŵƵŶĚƐŽŶǀĞŶƵĞDŽƌŐĂŶ,ŝůů͕ϵϱϬϯϳĂƌƌĞů<ĞůůǇZϭϲͲϭϱͲϮϬϬϴϱMark S. Sandoval, ArchitectMSA, Inc. 9-Sept-2022145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 C-23926Corte Madera, CA 94925 (650) 941-80489-Sept-2022Foulkes Addition9-Sept-2022FOULKES ALTERATIONS 1690 LITTLETON PLACE CAMPBELL, CA 9500809/09/22DEK2201-1110921T24.1TITLE 24 ENERGY DOCUMENTATION ARCH D Size -24x36STAMP: 21x32 4x3CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance January 2020 Foulkes Addition09-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification CEC-CF1R-ADD-02-E (Revised 01/20) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ADD-02-EPrescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationProject Name:Date Prepared:Page 1 of 6STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification CEC-CF1R-ADD-02-E (Revised 01/20) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ADD-02-EPrescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationProject Name:Date Prepared:Page 1 of 6This compliance document is only applicable to additions less than or equal to 1,000 ft2 and do not require HERS field verification for compliance. When HERS verification is required, a CF1R-ADD-01 shall first be registered with a HERS Provider Data Registry. A. General Information (please complete entire table)01 Project Name: 02 Date Prepared: 03 Project Location: 04 Building Front Orientation (deg): 05 CA City: 06 Number of Dwelling Units with Additions: 07 Zip Code: 08 Fuel Type: 09 Climate Zone: 10 Total Conditioned Floor Area (ft2) (Addition): 11 Building Type: 12 Slab Area (ft2): 13 Project Scope: Foulkes Addition09-Sept-20221690 Littleton Place338Campbell195008Natural Gas4570ч 300 ft2 Alterations to Space Conditioning Systems that are exempt from HERS verification requirements may use the CF1R-ADD-02 and CF2R- ADD-02 Compliance Documents. Possible exemptions from duct leakage testing include: less than 40 ft of ducts were added or replaced; or the existing duct system was insulated with asbestos; or the existing duct system was previously tested and passed by a HERS Rater. If space conditioning systems are altered and are not exempt from HERS verification, then a CF1R-ADD-01 and a CF1R-ALT-02 must be completed and registered with a HERS Provider Data Registry. Additions or alterations that utilize close Cell Spray Polyurethane Foam (ccSPF) with a density of 1.5 to less than 2.5 pounds per cubic foot having an R-value greater than 5.8 per inch, or Open Cell Spray Polyurethane Foam (ocSPF) with a density of 0.4 to less than 1.5 pounds per cubic foot having an R-value of 3.6 per inch, shall complete and register a CF1R ADD-01 with a HERS Provider Data Registry. If more than one person has responsibility for installation of the items on this certificate, each person shall prepare and sign a certificate applicable to the portion of construction for which they are responsible. Alternatively, the person with chief responsibility for construction shall prepare and sign this certificate for the entire construction. All applicable Mandatory Measures shall be met. Temporary labels shall not be removed before verification by the building inspector.14 Addition Wall Type:Framed✔Non-framedMass WallsNone1516New water heater being installed?YesNo✔17Windows being installed?Yes19Roof/Ceiling insulation:Option B - Below deck insulation✔Option C - Ducts & Air handler in conditioned spaceNoneSteep slope✔Low slopeRoof Type:Note: Include mandatory measures?Yes✔Exceptions to Fenestration U-factor and SHGC 150.1(c)3A:14 NA20Are lighting requirements applicable?Yes✔NoNoNo✔Door(s) being installed?No✔Yes18CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance January 2020 Foulkes Addition09-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification CEC-CF1R-ADD-02-E (Revised 01/20) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ADD-02-EPrescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationProject Name:Date Prepared:Page 2 of 6STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification CEC-CF1R-ADD-02-E (Revised 01/20) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ADD-02-EPrescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationProject Name:Date Prepared:Page 2 of 6B. Opaque Surface Details - Framed (Section 150.2(a) and 150.1(c)1) 010203040506 0708091011ProposedRequiredTag/IDAssembly TypeFrame TypeFrame Depth (in)Frame Spacing (in)Cavity R-valueContinuous Insulation R-valueU-factorAppendix JA4 ReferenceTableCellU-Factor from Table150.10A or B Comments1WallWood2x416 inch OC15100.0454.34H0.0482AtticWood2x624 inch OC3800.0264.2.19-A0.0263FloorWood2x616 inch OC1900.0374.4.14A0.037Add RowDelete RowK. Space Conditioning (SC) Systems - Heating/Cooling (Section 150.2(b))Alterations to Space Conditioning Systems shall be exempt from HERS verification requirements as prerequisite for use of the CF1R-ADD-02 and CF2R-ADD-02 Compliance Documents. If new space conditioning systems are installed or existing systems are altered and are not exempt from HERS verification, then a CF1R-ADD-01 and a CF1R-ALT-02 shall be completed and registered with a HERS Provider Data Registry. In each row below for each dwelling unit in the building, check the box that indicates the exemption from HERS verification compliance: a: space conditioning system was not altered; b: less than 40 ft of ducts were added or replaced; c: (exempt from duct leakage testing) if: the existing duct system was insulated with asbestos; d: (exempt from duct leakage testing) if: the existing duct system was previously tested and passed by a HERS Rater. 01020304Dwelling Unit NameSC System Identification or NameSC System Location or Area ServedExemption from HERS Verification a. b. c. d.Add RowDelete RowCA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2019 Residential Compliance January 2020 Foulkes Addition09-Sept-2022STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field Verification CEC-CF1R-ADD-02-E (Revised 01/20) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECF1R-ADD-02-EPrescriptive Residential Additions That Do Not Require HERS Field VerificationProject Name:Date Prepared:Page 3 of 6'S DECLARATION STATEMENTDOCUMENTATION AUTHOR1. I certify that this Certificate of Compliance documentation is accurate and complete.Documentation Author Name:Documentation Author Signature:Company:Signature Date:Address:CEA/ HERS Certification Identification (if applicable):City/State/Zip:Phone:RESPONSIBLE PERSON'S DECLARATION STATEMENT I certify the following under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California:1. The information provided on this Certificate of Compliance is true and correct.2. I am eligible under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to accept responsibility for the building design or system design identified on this Certificate of Compliance (responsibledesigner).3. That the energy features and performance specifications, materials, components, and manufactured devices for the building design or system design identified on this Certificate ofCompliance conform to the requirements of Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations.4. The building design features or system design features identified on this Certificate of Compliance are consistent with the information provided on other applicable compliance documents,worksheets, calculations, plans and specifications submitted to the enforcement agency for approval with this building permit application.5. I will ensure that a registered copy of this Certificate of Compliance shall be made available with the building permit(s) issued for the building, and made available to the enforcement agencyfor all applicable inspections. I understand that a registered copy of this Certificate of Compliance is required to be included with the documentation the builder provides to the buildingowner at occupancy.Responsible Designer Name:Responsible Designer Signature:Company :Date Signed:Address:License:City/State/Zip:Phone:;ϰϬϴͿ ϮϬϮͲϵϬϳϱƵŝůĚĞƌƐΖŶĞƌŐǇ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ϰϲϬtĞƐƚĚŵƵŶĚƐŽŶǀĞŶƵĞDŽƌŐĂŶ,ŝůů͕ϵϱϬϯϳĂƌƌĞů<ĞůůǇZϭϲͲϭϱͲϮϬϬϴϱMark S. Sandoval, ArchitectMSA, Inc.145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 C-23926Corte Madera, CA 94925 (650) 941-80482019 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory Measures Summary NOTE: Low-rise residential buildings subject to the Energy Standards must comply with all applicable mandatory measures, regardless of the compliance approach used. Review the respective section for more information. *Exceptions may apply. (01/2020) Building Envelope Measures: § 110.6(a)1:Air Leakage. Manufactured fenestration, exterior doors, and exterior pet doors must limit air leakage to 0.3 CFM per square foot or less when tested per NFRC-400, ASTM E283 or AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-2011.*§ 110.6(a)5:Labeling. Fenestration products and exterior doors must have a label meeting the requirements of § 10-111(a). § 110.6(b):Field fabricated exterior doors and fenestration products must use U-factors and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values from Tables 110.6-A, 110.6-B, or JA4.5 for exterior doors. They must be caulked and/or weather-stripped.*§ 110.7:Air Leakage. All joints, penetrations, and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage must be caulked,gasketed, or weather stripped. § 110.8(a):Insulation Certification by Manufacturers. Insulation must be certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Household Goods and Services (BHGS).§ 110.8(g):Insulation Requirements for Heated Slab Floors. Heated slab floors must be insulated per the requirements of § 110.8(g). § 110.8(i):Roofing Products Solar Reflectance and Thermal Emittance. The thermal emittance and aged solar reflectance values of the roofing material must meet the requirements of § 110.8(i) and be labeled per §10-113 when the installation of a cool roof is specified on the CF1R. § 110.8(j):Radiant Barrier. When required, radiant barriers must have an emittance of 0.05 or less and be certified to the Department of Consumer Affairs. § 150.0(a):Ceiling and Rafter Roof Insulation. Minimum R-22 insulation in wood-frame ceiling; or the weighted average U-factor must not exceed 0.043. Minimum R-19 or weighted average U-factor of 0.054 or less in a rafter roof alteration. Attic access doors must have permanently attached insulation using adhesive or mechanical fasteners. The attic access must be gasketed to prevent air leakage. Insulation must be installed in direct contact with a continuous roof or ceiling which is sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration as specified in § 110.7, including but not limited to placing insulation either above or below the roof deck or on top of a drywall ceiling.*§ 150.0(b):Loose-fill Insulation. Loose fill insulation must meet the manufacturer’s required density for the labeled R-value. § 150.0(c):Wall Insulation. Minimum R-13 insulation in 2x4 inch wood framing wall or have a U-factor of 0.102 or less, or R-20 in 2x6 inch wood framing or have a U-factor of 0.071 or less. Opaque non-framed assemblies must have an overall assembly U-factor not exceeding 0.102. Masonry walls must meet Tables 150.1-A or B.*§ 150.0(d):Raised-floor Insulation. Minimum R-19 insulation in raised wood framed floor or 0.037 maximum U-factor.*§ 150.0(f):Slab Edge Insulation. Slab edge insulation must meet all of the following: have a water absorption rate, for the insulation material alone without facings, no greater than 0.3 percent; have a water vapor permeance no greater than 2.0 perm per inch; be protected from physical damage and UV light deterioration; and, when installed as part of a heated slab floor, meet the requirements of § 110.8(g). § 150.0(g)1:Vapor Retarder. In climate zones 1 through 16, the earth floor of unvented crawl space must be covered with a Class I or Class II vapor retarder. This requirement also applies to controlled ventilation crawl space for buildings complying with the exception to § 150.0(d).§ 150.0(g)2:Vapor Retarder. In climate zones 14 and 16, a Class I or Class II vapor retarder must be installed on the conditioned space side of all insulation in all exterior walls, vented attics, and unvented attics with air-permeable insulation. § 150.0(q):Fenestration Products. Fenestration, including skylights, separating conditioned space from unconditioned space or outdoors must have a maximum U-factor of 0.58; or the weighted average U-factor of all fenestration must not exceed 0.58.*Fireplaces, Decorative Gas Appliances, and Gas Log Measures: § 110.5(e)Pilot Light. Continuously burning pilot lights are not allowed for indoor and outdoor fireplaces. § 150.0(e)1:Closable Doors. Masonry or factory-built fireplaces must have a closable metal or glass door covering the entire opening of the firebox. § 150.0(e)2:Combustion Intake. Masonry or factory-built fireplaces must have a combustion outside air intake, which is at least six square inches in area and is equipped with a readily accessible, operable, and tight-fitting damper or combustion-air control device.*§ 150.0(e)3:Flue Damper. Masonry or factory-built fireplaces must have a flue damper with a readily accessible control.*Space Conditioning, Water Heating, and Plumbing System Measures: § 110.0-§ 110.3:Certification. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, water heaters, showerheads, faucets, and all other regulated appliances must be certified by the manufacturer to the California Energy Commission.*§ 110.2(a):HVAC Efficiency. Equipment must meet the applicable efficiency requirements in Table 110.2-A through Table 110.2-K.*§ 110.2(b):Controls for Heat Pumps with Supplementary Electric Resistance Heaters. Heat pumps with supplementary electric resistance heaters must have controls that prevent supplementary heater operation when the heating load can be met by the heat pump alone; and in which the cut-on temperature for compression heating is higher than the cut-on temperature for supplementary heating, and the cut-off temperature for compression heating is higher than the cut-off temperature for supplementary heating.*§ 110.2(c):Thermostats. All heating or cooling systems not controlled by a central energy management control system (EMCS) must have a setback thermostat.*§ 110.3(c)4:Water Heating Recirculation Loops Serving Multiple Dwelling Units. Water heating recirculation loops serving multiple dwelling units must meet the air release valve, backflow prevention, pump priming, pump isolation valve, and recirculation loop connection requirements of § 110.3(c)4.§ 110.3(c)6:Isolation Valves. Instantaneous water heaters with an input rating greater than 6.8 kBtu per hour (2 kW) must have isolation valves with hose bibbs or other fittings on both cold and hot water lines to allow for flushing the water heater when the valves are closed. § 110.5:Pilot Lights. Continuously burning pilot lights are prohibited for natural gas: fan-type central furnaces; household cooking appliances (exceptappliances without an electrical supply voltage connection with pilot lights that consume less than 150 Btu per hour ); and pool and spa heaters.*§ 150.0(h)1:Building Cooling and Heating Loads. Heating and/or cooling loads are calculated in accordance with the ASHRAE Handbook, Equipment Volume, Applications Volume, and Fundamentals Volume; the SMACNA Residential Comfort System Installation Standards Manual; or the ACCA Manual J using design conditions specified in § 150.0(h)2. 2019 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory Measures Summary § 150.0(h)3A:Clearances. Air conditioner and heat pump outdoor condensing units must have a clearance of at least five feet from the outlet of any dryert§ 150.0(h)3B:Liquid Line Drier. Air conditioners and heat pump systems must be equipped with liquid line filter driers if required, as specified by the manufacturer’s instructions. § 150.0(j)1:Storage Tank Insulation. Unfired hot water tanks, such as storage tanks and backup storage tanks for solar water-heating systems, must have a minimum of R-12 external insulation or R-16 internal insulation where the internal insulation R-value is indicated on the exterior of the tank. § 150.0(j)2A:Water Piping, Solar Water-heating System Piping, and Space Conditioning System Line Insulation. All domestic hot water piping must be insulated as specified in Section 609.11 of the California Plumbing Code. In addition, the following piping conditions must have a minimum insulation wall thickness of one inch or a minimum insulation R-value of 7.7: the first five feet of cold water pipes from the storage tank; all hot water piping with a nominal diameter equal to or greater than 3/4 inch and less than one inch; all hot water piping with a nominal diameter less than 3/4 inch that is: associated with a domestic hot water recirculation system, from the heating source to storage tank or between tanks, buried below grade, and from the heating source to kitchen fixtures.*§ 150.0(j)3:Insulation Protection. Piping insulation must be protected from damage, including that due to sunlight, moisture, equipment maintenance, and wind as required by Section 120.3(b). Insulation exposed to weather must be water retardant and protected from UV light (no adhesive tapes). Insulation covering chilled water piping and refrigerant suction piping located outside the conditioned space must include, or be protected by, a Class I or Class II vapor retarder. Pipe insulation buried below grade must be installed in a waterproof and non-crushable casing or sleeve. § 150.0(n)1:Gas or Propane Water Heating Systems. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units must include all of the following: A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within three feet of the water heater without obstruction. Both ends of the unused conductor must be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated. Have a reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”; a Category III or IV vent, or a Type B vent with straight pipe between the outside termination and the space where the water heater is installed; a condensate drain that is no more than two inches higher than the base of the water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance; and a gas supply line with a capacity of at least 200,000 Btu per hour. § 150.0(n)2:Recirculating Loops. Recirculating loops serving multiple dwelling units must meet the requirements of § 110.3(c)5. § 150.0(n)3:Solar Water-heating Systems. Solar water-heating systems and collectors must be certified and rated by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC), the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Research and Testing (IAPMO R&T), or by a listing agency that is approved by the Executive Director. Ducts and Fans Measures: § 110.8(d)3:Ducts. Insulation installed on an existing space-conditioning duct must comply with § 604.0 of the California Mechanical Code (CMC). If a contractor installs the insulation, the contractor must certify to the customer, in writing, that the insulation meets this requirement. § 150.0(m)1:CMC Compliance. All air-distribution system ducts and plenums must meet the requirements of the CMC §§ 601.0, 602.0, 603.0, 604.0, 605.0 and ANSI/SMACNA-006-2006 HVAC Duct Construction Standards Metal and Flexible 3rd Edition. Portions of supply-air and return-air ducts and plenums must be insulated to a minimum installed level of R-6.0 or a minimum installed level of R-4.2 when ducts are entirely in conditioned space as confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing (RA3.1.4.3.8). Portions of the duct system completely exposed and surrounded by directly conditioned space are not required to be insulated. Connections of metal ducts and inner core of flexible ducts must be mechanically fastened. Openings must be sealed with mastic, tape, or other duct-closure system that meets the applicable requirements of UL 181, UL 181A, or UL 181B or aerosol sealant that meets the requirements of UL 723. If mastic or tape is used to seal openings greater than ¼ inch, the combination of mastic and either mesh or tape must be used. Building cavities, support platforms for air handlers, and plenums designed or constructed with materials other than sealed sheet metal, duct board or flexible duct must not be used to convey conditioned air. Building cavities and support platforms may contain ducts. Ducts installed in cavities and support platforms must not be compressed to cause reductions in the cross-sectional area.