05-10-2022 - AgendaREGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City of Campbell, California
Register in advance for this 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.
May 10, 2022
7:30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
AGENDA
NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of
the public to follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services', and the County
of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional
information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov.
This Regular Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person with the Commissioners
meeting at City Hall, Council Chambers, as well as via telecommunication (Zoom) being available
for members of the public. The meeting is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act.
This Regular Planning Commission meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's
website and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only
wish to view the meeting but not participate. Those members of the public wishing to provide
public comment at this meeting virtually are asked to register in advance at
https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email
containing information about joining the meeting via Zoom. Members of the public may attend
the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers. If attending in person, face
coverings and physical distancing will be required until further notice.
Public comment for the Planning Commission meetings will be accepted via email at
planning@campbellca.gov by 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Written comments will be posted
on the website and distributed to the PC. 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 26, 2022
COMMUNICATIONS
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL REQUESTS
This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission
on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People
may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.
Planning Commission Agenda for May 10, 2022 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLN-2022-23 Public Hearing to consider the request of Jose R. Rosales Palos for
property at 136 N. San Tomas Aquino Road to allow the on-site
sale of beer and wine beverages ("Liquor Establishment") in
association with an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tus Tacos Taqueria).
The application under consideration includes a Conditional Use
Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-23. Staff is recommending that this item
be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning
Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City
Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior
Planner
*2.
PLN-2021-70
Public Hearing to consider request of Nicholas and Andrea Key for
property at 705 El Patio Drive to rescind the listing of a designated
Structure of Merit from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). File
No.: PLN-2021-70. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed
Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting
Date: June 21, 2022. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2022 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.
*Agenda amended May 6, 2022 to reflect a revised recommended action for Item No. 2.
ITEM NO. 1
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ May 10, 2022
PLN-2022-23
Palos, J.
Public Hearing to consider the request of Jose R. Rosales Palos for property at
136 N. San Tomas Aquino Road to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine
beverages ("Liquor Establishment") in association with an existing restaurant
(d.b.a. Tustacos Taqueria). The application under consideration includes a
Conditional Use Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-23.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-
23) to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine beverages ("Liquor Establishment") in association
with an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tus Tacos Taqueria).
ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
PROJECT DATA
Lot Size: 405,323 sq. ft. (9.3 acres)
Total Building Area: 122,000 sq. ft. (approximate)
Tenant Space Area: 1,260 sq. ft.
Zoning District: C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
General Plan Land Use: Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed Business Hours: 10:00 AM - 8:30 PM, M-F
9:00 AM - 8:30 PM, Sat-Sun
Proposed Operational Hours: 9:00 AM - 9:30 PM, M-F
8:00 AM - 9:30 PM, Sat-Sun
Parking Required: 6 Parking Stalls
(1 space per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area)
Existing Parking Provided: 519 Parking Stalls (shared)
(shopping center)
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 2 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is the San Tomas Plaza shopping center, consisting of two primary
buildings and a small "pad" building towards the corner of the property. The center is located at the
northeast corner of N. San Tomas Aquino Road and W. Campbell Avenue, within the C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. The subject tenant space is located at the far north
end of the westerly building and was previously occupied by a café before being assumed by the
applicant late last year.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
sale of beer and wine in association with an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tustacos Taqueria). As
described by the applicant's Written Description (reference Attachment 2), the specific request is
for allowance of a "Type 41" (On-Sale Beer & Wine - Eating Place) ABC liquor license. The
submitted Project Plans (reference Attachment 3) depict the existing configuration of the restaurant,
which will remain unchanged with the granting of the requested liquor license. Hours of operations
are proposed as 10 AM to 8:30 PM, Monday-Friday, and 9 AM to 8:30 PM on Saturday and Sunday.
ANALYSIS
Findings for Approval
In order to grant approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must
affirmatively establish codified 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 as
necessary to establish the findings. The following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings
in italics and the consistency of the proposed project.
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
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;
The sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, either as a stand-alone bar or in
conjunction with a restaurant or other primary use is classified as a "liquor establishments,"
as defined by CMC Ch. 21.72, below:
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 3 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
"Liquor establishments" means a retail activity that is primarily devoted to the
selling of alcoholic beverages as a stand-alone bar or tavern, or in conjunction with
a restaurant or nightclub facility, for consumption on the premises.
A "liquor establishment" is allowable within the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning
District upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This mechanism allows the City to
impose operational requirements as conditions of approval to ensure that the serving of
alcoholic beverages remains ancillary to the primary purpose of a restaurant of food service.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;
Allowing beer and wine sales in conjunction with an existing restaurant will satisfy the
purpose/intent of the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation which
is to accommodate small-scale, lower intensity commercial and office uses that provide
goods and services to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The applicant’s proposal may
also be found to further the following General Plan policies and strategies:
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial
and commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow
change consistent with reinforcing positive neighborhood values, while protecting the
integrity of the city’s neighborhoods.
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;
The site is in active use for a restaurant and has not generated in any complaints related to
its use. Conditions of Approval have been included in the draft resolution (reference
Attachment 1) to ensure the continued maintenance of fencing, walls, landscaping, and
parking and loading facilities required to support the use and compliance with operational
standards intended to avoid adverse impacts to adjoining uses.
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;
Allowing on-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with an existing restaurant is not
anticipated to result in an appreciable increase in the amount of traffic the business generates.
Further, the San Tomas Aquino Shopping center is located at the corner of W. Campbell
Avenue and S. San Tomas Aquino Road which are both identified as Class II Arterial
roadways in the General Plan’s Roadways Classifications Diagram (Figure LUT-3) with
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’. Additionally, the lack of "late-night" hours (prior to 6:00 AM or after
11:00 PM) reduces likelihood of last incompatibility issues (e.g., noise, nuisances).
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 4 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
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).
Special Findings for Liquor Establishments: In addition to the required findings for a Conditional
Use Permit, CMC Section 21.46.070 also requires the Planning Commission to affirmatively
establish five special findings for liquor establishments, listed in italics below.
1. Over concentration of uses. The establishment will not result in an over concentration of
these uses in the surrounding area;
For the Commission’s reference, below is a summary of the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) liquor license permitting requirements and related standards
regarding concentration of liquor establishments.
ABC Requirements:
The sale of alcohol in California is regulated by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, as
enforced by the ABC. Although the ABC is the sole agency empowered to issue and govern
the exercise of liquor licenses, it is required to issue licenses only in accordance with local
zoning codes. Where a city has a Conditional Use Permit requirement for the sale or service
of alcoholic beverages, the ABC will not issue a license without proof that a Conditional Use
Permit has been granted. However, the City's approval of a Conditional Use Permit only
allows issuance of a liquor license by the ABC, it does not compel it. The ABC must still
perform its own evaluation of the request and conduct its required public notification.
Among other factors, the ABC is generally required to deny an application for a liquor
license if its issuance would result in or add to an "undue concentration" of licenses in a
particular area, unless a finding of "public convenience or necessity" (PCN) can be made,
as discussed further, below. In geographic terms, "undue concentration" is defined as
follows1:
The premises of the proposed license is located in a census tract where the ratio of existing
retail on-sale/retail off-sale licenses to population in the census tract exceeds the ratio of retail
on-sale/retail off-sale licenses to population in the County of the proposed premise.2
In Santa Clara County, there is one on-sale liquor license for every 720 residents, which
establishes the number of licenses per census tract (tract population/720 = number of allowed
licenses). Multiple tracts have an "undue concentration" based on their relative populations.
This includes tract 5066.06, where the project site is located, which is allocated six on-sale
licenses3, but currently has eight licensed establishments.4
1 A secondary definition pertains to the relative amount of crime in the area compared to the City overall's crime rate.
2 "On-Sale" means the service of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption within a restaurant or bar. "Off-sale"
means the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption, as sold by a liquor store, grocery store, etc.
3 ABC Census Tract Authorizations, August 2021
4 Tract 5066.06 was not previously unduly concentrated with liquor licenses but became so with the redrawing of
tracts following the 2020 Census.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 5 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
Since ABC's standard ties the number of liquor licenses to resident population rather than
to geographic area, residential neighborhoods can be afforded more liquor licenses than
business districts because they are often primarily comprised of retail and office uses with
fewer residents, reducing the population of the tract and the number of allowed licenses. For
example, the San Tomas Area is permitted 18 on-sale liquor licenses (tracts 5067.01/02/03)
whereas tract 5065.02, which includes Downtown Campbell—stretching from Hamilton
Avenue to the southerly border and from Winchester Boulevard to Highway 17—is afforded
only six licenses.