*§ 150.0(m)2:Factory-Fabricated Duct Systems. Factory-fabricated duct systems must comply with applicable requirements for duct construction, connections, and closures; joints and seams of duct systems and their components must not be sealed with cloth back rubber adhesive duct tapes unless such tape is used in combination with mastic and draw bands. § 150.0(m)3:Field-Fabricated Duct Systems. Field-fabricated duct systems must comply with applicable requirements for: pressure-sensitive tapes, mastics, sealants, and other requirements specified for duct construction. § 150.0(m)7:Backdraft Damper. Fan systems that exchange air between the conditioned space and outdoors must have backdraft or automatic dampers. § 150.0(m)8:Gravity Ventilation Dampers. Gravity ventilating systems serving conditioned space must have either automatic or readily accessible, manually operated dampers in all openings to the outside, except combustion inlet and outlet air openings and elevator shaft vents. § 150.0(m)9:Protection of Insulation. Insulation must be protected from damage, sunlight, moisture, equipment maintenance, and wind. Insulation exposed to weather must be suitable for outdoor service. For example, protected by aluminum, sheet metal, painted canvas, or plastic cover. Cellular foam insulation must be protected as above or painted with a coating that is water retardant and provides shielding from solar radiation. § 150.0(m)10:Porous Inner Core Flex Duct. Porous inner core flex ducts must have a non-porous layer between the inner core and outer vapor barrier. § 150.0(m)11:Duct System Sealing and Leakage Test. When space conditioning systems use forced air duct systems to supply conditioned air to an occupiable space, the ducts must be sealed and duct leakage tested, as confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing, in accordance with § 150.0(m)11 and Reference Residential Appendix RA3. § 150.0(m)12:Air Filtration. Space conditioning systems with ducts exceeding 10 feet and the supply side of ventilation systems must have MERV 13 or equivalent filters. Filters for space conditioning systems must have a two inch depth or can be one inch if sized per Equation 150.0-A. Pressure drops and labeling must meet the requirements in §150.0(m)12. Filters must be accessible for regular service.* § 150.0(m)13:Space Conditioning System Airflow Rate and Fan Efficacy. Space conditioning systems that use ducts to supply cooling must have a hole for the placement of a static pressure probe, or a permanently installed static pressure probe in the supply plenum. Airflow must be &)0per ton of nominal cooling capacity, and an air-KDQGOLQJXQLWIDQHIILFDF\45 watts per CFM for gas furnace air handlers and 58 watts per CFM for all others. Small duct high velocity systems must provide an airflow 250 CFM per ton of nominal cooling capacity, and an air-handling unit fan efficacy 0.62 watts per CFM. Field verification testing is required in accordance with Reference Residential Appendix RA3.3.*2019 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory Measures Summary Requirements for Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality: § 150.0(o)1:Requirements for Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality. All dwelling units must meet the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62.2, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings subject to the amendments specified in § 150.0(o)1. § 150.0(o)1C:Single Family Detached Dwelling Units. Single family detached dwelling units, and attached dwelling units not sharing ceilings or floors with other dwelling units, occupiable spaces, public garages, or commercial spaces must have mechanical ventilation airflow provided at rates determined by ASHRAE 62.2 Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 and as specified in § 150.0(o)1C.§ 150.0(o)1E:Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units. Multifamily attached dwelling units must have mechanical ventilation airflow provided at rates in accordance with Equation 150.0-B and must be either a balanced system or continuous supply or continuous exhaust system. If a balanced system is not used, all units in the building must use the same system type and the dwelling-unit envelope leakage must be 0.3 CFM at 50 Pa (0.2 inch water) per square foot of dwelling unit envelope surface area and verified in accordance with Reference Residential Appendix RA3.8. § 150.0(o)1F:Multifamily Building Central Ventilation Systems. Central ventilation systems that serve multiple dwelling units must be balanced to provide ventilation airflow for each dwelling unit served at a rate equal to or greater than the rate specified by Equation 150.0-B. All unit airflows must be within 20 percent of the unit with the lowest airflow rate as it relates to the individual unit’s minimum required airflow rate needed for compliance. § 150.0(o)1G:Kitchen Range Hoods. Kitchen range hoods must be rated for sound in accordance with Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 62.2.§ 150.0(o)2:Field Verification and Diagnostic Testing. Dwelling unit ventilation airflow must be verified in accordance with Reference Residential Appendix RA3.7. A kitchen range hood must be verified in accordance with Reference Residential Appendix RA3.7.4.3 to confirm it is rated by HVI to comply with the airflow rates and sound requirements as specified in Section 5 and 7.2 of ASHRAE 62.2. Pool and Spa Systems and Equipment Measures: § 110.4(a):Certification by Manufacturers. Any pool or spa heating system or equipment must be certified to have all of the following: a thermal efficiency that complies with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations; an on-off switch mounted outside of the heater that allows shutting off the heater without adjusting the thermostat setting; a permanent weatherproof plate or card with operating instructions; and must not use electric resistance heating.*§ 110.4(b)1:Piping. Any pool or spa heating system or equipment must be installed with at least 36 inches of pipe between the filter and the heater, or dedicated suction and return lines, or built-in or built-up connections to allow for future solar heating. § 110.4(b)2:Covers. Outdoor pools or spas that have a heat pump or gas heater must have a cover. § 110.4(b)3:Directional Inlets and Time Switches for Pools. Pools must have directional inlets that adequately mix the pool water, and a time switch that will allow all pumps to be set or programmed to run only during off-peak electric demand periods. § 110.5:Pilot Light. Natural gas pool and spa heaters must not have a continuously burning pilot light. § 150.0(p):Pool Systems and Equipment Installation. Residential pool systems or equipment must meet the specified requirements for pump sizing, flow rate, piping, filters, and valves.*Lighting Measures: § 110.9:Lighting Controls and Components. All lighting control devices and systems, ballasts, and luminaires must meet the applicable requirements of § 110.9.*§ 150.0(k)1A:Luminaire Efficacy. All installed luminaires must meet the requirements in Table 150.0-A. § 150.0(k)1B:Blank Electrical Boxes. The number of electrical boxes that are more than five feet above the finished floor and do not contain a luminaire or other device must be no greater than the number of bedrooms. These electrical boxes must be served by a dimmer, vacancy sensor control, or fan speed control. § 150.0(k)1C:Recessed Downlight Luminaires in Ceilings. Luminaires recessed into ceilings must meet all of the requirements for: insulation contact (IC) labeling; air leakage; sealing; maintenance; and socket and light source as described in § 150.0(k)1C. § 150.0(k)1D:Electronic Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps. Ballasts for fluorescent lamps rated 13 watts or greater must be electronic and must have an output frequency no less than 20 kHz. § 150.0(k)1E:Night Lights, Step Lights, and Path Lights. Night lights, step lights and path lights are not required to comply with Table 150.0-A or be controlled by vacancy sensors provided they are rated to consume no more than 5 watts of power and emit no more than 150 lumens.§ 150.0(k)1F:Lighting Integral to Exhaust Fans. Lighting integral to exhaust fans (except when installed by the manufacturer in kitchen exhaust hoods) must meet the applicable requirements of § 150.0(k).*§ 150.0(k)1G:Screw based luminaires. Screw based luminaires must contain lamps that comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA8.*§ 150.0(k)1H:Light Sources in Enclosed or Recessed Luminaires. Lamps and other separable light sources that are not compliant with the JA8 elevated temperature requirements, including marking requirements, must not be installed in enclosed or recessed luminaires. § 150.0(k)1I:Light Sources in Drawers, Cabinets, and Linen Closets. Light sources internal to drawers, cabinetry or linen closets are not required to comply with Table 150.0-A or be controlled by vacancy sensors provided that they are rated to consume no more than 5 watts of power, emit no more than 150 lumens, and are equipped with controls that automatically turn the lighting off when the drawer, cabinet or linen closet is closed.§ 150.0(k)2A:Interior Switches and Controls. All forward phase cut dimmers used with LED light sources must comply with NEMA SSL 7A. § 150.0(k)2B:Interior Switches and Controls. Exhaust fans must be controlled separately from lighting systems.*§ 150.0(k)2C:Interior Switches and Controls. Lighting must have readily accessible wall-mounted controls that allow the lighting to be manually turned ON and OFF.* § 150.0(k)2D:Interior Switches and Controls. Controls and equipment must be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. § 150.0(k)2E:Interior Switches and Controls. Controls must not bypass a dimmer, occupant sensor, or vacancy sensor function if the control is installed to comply with § 150.0(k). § 150.0(k)2F:Interior Switches and Controls. Lighting controls must comply with the applicable requirements of § 110.9. 2019 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory Measures Summary § 150.0(k)2G:Interior Switches and Controls. An energy management control system (EMCS) may be used to comply with control requirements if it: provides functionality of the specified control according to § 110.9; meets the Installation Certificate requirements of § 130.4; meets the EMCS requirements of § 130.0(e); and meets all other requirements in § 150.0(k)2. § 150.0(k)2H:Interior Switches and Controls. A multiscene programmable controller may be used to comply with dimmer requirements in § 150.0(k) if it provides the functionality of a dimmer according to § 110.9, and complies with all other applicable requirements in § 150.0(k)2.§ 150.0(k)2I:Interior Switches and Controls. In bathrooms, garages, laundry rooms, and utility rooms, at least one luminaire in each of these spaces must be controlled by an occupant sensor or a vacancy sensor providing automatic-off functionality. If an occupant sensor is installed, it must be initially configured to manual-on operation using the manual control required under Section 150.0(k)2C. § 150.0(k)2J:Interior Switches and Controls. Luminaires that are or contain light sources that meet Reference Joint Appendix JA8 requirements for dimming, and that are not controlled by occupancy or vacancy sensors, must have dimming controls.*§ 150.0(k)2K:Interior Switches and Controls. Under cabinet lighting must be controlled separately from ceiling-installed lighting systems. § 150.0(k)3A:Residential Outdoor Lighting. For single-family residential buildings, outdoor lighting permanently mounted to a residential building, or to other buildings on the same lot, must meet the requirement in item § 150.0(k)3Ai (ON and OFF switch) and the requirements in either § 150.0(k)3Aii (photocell and either a motion sensor or automatic time switch control) or § 150.0(k)3Aiii (astronomical time clock), or an EMCS.§ 150.0(k)3B:Residential Outdoor Lighting. For low-rise residential buildings with four or more dwelling units, outdoor lighting for private patios, entrances, balconies, and porches; and residential parking lots and carports with less than eight vehicles per site must comply with either § 150.0(k)3A or with the applicable requirements in Sections 110.9, 130.0, 130.2, 130.4, 140.7 and 141.0. § 150.0(k)3C:Residential Outdoor Lighting. For low-rise residential buildings with four or more dwelling units, any outdoor lighting for residential parking lots or carports with a total of eight or more vehicles per site and any outdoor lighting not regulated by § 150.0(k)3B or § 150.0(k)3D must comply with the applicable requirements in Sections 110.9, 130.0, 130.2, 130.4, 140.7 and 141.0. § 150.0(k)4:Internally illuminated address signs. Internally illuminated address signs must comply with § 140.8; or must consume no more than 5 watts of power as determined according to § 130.0(c). § 150.0(k)5:Residential Garages for Eight or More Vehicles. Lighting for residential parking garages for eight or more vehicles must comply with the applicable requirements for nonresidential garages in Sections 110.9, 130.0, 130.1, 130.4, 140.6, and 141.0. § 150.0(k)6A:Interior Common Areas of Low-rise Multifamily Residential Buildings. In a low-rise multifamily residential building where the total interior common area in a single building equals 20 percent or less of the floor area, permanently installed lighting for the interior common areas in that building must be comply with Table 150.0-A and be controlled by an occupant sensor. § 150.0(k)6B:Interior Common Areas of Low-rise Multifamily Residential Buildings. In a low-rise multifamily residential building where the total interior common area in a single building equals more than 20 percent of the floor area, permanently installed lighting for the interior common areas in that building must: i.Comply with the applicable requirements in Sections 110.9, 130.0, 130.1, 140.6 and 141.0; andii.Lighting installed in corridors and stairwells must be controlled by occupant sensors that reduce the lighting power in each space by at least 50 percent. The occupant sensors must be capable of turning the light fully on and off from all designed paths of ingress and egress.Solar Ready Buildings: § 110.10(a)1:Single Family Residences. Single family residences located in subdivisions with 10 or more single family residences and where the application for a tentative subdivision map for the residences has been deemed complete and approved by the enforcement agency, which do not have a photovoltaic system installed, must comply with the requirements of § 110.10(b) through§ 110.10(e).§ 110.10(a)2:Low-rise Multifamily Buildings. Low-rise multi-family buildings that do not have a photovoltaic system installed must comply with the requirements of § 110.10(b) through § 110.10(d). § 110.10(b)1:Minimum Solar Zone Area. The solar zone must have a minimum total area as described below. The solar zone must comply with access, pathway, smoke ventilation, and spacing requirements as specified in Title 24, Part 9 or other parts of Title 24 or in any requirements adopted by a local jurisdiction. The solar zone total area must be comprised of areas that have no dimension less than 5 feet and are no less than 80 square feet each for buildings with roof areas less than or equal to 10,000 square feet or no less than 160 square feet each for buildings with roof areas greater than 10,000 square feet. For single family residences, the solar zone must be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 250 square feet. For low-rise multi-family buildings the solar zone must be located on the roof or overhang of the building, or on the roof or overhang of another structure located within 250 feet of the building, or on covered parking installed with the building project, and have a total area no less than 15 percent of the total roof area of the building excluding any skylight area. The solar zone requirement is applicable to the entire building, including mixed occupancy.*§ 110.10(b)2:Azimuth. All sections of the solar zone located on steep-sloped roofs must be oriented between 90 degrees and 300 degrees of true north.§ 110.10(b)3A:Shading. The solar zone must not contain any obstructions, including but not limited to: vents, chimneys, architectural features, and roofmounted equipment.*§ 110.10(b)3B:Shading. Any obstruction located on the roof or any other part of the building that projects above a solar zone must be located at least twice the distance, measured in the horizontal plane, of the height difference between the highest point of the obstruction and the horizontal projection of the nearest point of the solar zone, measured in the vertical plane.*§ 110.10(b)4:Structural Design Loads on Construction Documents. For areas of the roof designated as a solar zone, the structural design loads for roof dead load and roof live load must be clearly indicated on the construction documents. § 110.10(c):Interconnection Pathways. The construction documents must indicate: a location reserved for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway reserved for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service; and for single family residences and central water-heating systems, a pathway reserved for routing plumbing from the solar zone to the water-heating system. § 110.10(d):Documentation. A copy of the construction documents or a comparable document indicating the information from § 110.10(b) through § 110.10(c) must be provided to the occupant.§ 110.10(e)1:Main Electrical Service Panel. The main electrical service panel must have a minimum busbar rating of 200 amps. § 110.10(e)2:Main Electrical Service Panel. The main electrical service panel must have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future solar electric installation. The reserved space must be permanently marked as “For Future Solar Electric”.09/09/22DEK2201-1110921T24.2TITLE 24 ENERGY DOCUMENTATIONFOULKES ADDITION 1690 LITTLETON PLACE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1.2.3.Ceiling joists to top plate4.5.6.Collar tie to rafter7.Per Table 2308.7.3.1Each end, toenailEnd nailFace nailEach joist, toenailFace nailFace nailFace nailToenail (c)End nailToenailBlocking between rafters or truss not at the walltop plate, to rafter or trussBlocking between ceiling joists, rafters or trussesto top plate or other framing belowFlat blocking to truss and web fillerCeiling joist not attached to parallel rafter, lapsover partitions (no thrust)(See Section 2308.7.3.1, Table 2308.7.3.1)Ceiling joists attached to parallel rafter (heel joint)(Section 2308.7.3.1 and Table 2308.7.3.1)Rafter or roof truss to top plate(See section 2308.7.5 and Table 2308.7.5)3-8d common (2 12” x 0.131”); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3-3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown16d common (3½” x 0.162”) @ 6” o.c.3” x 0.131” nails @ 6” o.c.3” x 14 gage staples @ 6” o.c.2-16d common (3½” x 0.162”)3-3” x 0.131” nails3-3” 14 gage staples2 - 8d common (2 12″ × 0.131″)2 - 3″ × 0.131″ nails2 - 3″ 14 gage staples3 - 8d common (2 12″ × 0.131″); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3 - 3″ × 0.131″ nails; or3 - 3″ 14 gage staples, 716” crownRoof rafters to ridge valley or hip rafters; or roofrafter to 2” ridge beam8.9.10.13.14.Built-up header (2” to 2” header)15.16.16d common (312” x 0.162”);16d box (312” x 0.135”);Stud to top or bottom plate16” o.c. face nail12” o.c. face nail12” o.c. face nail16” o.c. face nailToenailEnd nail17.19.20.21.Face nailFace nailFace nailFace nailStud to Stud (not at braced wall panels)Stud to stud and abutting studs at intersecting wallcorners (at braced wall panels)3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crownEach side of end joint,face nail (min 24” lapsplice length each sideof end joint)Top plate to top plate, at end jointsBottom plate to joist, rim joist, band joist orblocking (not at braced wall panels)Bottom plate to joist, rim joist, band joist orblocking at braced wall panelsTop plates, laps at corners and intersections1” brace to each stud and plate1” x 8” and wider sheathing to each bearing1” x 6” sheathing to each bearing22.23.24.25.26.27.2” plank (plank & beam - floor & roof)28.29.Toenail6” o.c., toenailFace nailFace nailEach bearing, face nailEach joist or rafter,face nailEnd nailEach end, toenailJoist to sill, top plate, or girderRim joist, band joist, or blocking to top plate,sill or other framing below1” x 6” subfloor or less to each joist2” subfloor to joist or girderBuilt up girders and beams, 2” lumber layers32” o.c. face nail at topand bottom staggeredon opposite sidesEnds and at each splice,face nailLedger strip supporting joists or raftersJoist to band joist or rim joist31.1 ¾” 16 gage staple, 716” crown(subfloor and wall)2 38 ” x 0.113” nail (roof)1 ¾” 16 gage staple, 716” crown (roof)32.33.1932” – 34”78” – 1 14”8d common or deformed (212” x 0.131”)(roof) OR RSRS-01 (238” x 0.113")nail (roof)6”34.35.12” fiberboard sheathing1 ½” galvanized roof nail(716” head diameter); or1 14” 16 gage staple with 716” or 1” crown41.¼”38”36.37.38.¾” and less78”-1”1 18”-1 ¼”39.40.½” or less58”For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm.a. Nails spaced at 6 inches at intermediate supports where spans are 48” or more. For nailing of wood structural panel andparticleboard diaphragms and shear walls, refer to Section 2305. Nails for wall sheathing are permitted to be common, boxor casing.b. Spacing shall be 6 inches on center on the edges and 12 inches on center at intermediate supports for nonstructuralapplications. Panel supports at 16 inches (20 inches if strength axis in the long direction of the panel, unless otherwisemarked).c. Where a rafter is fastened to an adjacent parallel ceiling joist in accordance with this schedule and the ceiling joist is fastenedto the top plate in accordance with this schedule, the number of toenails in the rafters shall be permitted to be reduced by onenail.d. RSRS-01 is a Roof Sheathing Rink Shank nail meeting the specifications in ASTM F1667.Each end, toenail3-16d common (3 12” x 0.162”); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown3-10d common (3” x 0.148”); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown2-16d common (3 12” x 0.162”); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3-3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown; or3-10d common (3” x 0.148”); or4-16d box (3 12” x 0.135”); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown3-10d common (3” x 0.148”); or3-16d box (312” x 0.135”);or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown24” o.c. face nail16” o.c. face nail10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown16d box (312” x 0.135”);16” o.c. face nail12” o.c. face nail16d common (312” x 0.162”);8-16d common (312” x 0.162”); or12-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or12-3” x 0.131” nails; or12-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown16” o.c. face nail16d common (312” x 0.162”); or12” o.c. face nail16d box (3” x 0.135”); or3” x 0.131” nails; or3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown2-16d common (3 12” x 0.162”); or3-16d box (3” x 0.135”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown4-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown; or2-16d common (312” x 0.162”); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3-3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown2-16d common (312” x 0.162”); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3-3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown18.2-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or2-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or2-3” x 0.131” nails; or2-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown2-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or2-10d box (3” x 0.128”)3-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”)3-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or floor3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3-3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown8d common (212” x 0.131”); or10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3” x 0.131” nails; or3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown2-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or2-10d box (3” x 0.128”);2-16d common (312” x 0.162”)2-16d common (312” x 0.162”)And:2-20d common (4” x 0.192”); or3-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3-3” x 0.131” nails; or3-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown3-16d common (312” x 0.162”); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown3-16d common (312” x 0.162”); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or4-3” x 0.131” nails; or4-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crownBridging or blocking to joist, rafter or truss2-8d common (212” x 0.131”); or2-10d box (3” x 0.128”); or2-3” x 0.131” nails; or2-3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown38 ”- 12”6d common or deformed (2” x 0.113”)(subfloor and wall)12”d4”8”4”8”3”6”6”12”2 38 ” x 0.113” nail (subfloor and wall)6”12”8d common or deformed (212” x 0.131”)(roof) OR RSRS-01 (238” x 0.113")nail (roof)6”8d common (2 12” x 0.113”);or 6d deformed (2” x 0.113”)(subfloor and wall)12”d6”12”2 38” x 0.113" nail; or2” 16 gage staple, 716” crown4”8”10d common (3” x 0.148”); or8d deformed (2 12” x 0.131”)6”12”3”6”2532” fiberboard sheathing1 34” galvanized roof nail(716” diameter head); or1 12” 16 gage staple with 716” or 1” crown3”6”8d common (2 12” x 0.131”); or8d deformed (2 12” x 0.131”)6”12”8d common (2 12” x 0.131”); or6d deformed (2” x 0.113”)6”12”10d common (3” x 0.148”); or8d deformed (2 12” x 0.131”)6”12”6” 12”6”12”6d corrosion-resistant siding(1 78” x 0.106”); or6d corrosion-resistant casing(2 ” x 0.099”)8d corrosion-resistant siding(2 38” x 0.128”); or8d corrosion-resistant casing(2 12” x 0.113”)6”12”6”12”4d casing (1 12” x 0.080”); or4d finish (1 12 ” x 0.072”)6d casing (2” x 0.099”); or6d finish (Panel supports at 24 inches)16d common (312” x 0.162”);11.Continuous header to studToenail4-8d common (212” x 0.131); or4-10d box (3” x 0.128”)12.Top plate to top plate12” o.c. face nail16” o.c. face nail16d common (312” x 0.162”); or10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3” x 0.131” nails; or3” 14 gage staples, 716” crown20 common (4” x 0.192")24” o.c. face nail at topand bottom staggeredon opposite sides10d box (3” x 0.128”); or3” x 0.131” nails; or3” 14 gage staples, 716” crownaEdges(Inches)IntermediateSupports(Inches)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbbxx FOUNDATION PLAN LOWER ROOF & EXISTING UPPER FLOOR FRAMING PLAN UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLANNO NEW WORKREFERENCE ONLY Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)Construction projects are required to implement year-round stormwater BMPs.Non-Hazardous MaterialsBerm and cover stockpiles of sand, dirt or other construction material with tarps when rain is forecast or when they are not in use.Use (but don’t overuse) reclaimed water for dust control.Ensure dust control water doesn’t leave site or discharge to storm drains.Hazardous MaterialsLabel all hazardous materials and hazardous wastes (such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, fuel, oil, and antifreeze) in accordance with City, County, State and Federal regulations.Store hazardous materials and wastes in water tight containers, store in appropriate secondary containment, and cover them at the end of every work day or during wet weather or when rain is forecast.Follow manufacturer’s application instructions for hazardous materials and do not use more than necessary. Do not apply chemicals outdoors when rain is forecast within 24 hours.Arrange for appropriate disposal of all hazardous wastes.Waste ManagementCover and maintain dumpsters. Check frequently for leaks. Place dumpsters under roofs or cover with tarps or plastic sheeting secured around the outside of the dumpster. A plastic liner is recommended to prevent leaks. Never clean out a dumpster by hosing it down on the construction site.Place portable toilets away from storm drains. Make sure they are in good working order. Check frequently for leaks. Dispose of all wastes and demolition debris properly. Recycle materials and wastes that can be recycled, including solvents, water-based paints, vehicle ﬂuids, broken asphalt and concrete, wood, and cleared vegetation. Dispose of liquid residues from paints, thinners, solvents, glues, and cleaning ﬂuids as hazardous waste.Keep site free of litter (e.g. lunch items, cigarette butts).Prevent litter from uncovered loads by covering loads that are being transported to and from site.Construction Entrances and PerimeterEstablish and maintain effective perimeter controls and stabilize all construction entrances and exits to sufﬁciently control erosion and sediment discharges from site and tracking off site.Sweep or vacuum any street tracking immediately and secure sediment source to prevent further tracking. Never hose down streets to clean up tracking.Materials & Waste ManagementEquipment Management & Spill ControlMaintenance and ParkingDesignate an area of the construction site, well away from streams or storm drain inlets and ﬁtted with appropriate BMPs, for auto and equipment parking, and storage.Perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle and equipment washing off site.If refueling or vehicle maintenance must be done onsite, work in a bermed area away from storm drains and over a drip pan or drop cloths big enough to collect ﬂuids. Recycle or dispose of ﬂuids as hazardous waste. If vehicle or equipment cleaning must be done onsite, clean with water only in a bermed area that will not allow rinse water to run into gutters, streets, storm drains, or surface waters.Do not clean vehicle or equipment onsite using soaps, solvents, degreasers, or steam cleaning equipment, and do not use diesel oil to lubricate equipment or parts onsite.Spill Prevention and Control Keep spill cleanup materials (e.g., rags, absorbents and cat litter) available at the construction site at all times. Maintain all vehicles and heavy equipment. Inspect frequently for and repair leaks. Use drip pans to catch leaks until repairs are made.Clean up leaks, drips and other spills immediately and dispose of cleanup materials properly. Use dry cleanup methods whenever possible (absorbent materials, cat litter and/or rags). Sweep up spilled dry materials immediately. Never attempt to “wash them away” with water, or bury them. Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soil.Report signiﬁcant spills to the appropriate local spill response agencies immediately. If the spill poses a signiﬁcant hazrd to human health and safety, property or the environment, you must report it to the State Ofﬁce of Emergency Services. (800) 852-7550 (24 hours). EarthmovingGrading and EarthworkSchedule grading and excavation work during dry weather.Stabilize all denuded areas, install and maintain temporary erosion controls (such as erosion control fabric or bonded ﬁber matrix) until vegetation is established.Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary, plant temporary vegetation for erosion control on slopes or where construction is not immediately planned. Prevent sediment from migrating offsite and protect storm drain inlets, drainage courses and streams by installing and maintaining appropriate BMPs (i.e. silt fences, gravel bags, ﬁber rolls, temporary swales, etc.).Keep excavated soil on site and transfer it to dump trucks on site, not in the streets.Contaminated SoilsIf any of the following conditions are observed, test for contamination and contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board:Unusual soil conditions, discoloration, -or odor.Abandoned underground tanks.-Abandoned wells-Buried barrels, debris, or trash.-If the above conditions are observed, document any signs of potential contamination and clearly mark them so they are not distrurbed by construction activities.LandscapingProtect stockpiled landscaping materials from wind and rain by storing them under tarps all year-round.Stack bagged material on pallets and under cover. Discontinue application of any erodible landscape material within 2 days before a forecast rain event or during wet weather.PavingAvoid paving and seal coating in wet weather or when rain is forecast, to prevent materials that have not cured from contacting stormwater runoff.Cover storm drain inlets and manholes when applying seal coat, slurry seal, fog seal, or similar materials.Collect and recycle or properly dispose of excess abrasive gravel or sand. Do NOT sweep or wash it into gutters.Sawcutting & Asphalt/Concrete RemovalProtect storm drain inlets during saw cutting. If saw cut slurry enters a catch basin, clean it up immediately. Shovel or vacuum saw cut slurry deposits and remove from the site. When making saw cuts, use as little water as possible. Sweep up, and properly dispose of all residues.Concrete ManagementStore both dry and wet materials under cover, protected from rainfall and runoff and away from storm drains or waterways. Store materials off the ground, on pallets. Protect dry materials from wind. Wash down exposed aggregate concrete only when the wash water can (1) ﬂow onto a dirt area; (2) drain onto a bermed surface from which it can be pumped and disposed of properly; or (3) block any storm drain inlets and vacuum washwater from the gutter. If possible, sweep ﬁrst. Wash out concrete equipment/trucks offsite or in a designated washout area onsite, where the water will ﬂow into a temporary waste pit, and make sure wash water does not leach into the underlying soil. (See CASQA Construction BMP Handbook for properly designed concrete washouts.)DewateringDischarges of groundwater or captured runoff from dewatering operations must be properly managed and disposed. When possible, send dewatering discharge to landscaped area or sanitary sewer. If discharging to the sanitary sewer, call your local wastewater treatment plant. Divert run-on water from offsite away from all disturbed areas. When dewatering, notify and obtain approval from the local municipality before discharging water to a street gutter or storm drain. Filtration or diversion through a basin, tank, or sediment trap may be required.In areas of known or suspected contamination, call your local agency to determine whether the ground water must be tested. Pumped groundwater may need to be collected and hauled off-site for treatment and proper disposal.Painting Cleanup and RemovalNever clean brushes or rinse paint containers into a street, gutter, storm drain, or stream.For water-based paints, paint out brushes to the extent possible, and rinse into a drain that goes to the sanitary sewer. Never pour paint down a storm drain.For oil-based paints, paint out brushes to the extent possible and clean with thinner or solvent in a proper container. Filter and reuse thinners and solvents. Dispose of excess liquids as hazardous waste.Sweep up or collect paint chips and dust from non-hazardous dry stripping and sand blasting into plastic drop cloths and dispose of as trash.Chemical paint stripping residue and chips and dust from marine paints or paints containing lead, mercury, or tributyltin must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Lead based paint removal requires a state-certiﬁed contractor.Painting & Paint RemovalConcrete Management and DewateringPaving/Asphalt WorkStorm drain polluters may be liable for ﬁnes of up to $10,000 per day! February 23, 2023 Mr. Daniel Fama Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Campbell 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Fama: This letter serves as background for my request for two zoning exceptions for my property located at 1690 Littleton Place in Campbell. Frist would be for exceeding the non-conforming provisions per CMC Sec. 21.58.050.D.1. and second would be a deviation from the placement, height, and design requirements for ADU’s on historic properties per CMC Sec. 21.23.060. BACKGROUND OF THE HOUSE By way of background, my property is a landmark property in the City of Campbell, developed by locally famous architects Wolfe and McKenzie for Henry Littleton, the scion of a British music publishing house (Littleton Place was named after his family). Subsequently it was owned by the Martin family (Harriet Avenue was named after Mrs. Martin). It is now known as the Littleton- Martin home. The property comprised many acres (differing reports say 30-70) and was a working farm. In the 1950’s the son of the 4th owners, the Bersanos, married and converted the hay loft in the carriage Attachment - H house into living space. I have spoken to him directly about this conversion. In later years part of the upstairs of the house was converted to an apartment with an exterior staircase as access. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the home came off its foundation, had all of its chimneys collapse and the floorboards ripped up along the walls. The house was abandoned for many years, and was looted, vandalized, and headed towards demolition. The owners before me spent 15 years restoring the house, but did the work themselves on a tight budget. When they went to sell the house it sat on the market for several years with no takers – given how daunting the restoration would need to be. When I purchased the house, it had no heating on the first floor, the electrical load was 27 times code (so you could not light more than a couple of rooms) and had a huge litany of problems – such that I was not able to move my family into the house for 6 months. After 12 years of professionals restoring the house – on projects large and small – I am hoping to finalize restoration of the house – unifying the main home and carriage house, making the property useful for my family, and preserving all of the wonderful historic aspects of the house. My first effort was on the main house – where I have undergone an 8-month restoration/replacement of the original shingle roof and repainted the entire house. This was necessary to preserve the house and came at such a huge cost that no prior owner in over 120 years had attempted it. Now I am turning my attention to the carriage house. It likewise is in horrible shape and requires a new roof and panting as well. As I look to move forward on that project, I need to make some alterations to the carriage house in order to make the property functional for me and my mother, without harming any of the historical aspects of the property. REQUEST I have a collection of old family cars that are very special to me, and I have never been able to house on my property since there is no garage. The carriage house – which used to hold vehicles – has long been converted to living space. I would like to build a two-car garage to at least house two of the cars. They are quite large – the largest being a 1966 Chrysler 300 convertible which is over 20 feet long and extremely wide. Currently I have to house them in two different sites in the East Bay both of which I will lose soon. Beyond that I would like to be able to drive them, not have them 60 miles away from me. My mother also lives in the carriage house and after her stroke is confined to the first floor. She has no closet and has her clothes piled up in and around the first floor. I would love to give her a closet that she can reach and help organize her as she very much wants to maintain her independence. To that end I am hoping to build a garage in the back of the carriage house with a closet for my mother and space for 2 historic vehicles. ZONING EXCEPTION REQUIREMENTS A zoning exception in Campbell requires a showing of 5 findings. I believe my request squarely satisfies all 5 set out below: 1. The zoning exception must be necessary to minimize the impact to the historic character of an historic resource. The proposed location of the garage would have no impact on the historical character of the home or carriage house for the following reasons. My property is unique, having the original house now backwards on the property with the dramatic front of the house facing the back yard. Next to it the carriage house is facing the street, so to preserve the two historic vantage points, I cannot put a garage in front of the carriage house nor behind the main house. The property has a 300 plus year old heritage oak tree on the property and with the canopy and root system takes up a large part of the yard which otherwise could house a garage. There is an easement running through the property from one side to the other for storm drain access by the city, so that cannot be built on, eliminating the other corner of the property. Given those restrictions, there is no place on the property that a garage can be built without impacting the character of the house except the small notch of land behind the carriage house – which is now a rickety and relatively recently build deck. The location of the garage would not impact the historic views of either house. It would not obstruct any historic characteristics of the carriage house as the rear of the house was remodeled and changed sometime in the 1970’s. The neighbors would not be impacted as their garages line both sides of the notch property – one being 2 feet from my fence line and the other being around 4 feet. Our project would have a larger setback that either of those with landscaping to hide the garage from the neighbors. Finally, as the carriage house originally held carriages and subsequently cars, it would be returning to its original function, in the same location vis a vis the building where the carriages/cars would have been historically – before the carriage house was moved onto the current parcel from across the street. 2. The zoning exception will facilitate development and use of a historic resource in a manner that is more consistent with its historic character than would be possible under strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The original home was a large farm with a large barn and carriage house in the back of the property which is now the cul de sac and other homes. With the carriage house moved onto the current property and the house now backwards facing the back yard – the goal of this project would be to unify the property and reincorporate the carriage house and yard into a seamless and beautiful homestead. With the addition of the garage – my historic cars would be preserved and visible while not creating an eyesore on the property or something out of character. I would be able to then remove a great deal of pavement in the yard and return it to the wonderful gardens it once was. The carriage house would lose its “separate” identity with gates and a separate entrance (currently making it appear to be a separate property) and be unified with the main house. This would return both homes in a single unified property as it had been in the past. Strict complying with the current zoning is inconsistent with any of the surrounding homes, and would diminish rather than enhance the views of the historic home and its functionality. 3. The zoning exception will not negatively impact the integrity or historic characteristics of the historic resource. As mentioned above, the historic aspects of the carriage house are the front and sides with the original architectural features and siding. The rear of the property where the garage would be added was re-done in the 1970’s with aluminum windows and non-original siding. The deck off the house is poor newer construction. None of the historic features of the house would be damaged, the new roof and painting would do much to protect the entire structure from the decay is it currently experiencing, and the addition would have architectural features which match the historic nature of the building while meeting all of the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for additions. 4. The zoning exception is the minimum departure from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. We have spent several months with my architect who specializes in historic preservation and restoration looking for the absolute best way to minimize impact on the property and to meet the zoning ordinance. I believe this plan achieves those goals. As mentioned, we would have a much larger setback than either of the garages that currently line the fence where the garage would be located. The dimensions of the garage are necessary to fit the cars, and my mother’s need for a closet, but do not go beyond that. Our original plans for a 4-car garage were scrapped because of the impact on the property. Of the 6 properties that connect to my fence line – none of them meeting current zoning requirements. We are asking for the minimum needed in the only feasible space on my larger than ½ acre property to allow me to bring my cars home. 5. The zoning exception is in conformance with the General Plan, adopted area plan, and applicable design guidelines. The carriage house was moved onto the property from its original site across the street and treated by the city as an ADU before current ADU guidelines were established. Thus, it was grandfathered in. The setbacks for the garage exceed any of the setbacks for other garages that abut my property. The General Plan and design guidelines for Campbell require that this project be located in the area behind the carriage house as any other location on the lot would have a much greater violation of the city’s guidelines. Thus, the need for the zoning exception. Thank you and the city for considering my proposal and feel free to reach out to me or my architect at any time for questions or more information. Very truly yours, D. Michael Foulkes 1690 Littleton Place Campbell, CA 95008 1 Daniel Fama From:Leonid Sapozhnikov <leosap@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 4, 2023 12:19 PM To:Daniel Fama Subject:1690 Littleton place Historic house update objections Attachments:5A897F7C-71A3-4E96-8A41-AE0AF8607658.jpeg Hi Daniel I have question about this property planned update Unfortunately I missed meeting but since it effect me want to know more and express my objections in general My name Leonid Sapozhnikov 1673 Luika place Campbell Originally in 1995-96 this house was moved next to my property line as exception in violation rules back then since I was told this is historic house which need to be preserved as is and designated for occasional use only Proposed update will change house which was permitted to move closer to my property line since it need to be preserved But this update take it to completely different direction and increase encroachment to my property and make alterations to historical house which I was told need to be preserved as is So I want express my I think valid objection to this plan, as well as city plans to preserve historic house as is Please let me know what is the latest update to this And what is proper venue for objections Thank you Leonid Sapozhnikov Attachment - I HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 22, 2023 I 5:00pm City Hall Council Chamber CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of March 22, 2023 was called to order at 5:00 pm by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL Staff Members Present: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Minutes of February 22, 2023 (Roll Call Vote) Meeting Minutes, 2/22/2023 All approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Board on matters of community interest that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may limit speakers to three minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Board from acting on non- agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up. BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Board Members and/or staff may make announcements on matters related to historic preservation and promotion. HPB Members Present: Todd Walter, Chair Susan Blake, Acting Chair Michael Foulkes Laura Taylor Moore HPB Members Absent: Rob Corteway Attachment - J Campbell Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2023 Page 2 2. Agenda Format Revision PUBLIC HEARING 3. 1690 Littleton Place – Zoning Exception (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Public Hearing to consider the request of Loretz Construction, Inc. on behalf of David M. Foulkes, Trustee, for a Zoning Exception to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") previously approved by a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04), on a Landmark Property listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, located at 1690 Littleton Place in the R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District), including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non-conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties. File No.: PLN-2022-158. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative Planning Commission Date: April 25, 2023. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Recommended Action: That the Historic Preservation Board adopt a resolution recommending approval of a Zoning Exception (PLN-2022-158). (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)  Staff Report Board Member Foulkes recused himself from the Public Hearing on Item 3. Senior Planner Daniel Fama presented staff report to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") Chair Walter asked about the historic status of structure compared to the property and whether project should even be coming before the Historic Preservation Board for approval. Senior Planner Fama clarified that because building is grandfathered in, the applicant can’t make it bigger under the current rules. In order to expand it, the applicant needs to seek special permission under the code known as a zoning exception, which is reserved for historic properties, and that’s the sole reason it is before the Historic Preservation Board. Chair opened the public hearing for comment, hearing none Chair closed the public hearing for comment. Motion: Upon motion by Board Member Moore, seconded by Board Member Blake, the Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution No. 2023-03 recommending to allow an approximately 666 square-foot expansion (inclusive of a 557 square-foot garage addition and 109 square-foot living area addition) of an existing accessory dwelling unit ("carriage house") previously approved by a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-04), on a Landmark Property listed on the Campbell Historic Resource Campbell Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes – March 22, 2023 Page 3 Inventory (HRI), commonly known as the Littleton-Martin House, located at 1690 Littleton Place in the R-1-9-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) Combining Zoning District), including exceedance of the maximum allowable size for an accessory dwelling unit, an exception to the expansion prohibition for legal non-conforming structures, and exceptions to the special provisions for accessory dwelling units located on historic properties. File No.: PLN-2022-158, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Walter, Moore, Blake NOES: None ABSENT: Corteway ABSTAIN: Foulkes STUDY SESSION 4. Required Certified Local Government (CLG) Training The Board and staff will conduct a training session (webinar), provided by the California Preservation Foundation, as required to maintain the City's CLG certification. Study Session was regarding the applicability of state housing laws to historic preservation. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned meeting at 7:05 PM to the Special Historic Preservation Board meeting of March 29, 2023, at 5:00 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and via telecommunication. PREPARED BY: _______________________________ Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst APPROVED: ______________________________ Todd Walter, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Daniel Fama, Secretary To: Chair Buchbinder and Planning Commissioners Date: April 25, 2023 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Preliminary Application Study Session File No.: PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue BACKGROUND Purpose: The purpose of this study session is to present preliminary plans for a 6-unit "small-lot single-family" residential subdivision (reference Attachment 1 – Preliminary Plans). The project would result in over 21,000 square-feet of building area, exceeding the threshold of 20,000 square-feet for mandatory preliminary application (pre-application) review specified by Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Sec. 21.41.020.A. Review of the preliminary plans is limited to the overall project design concept and is not considered a substitute for formal project review. The preliminary application process provides an opportunity for the Planning Commission (and the public) to provide feedback during the early stages of the planning process in order to facilitate preparation of a formal application. Comments provided to the applicant on the preliminary application, however, are advisory in nature and are not binding on the formal application. Also note that this proposal constitutes a State pre-application, pursuant to the California Housing Crisis Act (reference Attachment 2 – SB-330 Pre-App Checklist). Project Site: The project site is an approximately 17,418 square-foot assemblage of two residential properties located along Sunnyside Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard. The site is currently developed with two single-family residences, including one that has been previously identified as potentially historically significant, as discussed, below. Small-lot detached single-family homes border the site to the east and south, and a restaurant is located to the west: MEMORANDUM Community Development Department Planning Division PC Study Session Memorandum – April 25, 2023 Page 2 PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue Land Use Context: The project site is within and adjacent to the General Plan Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units/gr. acre) land use district, as shown below. The Medium Density Residential (14-20 units/gr. acre) and Central Commercial districts border the site to the south and west, respectively. The project would result in a density of 12.8 units/gr. acre, which is under the maximum allowable density of the Low-Medium Residential designation. Housing Crisis Act (Vesting Pre-Application): The Housing Crisis Act, originally adopted as SB 330 in 2019 and amended by SB 8 in 2021, is a broad law that contains various components, among which is a vesting pre-application process. This particular provision, in association with related changes to the Permit Streamlining Act, allows a developer to submit preliminary plans to the city that vest ("lock-in") zoning code standards, General Plan policies, and building/fire codes that are in effect at the time of submittal. As such, the project will not be subject to the pending 2040 General Plan or the new Multi-Family Development and Design Standards. However, under the new General Plan, the project site would still support six dwelling units since it was not a designated housing opportunity site with an increased density. After submitting the pre-application, the developer has up to 180 days to submit a formal application. Upon submittal, the city must inform the developer within 30 or 60 days, depending on the number of units in the project, if the project is consistent with all objective standards. The city must then render a decision on the application within 60 days after making its CEQA determination, and construction of the project must commence within 2 ½ years following the date the project receives final approval from the city. Any changes to the formal application must not increase the number of residential units or square footage of construction by more than 20% of that shown on the pre-application plans to avoid triggering a requirement for a new pre-application1. Additionally, the housing development project may not result in a net loss of residential units, and any "protected" units (those occupied by lower-income households) that are demolished, must be replaced with equivalent units with affordable rents and relocation benefits provided to displaced tenants. 1 The limitation on adding units or floor area after pre-application submittal does not apply to units or area gained through exercise of a Density Bonus. PC Study Session Memorandum – April 25, 2023 Page 3 PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue Historical Value: The project site includes a single-family residence, located on the 44 Sunnyside Avenue parcel, that was constructed circa 1900. Due to the age of this structure and its placement on the City's list of potentially historic properties, demolition of the building could be considered a "significant impact" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To address this issue, the applicant procured a historical assessment prepared by an historic resource consultant (reference Attachment 3). These materials were peer-reviewed by the City’s Historical, 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 (reference Attachment 4 – Peer Review Memo). Upon review of a formal development application for the project, the Planning Commission would need to determine if the project was "categorically exempt" from CEQA. This determination would be made in part based on the aformentioned historical assesment materials as well any other documenation or information that may be brought to the City's attention. PROJECT DATA Zoning Designation: P-D (Planned Development) General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units/gr. acre) Area Plan(s): N/A Proposed Density: 12.8 units/gr. acre Lot Area: Gross Lot Area: 20,418 square-feet Existing Net Lot: 17,418 square-feet Building Height: 35-ft (approximate) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.26 Building (Lot) Coverage: 45% Building Floor Area (x6): Living Area: 3,081 square-feet Garage: 447 square-feet 3,528 square-feet (per unit) x 6 units 21,168 square-feet (total building area) Parking: 6 covered stalls Building Setbacks2: Proposed Minimum Required Front (north): 5 feet N/A Side (west): 10 feet N/A Side (east): 10 feet N/A Rear (south): 5 feet N/A 2 As measured from exterior property lines PC Study Session Memorandum – April 25, 2023 Page 4 PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue DISCUSSION Scope of Review: As a housing development project, the City is limited in its capability to "deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible" the project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) unless: 1) the proposal is found to be in violation of an objective general plan/zoning standard (other than those waived/reduced through use of the Density Bonus law); or 2) the project will result in a specific adverse impact to public health and safety. While changes to the project may be applied by the decision-making body to further applicable goals, policies, and strategies – any changes not based on objective standards may not make the project infeasible or reduce the number of units. For example, the decision-making body may not deny a project because of a proposed paint color or window location, but still retains the authority to condition such change(s). The Planning Commission must consider if any recommended conditions of approval or modifications to the project are consistent with the HAA and may request clarification from staff where appropriate. Site Layout: The preliminary site plan, below, depicts a private roadway/drive-aisle connecting from Sunnyside Avenue into the site, which would provide vehicular access to each unit's garage. The roadway is 26-feet wide, satisfying the minimum dimensions for County Fire District emergency vehicle aerial access, as well as for garbage trucks. There is no proposed pedestrian access (i.e., sidewalks) through the community. Parking: Each unit would be provided with two parking stalls within each garage. No guest parking is proposed. As this property is within ½ mile of the Downtown Campbell light-rail station, no parking is required pursuant to AB-2097. The City's parking requirement for a "small-lot single-family" project would have otherwise required 3 spaces per unit (2 ½ spaces + ½ space guest), for a total of 18 stalls. PC Study Session Memorandum – April 25, 2023 Page 5 PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue Subdivision Layout: The tentative subdivision map, below, shows 6 private lots, where the private roadway/drive-aisle would sit atop an easement, rather than a commonly owned parcel. This configuration is typically proposed as a means to avoid the creation of a homeowner's association (HOA) as there would be no commonly owned property to manage. Although this approach may reduce cost to the project by a negligible amount, staff intends to recommend a condition of approval that would require the easement to be mapped as a common parcel instead, and requiring the formation of an HOA governed by a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Although not an objective standard, this change is consistent with the HAA in that it would not render the project infeasible nor reduce the number of units proposed by the pre-app. For nearly 20 years, the City has required that all subdivisions that have private roadways/drive-aisles incorporate a common lot(s) managed by an HOA. Compelling the formation of the HOA will provide a mechanism for the homeowners to fund future repair and/or replacement of the roadway surface and underground utilities (e.g., water, electric, sewer, and stormwater), under the requirement of the Davis-Stirling Act, which governs common interest developments in California. Moreover, creation of an HOA also allows the City to engage singular legal entity, rather than six individual property owners, should the need arise in the future to coordinate with the owners. PC Study Session Memorandum – April 25, 2023 Page 6 PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue Architectural Design: The preliminary plans depict two unit models. The homes abutting Sunnyside Avenue, on Lots #1 and #2, would be oriented towards the public street. The other lots would have homes oriented towards the interior roadway. Both models appear to incorporate elements of modern farmhouse design, which combines traditional farmhouse aesthetics with contemporary elements, although specific material and color notes are not identified. The new Multi-Family Development and Design Standards (MFDDS) will not apply to this project due to the SB-330 vesting provisions. However, the General Plan, below, does provide policy guidance that encourages creative and high-quality design, with buildings that are oriented to the street. The overall architectural approach generally achieves this intent by providing well-articulated buildings in a diverse material pallet. Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural resources. Strategy LUT-9.3d: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment. Strategy LUT-9.3d: Building Design: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces by orienting the building to the street, including human scale details and massing that engages the pedestrian. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): This project is subject to the City’s ADU "development policy" which requires that 20% of the units be "ADU ready" (meaning pre-installation of utilities and a floor plan conducive to easy segmentation of an ADU). A developer may alternatively provide the ADUs in the required quantity. In compliance with this requirement, the project will need provide at least one "ADU ready" unit. However, staff would suggest that the Planning Commission encourage the developer to voluntarily add ADUs to all of the units. Open Space: There is no private open space requirement in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. However, each home would have a private rear yard ranging in size from 1,500 square-feet to 1,800 square-feet, which far exceeds the 300 square-foot minimum of the comparable R-M (Multiple-Family) Zoning District. Tree Removal: The preliminary plans indicate removal of all on-site trees. As part of the formal development application, the City will require preparation of an tree preservation assessment to determine to what extent existing trees located within the proposed rear yard areas may be preserved. PC Study Session Memorandum – April 25, 2023 Page 7 PLN-2023-37 ~ 44 & 56 Sunnyside Avenue Public Improvements: The Public Works Department will require construction of a new detached sidewalk with a park strip per City standards, including the installation of City street trees. These improvements will require the dedication of additional public right-of-way along the street frontage, which may require design changes to the two front units. Stormwater Management: The SB-330 pre-app allows this application to be constructed under the current Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit ("2.0") rather than the pending updated permit ("3.0"), which will apply to all other projects not approved by June 30, 2023. However, the Public Works Department will require revisions to the proposed stormwater management plan based on today’s standards. The plans currently depict bio-retention areas along the Sunnyside frontage, which will likely be infeasible given the extra right-of-way required for the expanded sidewalk area. Instead, the City will require the private roadway/drive-aisle be constructed of pervious pavers so that the project no longer triggers the 10,000 square foot impervious area threshold to be a "regulated" stormwater project. The increased area of infiltration will also minimize the run-off given that there is no storm main in Sunnyside Avenue to receive the proposed concentrated flows. CEQA: Staff anticipates that this project will be found Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. Public Comment: Staff met with neighboring residents regarding concerns about the project, but no written correspondence was provided. NEXT STEPS The formal application for this project will be processed as a Planned Development Permit. The application will require review by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC), recommendation by the Planning Commission, and a decision by the City Council. Attachments: 1. Preliminary Project Plans 2. SB-330 Checklist 3. Historical Assessment 4. Historic Peer Review Memo Attachment - A Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 1 of 8 HOUSING CRISIS ACT of 2019 – SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FORM PURPOSE This form serves as the preliminary application for housing development projects seeking vesting rights pursuant to SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. GENERAL INFORMATION An applicant for a housing development project that includes (1) residential units (2) a mix of commercial and residential uses with two-thirds of the project’s square footage used for residential purposes; or (3) transitional or supportive housing, shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon provision of all of the information listed in this Preliminary Application form and payment of the permit processing fee to the agency from which approval for the project is being sought. After submitting this Preliminary Application to the local agency, an applicant has 180 days to submit a full application or the Preliminary Application will expire. Submittal Date Stamp*1,2: *1Submittal of all the information listed andpayment of the permit processing fee freezesfees and development standards as of this date, unless exceptions per Government Code §65889.5(o) are triggered. *2Note: Record keeping pertaining to whichstandards and fees apply at date of submittal isimperative, as penalties may apply forimposing incorrect standards Notes: 1.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Coastal Act standards apply. 2.After submittal of all of the information required, if the development proponent revises theproject to change the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by20 percent or more, excluding any increase resulting from Density Bonus Law, the development proponent must resubmit the required information so that it reflects the revisions. Attachment - B Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 2 of 8 SITE INFORMATION 1.PROJECT LOCATION - The specific location, including parcel numbers, a legal description,and site address, if applicable. Street Address ___________________________________Unit/Space Number Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) Attached? YES NO Assessor Parcel Number(s) _____________________________________________________ 2.EXISTING USES - The existing uses on the project site and identification of major physicalalterations to the property on which the project is to be located. 3.SITE PLAN - A site plan showing the building(s) location on the property and approximate square footage of each building that is to be occupied. Attached? YES NO 4.ELEVATIONS - Elevations showing design, color, material, and the massing and height ofeach building that is to be occupied. Attached? YES NO 5.PROPOSED USES - The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residentialand nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance. Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 3 of 8 a.RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT COUNT: Please indicate the number of dwelling units proposed, including a breakdown of levelsby affordability, set by each income category. Number of Units Market Rate Managers Unit(s) – Market Rate Extremely Low Income Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Total No. of Units Total No. of Affordable Units Total No. of Density Bonus Units Other notes on units: 6.FLOOR AREA - Provide the proposed floor area and square footage of residential andnonresidential development, by building (attach relevant information by building and totalshere): Residential Nonresidential Total Floor Area (Zoning) Square Footage of Construction 7.PARKING - The proposed number of parking spaces: 8.AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, WAIVERS, CONCESSIONS and PARKINGREDUCTIONS - Will the project proponent seek Density Bonus incentives, waivers,concessions, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915? YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES,” please describe: Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 4 of 8 9.SUBDIVISION – Will the project proponent seek any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act,including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a vesting or tentative map, or a condominium map? YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES,” please describe: 10. POLLUTANTS – Are there any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants? YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES,” please describe: 11. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS – Provide the number of existing residential units on the projectsite that will be demolished and whether each existing unit is occupied or unoccupied. Provideattachment, if needed. Occupied Residential Units Unoccupied Residential Units Total Residential Units Existing To Be Demolished 12.ADDITIONAL SITE CONDITIONS – a.Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following: i.A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department ofForestry and Fire Protection, pursuant to Section 51178? YES ☐ NO ☐ ii.Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)? YES ☐ NO ☐ iii.A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5, or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuantto Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code? YES ☐ NO ☐ Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 5 of 8 iv.A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chanceflood (100-year flood) as determined by any official maps published by theFederal Emergency Management Agency? YES ☐ NO ☐ v.A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in anyofficial maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complieswith applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California BuildingStandards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of theHealth and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2? YES ☐ NO ☐ vi.A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alterationagreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2of the Fish and Game Code? YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES” to any, please describe: b.Does the project site contain historic and/or cultural resources? YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES,” please describe: c.Does the project site contain any species of special concern? YES ☐ NO If “YES,” please describe: Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 6 of 8 d.Does the project site contain any recorded public easement, such as easements forstorm drains, water lines, and other public rights of way? YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES,” please describe: e.Does the project site contain a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code? Provide an aerial site photograph showingexisting site conditions of environmental site features that would be subject toregulations by a public agency, including creeks and wetlands. YES ☐ NO ☐ If “YES,” please describe and depict in attached site map: 13. COASTAL ZONE - For housing development projects proposed to be located within the coastal zone, whether any portion of the property contains any of the following: a.Wetlands, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13577 of Title 14 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations. YES ☐ NO ☐ b.Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30240 of the PublicResources Code. YES ☐ NO ☐ c.A tsunami run-up zone.YES ☐ NO ☐ d.Use of the site for public access to or along the coast.YES ☐ NO ☐ 14. PROJECT TEAM INFORMATION - The applicant’s contact information and, if the applicant does not own the property, consent from the property owner to submit the application. Applicant’s Name Company/Firm Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email Are you in escrow to purchase the property? YES ☐ NO ☐ 44 Sunnyside Avenue Campbell, CA Historic Resource Evaluation - FINAL Prepared for Sachneel Patel Granite Ridge Properties East Palo Alto, CA Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. March 3, 2023 Attachment - C 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Project overview .................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 3 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 4 Site ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Main Building ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Garage .................................................................................................................................................... 18 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 20 Campbell Development ..................................................................................................................... 20 Summary of Geographical Development ..................................................................................... 20 Architecture and Shelter ................................................................................................................. 22 Site Evolution ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Development of 44 Sunnyside Avenue ......................................................................................... 23 Ownership & Construction Chronology ........................................................................................ 26 Ownership History .......................................................................................................................... 26 Construction Chronology ............................................................................................................... 26 Ownership and Construction Chronology Overview ................................................................ 28 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 33 The National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NRHP) ............................................................... 33 Criteria ............................................................................................................................................... 33 The California Register Criteria for Evaluation ............................................................................ 33 Historic Integrity ................................................................................................................................. 34 City of Campbell Criteria .................................................................................................................. 34 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 36 National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Criterion A/1 (event) ....................................................................................................................... 36 Criterion B/2 (person) ..................................................................................................................... 37 Criterion C/3 (design/construction) ............................................................................................ 37 Criterion D/4 (information potential) ........................................................................................... 38 Historic Integrity Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 38 City of Campbell Criteria Evaluation .............................................................................................. 39 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 40 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX A: Parcel Map ...................................................................................................................... A APPENDIX B: Sunnyside Tract Map, 1904 .......................................................................................... B APPENDIX C: Campbell Sanborn Map, 1920 ..................................................................................... C APPENDIX D: Campbell Sanborn Map, 1928 .................................................................................... D APPENDIX E: DPR 523A Form, 1977 .................................................................................................... E APPENDIX F: DPR 523A Form, 1999 ................................................................................................... G 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. was contracted by Sachneel Patel, Managing Director of Granite Ridge Properties, in October of 2022 to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue in Campbell (Figures 1 and 2). This report has been requested in connection with the anticipated purchase of the property for a development project. The building has been previously recorded on DPR forms as part of a historical survey for the City of Campbell and is not part of an existing or identified potential historic district. Figure 1. Parcel map with subject property highlighted in yellow (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office, amended by author) 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 2 Figure 2. Subject property outlined in red with building highlighted in yellow (Google Maps, 2022, amended by author) Previous Evaluations The property was recorded on a DPR 523A form in October 1977, by James Finkbeiner, as part of the City of Campbell Historic Survey of 1977-1978.1 On August 24, 1983, the Campbell Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered a request by William Harman and Darol Blunt to allow the demolition of the structure.2 At the meeting, the City of Campbell HPB staff recommended that the Board review the historic significance of the structure, and if it was 1 James Finkbeiner, 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form, City of Campbell, 1977. 2 Historic Preservation Board, Meeting Minutes, August 24, 1983, City of Campbell. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 3 found that the structure did not warrant further study, the Board should forward a memorandum to the City of Campbell Building Department allowing the demolition of the structure. A motion to forward a letter to the Building Department stating that the structure located at 44 Sunnyside Avenue “does not warrant further study and that the applicant be allowed to either demolish or remove this structure from its present site” carried unanimously.3 The property was also recorded on a DPR 523A form in April 1999, by architect Leslie A. G. Dill, as part of the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory Update that began in 1997.4 The property was given a score of 83 out of 100, with the score being an average of individual scores for visual quality/design, history/association, environmental/context, and integrity.5 As a result of this survey, the property was added to the City of Campbell’s list of properties that are not listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory, but are potentially eligible for future designation. This HRE will address the subject property’s eligibility for listing as a historic resource on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), as and on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and on Campbell’s local inventory. METHODOLOGY Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. staff conducted a site visit and survey of the property’s interior and exterior on November 7, 2022, with the current homeowner, Chad Hester, and his father, Larry. During this visit, staff documented the building’s configuration and architectural elements with photographs and field notes. On site, the homeowner provided a history of alterations made to the property, a building permit for electric service upgrades from 1996, a Metroscan property profile listing the property characteristics, and a Google Earth overhead view. The homeowner later provided a chain of title for the property, including copies of the historic deeds, as well as a survey map of the property from 1889, and a map of the Sunnyside Tract from 1904. Garavaglia Architecture Inc. also conducted additional archival research on the subject property and surrounding area. The following repositories/collections were consulted to complete the research process. (See References section for complete list of resources) ¥ Ancestry.com ¥ Campbell Express Library ¥ City of Campbell Planning Division ¥ Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office ¥ Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development 3 Ibid. 4 Leslie A. G. Dill, 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form, City of Campbell, 1999. 5 City of Campbell, 1997 Survey Records, on file with the City of Campbell Planning Division. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 4 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION Figure 3. Overall view of 44 Sunnyside Avenue’s lot, looking south (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) SITE The subject property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (APN: 412-04-018) in Campbell, CA, is located along the south side of Sunnyside Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and Industrial Street (Figure 3). The property consists of a roughly .2-acre rectangular lot, which measures 60 feet by 145 feet. The property consists of a one-story single-family residence, and a separate wood frame garage structure. The property is in a P-D zoning district for planned development. The house faces north along Sunnyside Avenue. The garage structure is situated in the southwest corner of the subject parcel and backs up to the rear property line (Figure 4). A paved concrete driveway runs along the west of the property, extending from Sunnyside Avenue back to the garage. A metal fence encloses the front yard and extends across the driveway to secure access. Wood fences separate the property from the neighboring properties on the east and south sides, and the front half of the west side. The back half of the west side property line is delineated by a concrete block wall. There are various shrubs, flowers, and trees in the front and rear yards, including a mature citrus tree in the rear yard. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 5 Figure 4. Wood frame garage at rear southwest corner of property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) MAIN BUILDING 44 Sunnyside Avenue is a roughly rectangular, one-story, 884-square-foot bungalow with some Neoclassical Revival characteristics, such as a full-facade porch with prominent square columns and a wide cornice line (Figure 5). The house is clad with beveled horizontal lap siding painted white with light blue wood accents and trim. The roof is a steeply-pitched hip roof with a shed addition and a flat-roofed addition at the rear. It has dark gray composition shingles, and the overhanging boxed eaves have light blue wood trim and white beadboard soffits. 44 Sunnyside Avenue has two one-story rear additions, which have a mix of wood siding materials, including beveled siding, shiplap siding, solid board siding, and some lattice enclosure elements. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 6 Figure 5. North elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The primary north elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue faces the street, and is set back approximately 25 feet from the road. The main feature of this elevation is the recessed front porch that spans the entire front facade. The portion of the roof overhanging the porch is supported by four square, wood columns, which sit atop a solid railing that runs the full width of the porch. The columns are four-by-four wood columns with chamfered corners and square capitals and bases (Figure 6). The solid railing is clad with beveled wood siding, painted white to match the walls of the house, with light blue wood accent trim running across the top and bottom of the railing. The house has a wide cornice line that is clad with beveled wood siding, painted white to match the walls of the house. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 7 Figure 6. Front porch column detail of 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The porch is entered from the north side, slightly off-center, with two concrete steps leading to the wood porch floor. The porch floor is wood tongue and groove painted light blue to match the trim on the house. A cut line showing variation in the floorboards seems to indicate that the front porch may have been expanded towards the street at some point in time (Figure 7). Alterations to the front porch also seem to be evidenced by the way in which the columns sit atop the solid railing, with a slight overhang towards the front facade of the house. This does not appear to be the original configuration of the front porch. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 8 Figure 7. Detail of the front porch at 44 Sunnyside Avenue showing the variation in the floorboards and the overhanging column (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The ceiling of the front porch is wood beadboard painted white. The house’s main entrance is situated slightly off-center under the roof of the front porch, in line with the front steps, and consists of a wood door with an oval lite. A screen door with a white finish is installed in front of the main entrance door. Two single-hung fiberglass windows flank the entrance, at the porch. The windows are one-over-one with white framing (Figure 8). The main entrance and windows are framed with wood trim painted light blue. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 9 Figure 8. Window to the left of the front door at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The west elevation faces the concrete driveway that runs along the west edge of the property (Figure 9). There are two one-story additions at the south end of the elevation; the first addition has a shed roof, while the second (southernmost) addition has a flat roof. The additions are set back approximately five feet from the west facade of the main house. This elevation is primarily clad with beveled siding painted white with light blue wood accents and trim. The southernmost addition has a combination of solid wood board siding and lattice painted white. The roof at this elevation has overhanging eaves like those found at the north elevation. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 10 Figure 9. West elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The main house has three single-hung fiberglass windows on this elevation, which are all one- over-one with white framing and light blue wood trim. The central window is smaller than the other two and has obscured glass. The first rear addition has one one-over-one wood window with light blue framing and trims (Figure 10). The second (southernmost) rear addition does not have a window on this elevation. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 11 Figure 10. View of wood window on west elevation of first rear addition at 44 Sunnyside Avenue, with second rear addition clad in solid board siding and lattice to the right (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The house’s south elevation faces a fenced-in backyard and the detached garage structure. The main feature of the south elevation is the second addition attached to the rear of the main house. The second addition has a flat roof with white exposed rafters and overhanging eaves. The western three-fourths of this addition are enclosed, with the other one-fourth remaining open for use as a shed. The enclosed portion has horizontal shiplap siding painted white, with a central trim band painted light blue (Figure 11). 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 12 Figure 11. View of the south elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue, showing the second (southernmost) addition in the foreground, with the shed roof of the first addition beyond (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The enclosed portion of the south elevation has one six-panel wood door, which is white with blue trim, and one fixed wood window with 13 panes, which has light blue framing and trims (Figure 12). The remaining open portion of the south elevation, which is open for storage, has two one-over-one wood windows on its back wall where the second addition attaches to the first addition. These windows have light blue framing and trims (Figure 13). 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 13 Figure 12. View of the 13-pane window on the south elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) Figure 13. View of the two one-over-one wood windows on the eastern portion of the south elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The east elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue faces the neighboring property at 56 Sunnyside Avenue (Figure 14). There are two one-story additions at the south end of the elevation; the first 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 14 addition has a shed roof, while the second (southernmost) addition has a flat roof. The additions are in line with the east facade of the main house, but there is a delineation created by a trim piece between the main house and the first addition (Figure 15). This elevation is primarily clad with beveled siding painted white with light blue wood accents and trim. The southernmost addition has a combination of solid wood board siding and lattice painted white. The roof at this elevation has overhanging eaves like those found at the north elevation. Figure 14. East elevation of 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 15 Figure 15. Trim piece delineating the main house (right) from its first rear addition (left) at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The main house has three single-hung fiberglass windows on this elevation, which are all one- over-one with white framing and light blue wood trim. The window furthest to the left (south) on the main house is smaller than the other two. The first rear addition has one one-over-one wood window with light blue framing and trims (Figure 16) similar to the one on the west elevation. The second (southernmost) rear addition does not have a window on this elevation. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 16 Figure 16. View of wood window on east elevation of first rear addition at 44 Sunnyside Avenue, with second rear addition clad in solid board siding and lattice to the left (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The following original exterior building features remain at 44 Sunnyside Avenue: ¥ Some beveled wood siding ¥ Roof form ¥ Full-facade front porch On the site visit on November 7, 2022, Larry Hester described some elements of the house that he had repaired or replaced during his ownership. Among these were the windows, which were all replaced with fiberglass units on the main house, as well as most of the siding. He also indicated that most of the original interior finishes and trims had been redone.6 The only historic finishes that seem to remain are the plaster walls and wood wainscoting in the back bedroom (Figure 17), although the flooring and window trims have been replaced. 6 Discussion between author and Larry Hester, November 7, 2022. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 17 Figure 17. View of the back bedroom at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2022) The main interior spaces consist of two bedrooms (one towards the front, and one towards the back), a shared bathroom, a living space, and a kitchen. The kitchen appears to be the most recently renovated room in the house with original flooring, wall finishes, trim, and cabinetry all having been replaced (Figure 18). The rear additions appear to be used for enclosed as well as open storage space. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 18 Figure 18. View of the kitchen at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., April 2016) GARAGE The garage is located at the southern terminus of the driveway at 44 Sunnyside Avenue, (Figure 19). The wood frame garage is rectangular in footprint, with a gable roof that is clad in dark gray composition roofing shingles matching the main house. The roof has exposed rafter tails similar to the southernmost rear addition on the main house. The garage features horizontal shiplap siding painted white. There is a six-panel person door at the center of the north elevation leading into the structure. To the right of the door is a 16-panel roll-up garage door for vehicle access. To the left of the door there appears to be a window that is currently concealed by a large bush. All of the fenestration has light blue wood trim to match the main house. Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. staff was unable to access the interior of the garage at the time of the site visit on November 7, 2022. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 19 Figure 19. Detached garage structure as viewed from the driveway at 44 Sunnyside Avenue, looking south (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., April 2022) 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 20 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT Historian Glory Anne Laffey developed a document entitled Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell in October 1996.7 It provides a good basis for understanding Campbell’s history and development and provides a contextual framework for the evaluation of potential historic resources in the area. A portion of this document is quoted below to provide overall historical background for the purposes of this review. Please see the original document for the full text. Summary of Geographical Development This section will review the geographical development within Campbell's downtown core and original city limits, the surrounding agricultural districts, and later suburban development outside the original city limits. Geographer Jan Broek (1932) identified three agricultural phases through which the Santa Clara Valley passed after 1850. The first phase from 1850 to 1865 was characterized by cattle ranging, extensive wheat cultivation, and all around experimenting with crops. During the second phase, beginning in 1865, wheat farming dominated cattle raising and the foundations were laid for specialization in horticulture. From 1875 through the 1930s, horticulture superseded the declining wheat culture, and many other forms of intensive land utilization were developed under the increasing use of irrigation. The size of the ranches in the valley were closely correlated with these changing land uses. The Mexican ranchos consisted of several thousands of unfenced acres over which cattle ranged. Early American ranchers followed the Mexican practice of free ranging their cattle for some years; however, the spread of farm enclosures and environmental factors caused the large stock ranches to give way to more intensive land use in the form of a smaller stock breeding farms or dairy farms confined to several hundred acres. Wheat farms during this period also ranged from 100 to 500 acres in size, averaging 213 acres in 1880. With the increasing crop value per land unit, the large farm became unnecessary. The correlated increase in land prices, cultivation costs, and growing population led to the all around subdivision of farm lands into highly specialized ‘fruit ranches’ from 3 to 50 acres in size. By the 1890s, the valley ranked as one of the foremost fruit producing districts on the Pacific Coast. Until American settlement, the Santa Clara Valley outside the settlements at the mission and the pueblo was largely undeveloped and utilized primarily for the grazing of livestock. In the late 1820s and 1830s, large tracts of land were granted by the Mexican government to California citizens. As each of these ranchos was occupied, the landowners constructed residences, laborers' housing, corrals, grist mills, tanneries, etc., in order to provide the basic needs of the rancho community. Three Mexican settlements are known to have been located within Campbell's city limits. Farms in the Campbell area developed according to the land use patterns identified by 7 Glory Anne Laffey, Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell, submitted to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, City of Campbell, 1996, 3. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 21 Broek. Early wheat farms consisted of parcels of several hundred acres. With the arrival of the railroad in 1877 and the success of early experiments in fruit packing and canning, the owners of the large wheat farms around Campbell began subdividing their properties and planting orchards by the early 1880s. Earlier farms were more widespread, and the basic farm complex consisted of a farmhouse, barn, well, windmill and water tower. As the parcel sizes decreased during the horticultural period, fruit processing buildings such as cutting sheds and sulfuring tunnels were added to the farm units. In November 1882, Benjamin Campbell had surveyor Charles Herrmann survey his property for the Town of Campbell. By 1887, the town had a railroad depot, a post office and a town hall. The first residential lot was sold in 1888; and by 1895, Campbell was a thriving village. The commercial center developed at the intersection of Campbell and Central avenues. The town's first industrial activities centered around the fruit industry. Drying yards, packing houses and canneries developed in close proximity to the railroad depot. Fruit growing and fruit processing industries were the primary economic forces in the Campbell area until the early 1950s. As drying yards and canneries closed down and their facilities were abandoned, the property was often subdivided for residential or commercial development. Likewise, orchard properties would be also be subdivided. During the first couple of decades, residential development was confined to the original survey and in adjacent areas subdivided on the edge of the village. During the 1890s, residential neighborhoods were centered on S. Second, N. Third, N. Central, N. Harrison, E. Everett, Railway, and Gilman. The first decade of the century saw residential development spread to First and N. Second streets, and Sunnyside and Rincon avenues. Also there was some early residential development on Sunnyoaks and Parr avenues during this decade. After 1910 the village residential areas expanded to include south Third and Fourth streets, and Alice and Kennedy avenues. Outlying residential areas included Smith Avenue in the San Tomas area east of Campbell, Redding Road in the Union district, and Union Avenue between Campbell Avenue and Dry Creek Road. The 1920s saw development move west along W. Campbell and Latimer avenues, north on Esther Avenue. Also in the late 1920s, there was residential construction on White Oaks Avenue in the Union district. In the 1930s, new subdivisions included Shelley Avenue in the Union district and Rancho Del Patio on the northeast edge of Campbell. Between 1938 and 1942, there were at least fourteen subdivision maps filed in what is now the City of Campbell. Adjacent to Campbell's core were development north along Harrison Avenue, Rosemary Lane, the Hedegard, Bland, and Rees subdivisions east of town, and Shadyvale Court east of Bascom. Five subdivisions were located in the southwest portion of the City in the San Tomas district, i.e., Harriet Avenue, the Munro Tract, Hazelwood, the Riconada Gardens on Hacienda, and the San Tomas Acres and Parrview Tracts near the Hacienda and Winchester intersection. Following the war in the late 1940s, there were over thirty subdivisions filed. These developments were primarily located east of Winchester, as well as several near the intersection of Campbell and Bascom avenues. By this time, the post-World War II population boom was underway and rural communities were in danger of being swallowed by the aggressive annexation activities of San Jose and other larger cities in the county. Campbell and many of the other smaller communities across the valley incorporated. Since incorporation Campbell has annexed 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 22 numerous parcels as the residential development took over the surrounding orchards at a steady pace.8 Architecture and Shelter Architecture/Shelter as a theme includes buildings representing various architectural periods and styles, structures designed by outstanding architects, and those resources that relate to residential living arrangements and landscaping. Potential resources associated with this theme could date from the earliest settlement of the area by Sebastian Peralta, Jose Fernandez and Juan Galindo in the 1840s. American farmers began settling in the area as early as 1848, squatting on rancho lands or pre- empting homesteads. Early farm complexes consisted of simple gabled or wing-and- gable farm houses. As farmers became more prosperous in the later decades of the century, some farmhouses began to reflect currently popular architectural styles: Gothic Revival, Italianate, and Queen Anne. These styles featured the use of elaborate wood decorations (shingles, spool work, brackets, and moldings), bay windows, and wrap- around porches. After 1888 when the first lots were sold in the village of Campbell, the earliest residential neighborhoods developed on the old Benjamin Campbell Ranch along Campbell Avenue. Relatively modest in form, these homes also reflected the currently popular "Victorian" architectural styles of the late 19th century. Around the turn-of-the century, architectural tastes were changing due to the influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement. As this was also a time of rapid growth in the town of Campbell, these early twentieth century styles are particularly characteristic of the downtown neighborhoods. Although the simple gabled structures continued in popularity, home styles began to reflect the horizontal lines of the Craftsman and Prairie styles. Simplified versions of these styles are commonly called bungalows. Interest in California’s Spanish roots was also reflected in architectural styles. Spanish Colonial and Mission Revival styles became popular in Campbell after 1915 and through the 1930s. Other revival styles also gained popularity during the 1920s and 1930s, especially Colonial and English Revival. During the 19th century, some of the more prosperous farmers had homes designed by architects who had offices in San Jose; i.e . Levi Goodrich, Theodore or Jacob Lenzen, Francis Reid, or 1. O. McKee. More commonly, however, houses were designed and built by their owners with the help of a local carpenter. Some carpenters became building contractors using published house plans. Several of these carpenter/ contractors lived and worked in Campbell. George Whitney, known as the "Builder of Campbell," worked in Campbell from 1888 through the 1930s. Other builders were WalkerVaugh and Anthony Bargas. Also an important representation of this theme are the small cottages J. C. Ainsley constructed for his employees east of his cannery. There were also labor camps for the large force of seasonal workers that came to Campbell during the height of the fruit 8 Ibid., 9-14. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 23 processing season. During the 1930s, migrant field workers built semi-permanent housing. Usually of flimsy construction, dwellings were constructed of whatever materials could be gathered, such as recycled fruit boxes, tar paper or newspapers. Multi-tenant housing was not prevalent in Campbell until the modern period. As early as 1896, however, there were several hotels that catered to travelers and visitors. Some of the larger homes in town were converted to rooming houses that provided housing for seasonal workers at the canneries and packing houses. Following World War II, large housing developments replaced the orchards that surrounded Campbell. Farmhouses were moved to more convenient locations or were incorporated into the development to stand beside its more modern neighbors. As the commercial and industrial land uses have expanded, older houses have been relocated out of the path of new development.9 SITE EVOLUTION Development of 44 Sunnyside Avenue The Alice Avenue Historic District Context Statement was prepared by Archives & Architecture in 2003.10 This historic district lays a block to the north of the subject property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue, in the former Hyde Improvement Company-owned tract. The patterns of development identified in the Alice Avenue Historic District Context Statement offer context to suburban residential development in this area of Campbell at the onset of the 20th century. The subject property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue was a part of the Sunnyside Tract, which was subdivided into housing lots in 1904 (see Figure 20).11 9 Ibid., 15-16. 10 Archives & Architecture, Alice Avenue Historic District Context Statement, submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Campbell, 2003. 11 Ibid., 5. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 24 Figure 20. Map of the Sunnyside Tract, 1904, with subject property highlighted in yellow (courtesy of Chad Hester, amended by author) The 1920 Sanborn map indicates that most of the lots in the Sunnyside Tract had been developed by this time (see Figure 21). At this time, the future subject parcel appeared at the address of “5 Sunnyside Avenue.” The map shows the open front porch, but the two rear 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 25 additions were not present at this time. There was a small, detached accessory structure in the rear yard, but it is substantially smaller than the existing detached garage in terms of footprint. It is likely that the existing garage was expanded from the footprint of the accessory structure shown in 1920. Figure 21. Campbell Sanborn Map, 1920, with future subject property highlighted in yellow (Campbell Express Library, amended by author) The 1928 Sanborn map also addressed the subject property as “5 Sunnyside Avenue” (see Figure 22). By this time, it appears that the first addition at the rear of 44 Sunnyside Avenue had been built. The detached accessory structure is also labeled on this map as a garage. Figure 22. Campbell Sanborn Map, 1928, with subject property highlighted in yellow (Campbell Express Library, amended by author) 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 26 OWNERSHIP & CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY Ownership History Dates Name(s) Notes 1904-1907 Leslie J. Stratton 1907-1911 Mary L. Phelps 1911 (June-July) H.I. Coleman 1911-1914 Edison Haywood Owen 1914-1925 Mary E. Owen Distributed via estate of E.H. Owen 1925-1935 Giovanni Barbano 1935-1941 Augustine Barbano De Bernardi and Ernestino Barbano Trustees for Giovanni Barbano 1941 (March- April) Joseph P. Barbano 1941-1970 William A. Smith and Henrietta Smith Henrietta died 1965, W.A. Smith died 1970 1970-1982 Frank Smith Distributed via estate of W.A. Smith 1982 (January- September) Robin Janssen, Donald L. Janssen, and Sandy S. McDonald Distributed via estate of Frank Smith 1982-1983 Sandy S. McDonald and Michael T. McDonald 1983-1985 Darol W. Blunt and Sharon L. Blunt 1985-1986 Terry J. Stines and Carol M. Stines 1986-2020 Larry R. Hester and Jacquelyn K. Hester 2020-2022 (October) Chad Hester is granted one half interest in the property October 2022 Chad Hester is granted remaining interest in the property Construction Chronology Date Alteration Source c. 1907 House constructed 1999 DPR form c. 1920-1928 First addition constructed Sanborn maps 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 27 Date Alteration Source c. 1950s/1960s Existing garage constructed or expanded 1965 aerial; style/design 1986-2020 Various improvements made during Larry Hester ownership period: ¥ New fiberglass windows on the main house ¥ Siding replacements ¥ New copper plumbing ¥ New sewer line ¥ New flooring ¥ New interior finishes ¥ New fencing/gates Discussion with Larry Hester 11/7/2022; letter from Chad Hester dated 11/7/2022 1996 Upgrades to electrical service Building permit records 1998 New roofing installed Building permit records 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 28 Ownership and Construction Chronology Overview The property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue has had many owners in its lifetime. The first owner was Leslie J. Stratton, who owned the land on which the Sunnyside Tract was developed in 1904. Leslie was born in Wisconsin in 1872 and was married to a woman named Eliza.12 During his ownership of the property, Leslie worked as an orchardist and drayman, likely growing fruit trees on the land.13 In 1906, his residence was listed on Sunnyside Avenue.14 The 1999 survey of 44 Sunnyside Avenue lists the date of construction for the main structure as 1907.15 In 1907, Stratton sold the property to Mary L. Phelps. According to the 1910 US Census, Mary Phelps, her husband, and their three children were not living at the subject property, but instead on Palm Avenue.16 It is unknown if the family resided at 44 Sunnyside Avenue prior to this. Phelps later sold the property to H.I. Coleman in 1911, but he owned it for a brief period of less than one month. In July of 1911, the property was sold to Edison Haywood Owen. Edison was born in Mississippi in 1849 and married Mary E. (also from Mississippi) in 1866.17 Edison died in 1913 and the property was distributed to Mary upon his death. Mary continued to live at 44 Sunnyside Avenue until 1925. In 1925 the property was sold to Giovanni Barbano. Upon his death in 1935, it was entrusted to Augustine Barbano De Bernardi and Ernestino Barbano. It remained in the Barbano family until Joseph P. Barbano sold it in 1941. Not much information on the family is available, but it is evident that they were orchardists who emigrated from Italy.18 It is likely that the first addition at the rear of 44 Sunnyside was added by the Barbano family, or the previous owner, Mary Owen, as it appears on the Sanborn maps between 1920 and 1928. In 1941, William A. Smith and his wife, Henrietta, purchased the property. William and Henrietta were both from New York, and William worked as a machinist.19 Henrietta died in 1965, and William died five years later in 1970. 1970, the property was distributed to William’s son, Frank, via his estate. Seven years after Frank assumed ownership, the Campbell Historic Preservation Board conducted a historic survey, documenting the subject property with a sketch and photographs (Figure 23).20 The City of Campbell does not have clear, readable copies of the photographs on file.21 The presence of the garage was noted on the survey form but was not indicated in the related sketch diagram. It is likely that the garage was constructed under Smith ownership in the 1950s or 1960s, based on the style of the building, as well as a historic aerial from 1965 (Figure 24). 12 U.S. Federal Census, 1930. 13 San Jose, California, City Directory, 1906. 14 Ibid. 15 Dill, 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form, 1999. 16 U.S. Federal Census, 1910. 17 Ibid. 18 U.S. Federal Census, 1930. 19 U.S. Federal Census, 1940. 20 Finkbeiner, 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form, 1977. 21 E-mail with Senior Planner, Daniel Fama, 2022. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 29 Figure 23. 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form, 1977 (City of Campbell records) 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 30 Figure 24. Aerial Photo with red arrow indicating the presence of the detached garage at 44 Sunnyside Avenue, May 1, 1965 (UC Santa Barbara Library Geospatial Collection, amended by author) Frank Smith owned the home for twelve years until it was distributed via his estate to Robin Janssen, Donald L. Janssen, and Sandy S. McDonald, in January of 1982. In September of that same year, ownership passed to Sandy and Michael McDonald, who owned it for a little over a year. It is unknown if the Janssens or the McDonalds ever resided at 44 Sunnyside Avenue. In 1983, the property was sold to Darol and Sharon Blunt, who also purchased the neighboring lot at 56 Sunnyside Avenue. Darol Blunt and a man named William Harman, acting under the corporation name B/J & A Development Co., Inc., came up with plans to demolish the buildings at 44 and 56 Sunnyside and subdivide the properties for the construction of eight new townhouses and a common area. A request to allow the demolition of the building at 44 Sunnyside Avenue was heard by the Campbell Historic Preservation Board on August 24, 1983 and was unanimously approved, as the board found that the building did not warrant further study.22 On March 6, 1984, the Campbell City Council adopted an ordinance to allow the construction of the eight townhouses.23 A tentative map for the development created by Harman Associates was submitted to the Campbell Planning Commission for review at their March 13, 1984 meeting (Figure 25).24 The map was found to be in accord with the City’s 22 Historic Preservation Board, Meeting Minutes, August 24, 1983, City of Campbell. 23 City Council, Meeting Minute Action, March 6, 1984, City of Campbell. 24 Planning Commission, Meeting Minute Action, March 13, 1984, City of Campbell. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 31 General Plan and was later approved by the City Council on April 3, 1984.25 Whether for lack of funding or other issues, Blunt and Harman never moved forward with the project, and Blunt sold the property to Terry and Carol Stines in 1985. The Stines only owned the property for less than a year. Figure 25. Tentative Map of the Sunnyside Townhouses, 1984 (City of Campbell records) In 1986, the property was granted to Larry and Jaquelyn Hester in a foreclosure sale. When they obtained the property, there were plans and permits, which were previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, to develop the eight townhouses on the site. At the time of purchase, there were also squatters on the property that had been living there for several years.26 After the squatters were vacated, Larry made several improvements to the property over his years of ownership, including the installation of new fiberglass windows on the main house, new roofing, siding replacements, new copper plumbing, a new sewer line, new flooring, new interior finishes, electrical improvements, and new fencing/gates.27 Larry Hester indicated to the author that the second rear addition at 44 Sunnyside was likely installed 25 City Council, Meeting Minute Action, March 6, 1984, City of Campbell. 26 Letter from Chad Hester to author, November 7, 2022. 27 Ibid.; Discussion between author and Larry Hester, November 7, 2022. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 32 without permits prior to his ownership of the property.28 In 1997, after the Hesters had owned the property for 11 years, the City of Campbell began a survey to update their historic resources inventory. 44 Sunnyside Avenue was recorded on a DPR form as a part of this survey in 1999. At the time, the recorder, Leslie A. G. Dill, described the house at 44 Sunnyside Avenue as follows: A Neo-classical Revival residence in good condition, this one-story wood structure sits at the edge of a residential neighborhood adjacent to a commercial parking lot. With a symmetrically-shaped steeply-pitched hip roof covered with composition shingles, and its ridge running perpendicular to the street, the house is moderately-sized and rectangular in shape with a one vehicle garage within an accessory structure at the rear. A full-width front porch with wood floor sits within the basic building shape, and features a solid balustrade supporting four symmetrically placed square wood columns. The siding is tri-beveled tear drop horizontal lap siding detailed with a water table at the floor line. The siding rises to boxed eaves terminated with small gutters. The foundation is concrete as are the front steps. The front door is centrally positioned at the back of the porch, and contains a large oval window. Windows are one over one double hung sash with dog ears surrounded by large flat board trim. The well-kept site is enclosed at the front with metal fencing.29 In 2020, Larry and Jacquelyn granted partial interest in the property to their son, Chad, who was later granted full interest in October of 2022. 28 Discussion between author and Larry Hester, November 7, 2022. 29 Dill, 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form, 1999. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 33 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION (NRHP) The National Register is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. It is administered by the National Parks Service (NPS) in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The National Register includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts possessing historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local levels. The National Register criteria and associated definitions are outlined in the National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following is quoted from National Register Bulletin 15: Criteria Generally, resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts, and objects) over 50 years of age can be listed in the National Register provided that they meet the evaluative criteria described below. Resources can be listed individually in the National Register or as contributors to an historic district. The National Register criteria are as follows: A. Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; B. Resources that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Resources 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 or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Resources that have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history. THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e. retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register criteria. 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 34 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. CRHR criteria are similar to National Register of Historic Places criteria, and are tied to CEQA, so any resource that meets the above criteria, and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity, is considered an historical resource under CEQA. HISTORIC INTEGRITY When evaluating a resource for the NHRP or CRHR, one must evaluate and clearly state the significance of that resource to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A resource may be considered individually eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR if it meets one or more of the above listed criteria for significance and it possesses historic integrity. Historic properties must retain sufficient historic integrity to convey their significance. The following seven aspects define historic integrity: ¥ Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. ¥ Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. ¥ Setting. The physical environment of a historic property. ¥ Materials. The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. ¥ Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. ¥ Feeling. A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. ¥ Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. To retain historic integrity, a resource should possess several of the above-mentioned aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is essential for a resource to convey its significance. Comparisons with similar properties should also be considered when evaluating integrity as it may be important in deciding what physical features are essential to reflect the significance of a historic context. CITY OF CAMPBELL CRITERIA 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 35 The City of Campbell uses the following review criteria to evaluate properties for listing as historic resource inventory properties or landmarks. 1. Review criteria for historic resource inventory property or landmark. In matters where designation of a historic resource inventory property or landmark are involved, the historic preservation Board and the City Council shall consider the following criteria as guides in making its determination: a. Historical and cultural significance. i. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's aesthetic, architectural, cultural, economic, engineering, political, or social history; ii. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or federal history; iii. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a method, period, style, or type of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or iv. It is representative of the notable work of an architect, builder, or designer. b. Architectural, engineering, and historical significance. i. The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed historic resource inventory property or landmark are unusual or significant or uniquely effective; or ii. The overall effect of the design of the proposed historic resource inventory property or landmark is unique, or its details and materials are unique, or unusual. c. Neighborhood and geographic setting. i. It materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood; ii. Its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 36 FINDINGS NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES/CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION This section uses the historic information discussed above to evaluate the property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue in Campbell for historic significance. The NRHP/CRHR uses generally the same guidelines as the National Register of Historic Places (developed by the National Park Service); as such, selected language from those guidelines will be quoted below to help clarify the evaluation discussion. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the NRHP/CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. The subject building at 44 Sunnyside Avenue was constructed circa 1907 and therefore meets the age requirement. In terms of historic significance, the NRHP/CRHR evaluates a resource based on the following four criteria: Criterion A/1 (event) As stated by the National Park Service (NPS), this criterion “recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce.”30 When considering a property for significance under this criterion, the associated event or trends “must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city…Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends”31 The arrival of the railroad in 1877 allowed for the Campbell area to become prosperous due to early experiments in fruit packing and canning, and the town’s early industrial activities revolved around the fruit industry. Residential development in the 1910s and 1920s expanded beyond the downtown core, and into lands that had previously been utilized for fruit and crop production. At the time that the Sunnyside Tract was laid out in 1904, the surrounding area was still dedicated to agricultural use. The residence at 44 Sunnyside Avenue was constructed in approximately 1907, as part of the Sunnyside Tract. The home was one of many constructed during a period of rapid suburban development in Campbell, in other similar developments such as Hyde Residential Park and the Curtis subdivision in the immediate vicinity. While this home does fit into the city’s early 20th century suburban residential development period in Campbell, the subject property itself does not have an important or distinctive association with the development pattern, as this was one of many rural-turned-urban tracts of land, parceled down to accommodate single-family homes in the area. The Sunnyside Tract has not been identified as a significant tract with respect to the development of Campbell in the early decades of the 20th century. As such, the property does not qualify for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR under Criterion A/1. 30 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, accessed online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 31 Ibid. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 37 Criterion B/2 (person) This criterion applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. The NPS defines significant persons as “individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context.” The NPS also specifies that these properties “are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.”32 The earliest identified homeowner was Leslie J. Stratton, who owned the property from around 1904 through 1907 and was an orchardist. Mary J. Phelps owned the property next from 1907 until 1911. These early owners, and later subsequent owners did not appear to be recognized for their contributions within a local, state, or national historic context, nor were they found to have achieved a sufficient level of significance locally or nationally to qualify the home for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2. Criterion C/3 (design/construction) Under this criterion, properties may be eligible if they “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, …represent the work of a master, …possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.”33 According to the NPS, “‘Type, period, or method of construction’ refers to the way certain properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history.”34 To evaluate whether 44 Sunnyside Avenue embodies a “type, period, or method of construction,” Virginia Savage McAlester’s, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture was referenced, as it discusses a variety of house types with respect to stylistic characteristics and periods of development.35 The Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell, created in 1996, noted that simplified versions of the Arts and Crafts influenced styles, including Craftsman and Prairie style homes, created an off-shoot of simplified versions of these styles, referred to as bungalows.36 The bungalow style was popularized in the United States during the first three decades of the twentieth century and was the dominant style for smaller houses built across the country. The style originated in southern California and was quickly spread throughout the country by 32 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 567. 36 Laffey. Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell, 15. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 38 pattern books and magazines, which offered plans and sometimes complete pre-cut packages of lumber and detailing to be assembled by local workers. The identifying features of this style include wide eave overhangs, porches of full- or partial-width with a roof supported by square columns, and heights of one or one and one-half stories.37 The bungalow at 44 Sunnyside Avenue fits into a hipped roof subtype of the Craftsman style, which “is similar to some simple Prairie houses, which normally lack the exposed rafters and other typical Craftsman details.”38 “During the early 20th century, the term ‘bungalow’ could refer to small one-story examples of other styles—for example, a Spanish or a Tudor bungalow.”39 The residence at 44 Sunnyside Avenue combines some bungalow characteristics with Neoclassical Revival details. Neoclassical was a dominant style in this country from 1895-1955, with its first wave of popularity from 1900-1920 emphasizing hipped roofs.40 The full-facade porch—a principal subtype of the Neoclassical style: …occupies the full width and height of the facade. Here, however, the porch is not covered by a traditional pedimented gable but instead either by the principal (side-gable or hipped) roof or by a flat or shed extension from such a roof… examples normally have slender columns without elaborate capitals or fluted surfaces.41 In terms of the cornice line, “Neoclassical houses usually have a boxed eave with a moderate overhang… a wide frieze band is occasionally found beneath the cornice. These are loosely based on Federal or Greek Revival precedents.”42 The materials and methods of construction used in the building are typical of the periods it was built in, but are not exceptional in quality or execution. In addition, this circa 1907 building does not appear to embody the work of a master architect. Though the house is of notable age, it is not an exemplary type of the bungalow style in Campbell. Based on a review of the above information, the property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or on CRHR under Criterion C/3. Criterion D/4 (information potential) Archival research and physical investigation of the site focused on the above ground resource only. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property’s eligibility for the CRHR under Criterion D/4. HISTORIC INTEGRITY EVALUATION Evaluation of potential historic resources is a two-part process. A property must meet one or more of the criteria for significance, and possesses historic integrity. Since the property (residence, land, and outbuildings) was not found to exhibit the level of significance necessary for listing on the CRHR, evaluation of the building’s integrity is unnecessary. 37 McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 566-567. 38 Ibid., 568. 39 Ibid., 578. 40 Ibid., 435-438. 41 Ibid., 435-436. 42 Ibid., 436. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 39 CITY OF CAMPBELL CRITERIA EVALUATION As discussed above, the property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue does not have a significant association with Campbell’s Architecture and Shelter historical context (Criteria A/i). Further, the building is not important for association with any significant persons living at the property with or events that occurred within Campbell (Criteria A/ii). While the building does exhibit characteristics of a particular method, period, and type of construction, it is not considered to be an ‘exceptional’ example of these as this criterion would require (Criteria A/iii). The building’s original construction materials were widely available and not unique to this structure at the time of erection (Criteria B/i). The construction methods and overall effect of the building’s design are not unique or unusual to the area, as many other higher-quality examples of this type of design exist throughout the surrounding area (Criteria B/ii). The immediate neighborhood, the former Sunnyside Tract, has been altered from its early 1900s character. This surrounding area includes commercial structures, multi-family housing, properties with significant rear additions, new two-story contemporary suburban homes (Figure 26), and a few tract homes and bungalows of era as 44 Sunnyside Avenue—including a very similar style bungalow at 120 Sunnyside Avenue (Figure 27). As such, the property does not materially benefit the historic character of the neighborhood, since the immediate surrounding neighborhood, as a whole, does not retain its 1900s historic character (Criteria C/i). The property’s geographic location on a residential block does not necessarily represent an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city, as there are many other homes throughout Campbell that are situated on this type of block (Criteria C/ii). The house is not immediately visible upon approaching Sunnyside Avenue from Winchester Boulevard. A corner lot, or possibly a lot located across from a terminating street may have this quality. Figure 26. View of new two-story houses across the street from 44 Sunnyside Avenue (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., April 2022) 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 40 Figure 27. View of 1900s bungalow-style house at 120 Sunnyside Avenue (Google Maps Imagery, 2022) The building does not appear to meet the threshold of significance for local historical importance. For these reasons, the property does not appear to qualify for listing as a Campbell historic resource inventory property or landmark. CONCLUSION In summary, the subject property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue does not display a level of historical significance or integrity that would qualify it for listing as a historic resource on the California Register of Historical Resources or on the National Register of Historic Places under any criteria. This particular example of a bungalow residence with Neoclassical detailing does not appear to be significant at the local level, as it does not possess exceptional levels of ‘historical and cultural history’ nor does it exhibit exceptional levels of ‘architectural, engineering, and historical significance’ within Campbell’s built environment. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 41 REFERENCES Ancestry.com. U.S. Federal Census Records (1910, 1930, 1940). Ancestry.com, accessed November and December 2022. Archives & Architecture. Alice Avenue Historic District Context Statement. Submitted to the Community Development Department. Planning Division, City of Campbell, 2003. City of Campbell. 1997 Survey Records. On file with the City of Campbell Planning Division. City of Campbell. List of Properties Potentially Eligible for Future Designation. https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7239/Structures-with-potential- to-be-added-to-HRI?bidId=. City Council, Meeting Minute Action, March 6, 1984, City of Campbell. Dill, Leslie A. G. 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form. Recorded April 23, 1999. City of Campbell Survey Update, 1997. Finkbeiner, James. 44 Sunnyside Avenue: DPR 523A Form. City of Campbell Historic Survey, 1977-1978. Historic Preservation Board. Meeting Minutes, August 24, 1983. City of Campbell. Laffey, Glory Anne. Historical Overview and Context Statements for the City of Campbell, submitted to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, City of Campbell, 1996. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Accessed online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. Planning Commission. Meeting Minute Action, March 13, 1984. City of Campbell. San Jose, California. City Directory. 1906. 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 A APPENDIX A: PARCEL MAP 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 B APPENDIX B: SUNNYSIDE TRACT MAP, 1904 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 C APPENDIX C: CAMPBELL SANBORN MAP, 1920 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 D APPENDIX D: CAMPBELL SANBORN MAP, 1928 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 E APPENDIX E: DPR 523A FORM, 1977 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 F 44 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, CAMPBELL Historic Resource Evaluation – FINAL March 3, 2023 G APPENDIX F: DPR 523A FORM, 1999 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 22 Sunnyside Avenue – HRE Review Memorandum Date: 4/5/23 Page: 1 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Peninsula & South Bay Phone: 650.941.8048 San Francisco & North Bay Phone: 415.924.7059 Napa & Sonoma Phone: 707.637.4363 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture.Historic Preservation.Design MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 2023 TO: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner City of Campbell Community Development Department, PROJECT NO: MSA-23-031501 FROM: Mark Sandoval, AIA REGARDING: 44 Sunnyside Avenue - HRE Review Memorandum PROJECT DOCUMENTS •Historic Resource Evaluation (Final): Prepared by GARAVAGLIAARCHITECTURE, INC, 582 Market St #1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, dated March 3, 2023 and consisting of 50 printed pages. SUMMARY OF THE PROPERTY The subject property at 44 Sunnyside Avenue (APN: 412-04-018) in Campbell, CA, is located along the south side of Sunnyside Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and Industrial Street and sits of a 0.2-acre rectangular lot. The property consists of a one-story single-family 884-square-foot bungalow home with Neoclassical Revival characteristics, with a separate detached garage structure place at the rear southwest corner of the lot. The property is in a P-D zoning district for planned development. The building has been previously recorded on DPR forms as part of a historical survey for the City of Campbell and is not part of an existing or identified potential historic district. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE ACT The City of Campbell has had a long tradition of recognizing the importance of protecting the city’s important historical resources, so that they may be passed down to futures generations. The 144 structures listed currently on the city’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), clearly demonstrate these efforts. However, like most cities with such inventories of older structures, over time they can change, and these listings should not necessarily be considered static. Moreover, the buildings that do appear on Campbells own HRI is more like a snapshot in time, and they only represent those historical resources currently identified, to best celebrate Campbell’s unique identity, heritage, and sense of place. Although the City of Campbell promotes the preservation of its historic resources, these protective measures actually extend beyond the local municipality’s Attachment - D M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 22 Sunnyside Avenue – HRE Review Memorandum Date: 4/5/23 Page: 2 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Peninsula & South Bay Phone: 650.941.8048 San Francisco & North Bay Phone: 415.924.7059 Napa & Sonoma Phone: 707.637.4363 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture.Historic Preservation.Design jurisdiction all the way to the State of California, in part by the adoption of the California Environment Resource Act (CEQA). CEQA)is encoded in Sections 21000 et seq of the Public Resources Code (PRC), with guidelines for implementation codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq, which requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. Under this code, the regulation also states that a historical resource is also recognized as part of the environment (PRC Sections 21002(b), 21083.2, and 21084.1), and the California Register is considered the authoritative guide to the state’s historical resources and, in turn, all properties that may be considered significant historically, are subject to review. Under 21084.1. Historical Resources Guidelines it states the following: ʺ A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (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 It follows that, if a building, structure, or object meets the minimum threshold of being 50 years or older, it therefore must be evaluated to determine if it could have the potential eligibility to be listed as a historic resource in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION In the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for 44 Sunnyside Avenue, prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., dated March 3, 2023, the author thoroughly examines the evaluation framework and criteria used in determining what a historic resource must possess to be listed locally and on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). It also pointed out that, to meet this level of eligibility, a property must retain sufficient M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 22 Sunnyside Avenue – HRE Review Memorandum Date: 4/5/23 Page: 3 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Peninsula & South Bay Phone: 650.941.8048 San Francisco & North Bay Phone: 415.924.7059 Napa & Sonoma Phone: 707.637.4363 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture.Historic Preservation.Design integrity to adequately convey its historical importance as well as its significance. In addition, its setting can also play an important factor in this final determination. If a property individually processes the level of integrity needed to convey its historical importance and significance, even though the immediate neighborhood has radically changed over time, the property may still be found eligible as a historic resource. But, if the findings of HRE show that this older home individually does not merit even local designation, and both the homes built around the same time and the neighborhood around this property have significantly changed, then it has lost it historic value to the community. Unfortunately, 44 Sunnyside Avenue is a good example of the latter case. Although having the charm of an older small bungalow home, with the exception of the six remaining homes that are listed on Campbell’s HRI, most of the other homes built around the same time, have been substantially altered, or have been replaced with new structures. The immediate neighborhood has also substantially changed around this property and now only represent a dim reminder of what had been Sunnyside Tract’s past neighborhood context. It is also difficult to avoid an important fact brought to surface in this document that on August 24, 1983, the Campbell Historic Preservation Board (HPB) had unanimously approved a motion stating that the structure located at 44 Sunnyside Avenue “does not warrant further study and that the applicant be allowed to either demolish or remove this structure from its present site,” which clearly demonstrates a consensus by the Board that this property was not of historical sufficient importance to be spared demolition at the time. RECOMMENDATIONS It is my belief based on the preponderance of evidence and sound arguments presented in the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Garvaglia Architecture, Inc. for 44 Sunnyside Avenue that this property does not meet the threshold of significance or does it retain the integrity necessary to qualify as a historic resource on either the California Register of Historical Resources or on the National Register of Historic Places. As a consequence, it is my recommendation that the city allow the issuance of a Demolition Permit subject to the following three conditions. 1. If directed by the City of Campbell’s Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Board to do so, the property owner shall provide the Campbell Historical Museum with both drawings and photographic documentation of the structure prior to its demolition for archival purposes. All photographs shall be subject to the review and written approval by the Museum’s Director, and shall be in compliance with standards for archival documentation and include the following: M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 22 Sunnyside Avenue – HRE Review Memorandum Date: 4/5/23 Page: 4 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Peninsula & South Bay Phone: 650.941.8048 San Francisco & North Bay Phone: 415.924.7059 Napa & Sonoma Phone: 707.637.4363 msa@msandovalarchitects.com www.msandovalarchitects.com Architecture.Historic Preservation.Design DRAWINGS a. A site plan of the property as it exists, with the subject building clearly indicated, drawn to scale and with dimensions given. b. Floor and roof plans drawn to scale. c. Building elevations scaled drawings of the exterior including notations as to the building’s construction materials. PHOTOGRAPHS a. Color along with black and white photographic prints (if applicable) including negatives taken with a large format camera (120 or greater) of all exterior elevations, interior rooms, and architectural details. b. All prints shall have identification labels on the back, with the subject and date of the photo clearly expressed. c. All photos shall be keyed to a location map indicating the direction and location of each photo. d. Alternate Media: high resolution digital images (11 megapixels or greater), submitted on a CD-R with project information (description, location, address etc.) encrypted on the CD-R. 7. Prints must be printed on archival quality paper designed for photograph prints. 2. If any artifacts or related features are found during the demolition operation, the owner agrees to immediately notify the Museum Director to determine their suitability for salvage (for possible exhibit purposes), or to determine if any further action is required by the owner before resuming the building demolition phase of the construction work. 3. It is also recommended that the final issuance of the demolition permit not be allowed until all of the above items have been agreed to and completed. It is also imperative that proof be presented the title of the property has been properly transferred to the new owner, and the owner has secured the final approval from the city, for any new project proposed for this property. This last condition, would hopefully preclude the needless demotion of this early 20th century constructed home if the development project considered for 44 Sunnyside Avenue was somehow not approved by the city. City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Planning Commission Date: April 25, 2023 From: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Report of the Community Development Director I. GENERAL PLAN / HOUSING ELEMENT / ZONING ORDINANCE AND MULTIFAMILY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: On Tuesday, April 18th, 2023, the City Council adopted the General Plan, Housing Element, Multifamily Design and Development Standards and Zoning Ordinance updates. The Council incorporated into their adoption the requested modifications from the Planning Commission from the March 27th, 2023 Special Hearing, and included the additional modifications – Modification to the Multi-Family Development and Design Standards as follows- • Lower the minimum clear height for ground floor commercial from 15 to 12 feet • Amend the Large Site Open Space standards to allow the open space to be located interior to the project site when provided with access via a pedestrian public right of way (for public open space areas). • Removed requirement for ground floor commercial at the Pruneyard site between Highway 17 and Union Avenue. The City Council also adopted modified planning review fees for multi-family residential projects, reflecting the modifications in the Zoning Ordinance. --------------------------------------- Staff will now submit the adopted Housing Element to HCD for Certification. The City of Campbell will be the 14th city in the San Francisco Bay Area and the 1st city in Santa Clara County to have an adopted (and certified) 6th Cycle Housing Element.