In census tracts that have an "undue concentration", the ABC will not issue a liquor license
unless the "public convenience or necessity" (PCN) would be served. The ABC may make
its own PCN determination or rely on a city's determination. Many cities, although not
Campbell, have codified zoning provisions that recognize ABC's undue concentration
criteria and establish a formalized process for a decision-making body to make an official
PCN determination. In cities with areas of high concentrations of alcohol-serving
establishments, such as Downtown San Jose or Campbell, this requires a request for a PCN
determination for every new liquor license request.5
Lastly, although the ABC issues various types of licenses (i.e., beer & wine, beer only, full
liquor, etc.), its undue concentration requirements do not recognize these distinctions. All
on-sale license types are treated the same with respect to the established numeric maximum
for each census tract.
Comparison to the City's Process
Although the City's "over concentration" criteria may sound similar to the ABC's "undue
concentration" standard, the two concepts are entirely different. The City has never
considered population in its overconcentration determinations nor relied on census tract
boundaries since they vary widely in area and population size,6 and change every 10 years
with the Decennial Census update.
However, while the Zoning Code does not define "surrounding area," this term has in
practice applied as to mean a specific geographic area, such as Downtown Campbell, or a
specific segment of the Downtown (e.g., East Campbell Avenue, east of First Street), or a
specified distance around the site (e.g., 1,000 feet). More recently, the Planning Commission
has also determined that the boundaries of a master plan or a shopping center (i.e., The
Pruneyard) may constitute a geographic area for purposes of this analysis.
In this manner, the City's practice considers the appropriateness of the number of liquor
licenses within a given geographically defined area, recognizing that commercial areas of
the City, such as Downtown Campbell or major shopping centers, can accommodate a
greater number of alcohol-serving establishments than residential neighborhoods. This
distinction is absent in the ABC's methodology since census tract boundaries span
commercial districts and residential neighborhoods (as well as city boundaries).
5 For this reason, San Jose Council Member Raul Peralez once proffered a change to the City's PCN policy to expedite
the process in 2019.
6 Glossary - U.S. Census Bureau
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 6 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
Additionally, in contrast to the ABC, the City has considered the type of license being
issued; whether beer and wine or general alcohol (spirits) in association with a restaurant or
as a stand-alone bar. These distinctions are embodied in the City's Downtown Alcohol
Beverage Policy which establishes different criteria for restaurants with alcohol (with and
without a separate bars), wine bars and wine-tasting rooms, and stand-alone bars. In 2019
the Planning Commission referenced this policy in approving a Conditional Use Permit for
the Strike Brewery taproom on East Campbell Avenue in large part because the request was
limited to a "Type 23" license that only allows the sale of beer produced by the brewery
itself. This activity was compared to a wine-tasting establishment, which is allowed by the
Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy.
Moreover, the City also considers whether the request for alcohol-service is in conjunction
with a business that seeks "late-night" hours (defined as activity after 11:00 PM or prior to
6:00 AM), has a separate bar area, and/or includes live entertainment. These elements can
increase the likelihood of nuisance activity related to alcohol service that can disturb the
peace and enjoyment of nearby residential neighborhoods and which can increase the
demand on City law and code enforcement services. In 2016, the City Council, upon appeal,
denied a Conditional Use Permit request for a beer and wine license for a proposed
restaurant because the requested karaoke activity, in conjunction with the beer and wine
service, could result in undue disruption to the neighborhood.
Lastly, whereas the ABC may issue a liquor license even when an "undue concentration"
exists upon a PCN determination, the City's Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission
to determine than an "overconcentration" does not exist. In other words, the Planning
Commission may not find that an overconcentration exists and yet still approve a
Conditional Use Permit for an alcohol-serving establishment.
Applicant's Request
As noted, the Zoning Code does not define "surrounding area." Absent more specific
guidance, the Planning Commission must rely on its own judgment in determining whether
an overconcentration exists, and how to identify the "surrounding area". Given the 9+ acre
size of the San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center, and the lack of an area/master plan covering
the project site, staff would recommend considering the shopping center itself as the
"surrounding area".
The San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center currently has two licensed restaurants (Tsing Tao
and LeQuy) with liquor licenses, which is comparable to the nearby Kirkwood Shopping
Center. As shown in the table, below, the density of alcohol-serving establishments (in
geographic terms) would remain significantly less than other shopping centers or Downtown
Campbell. With approval of the applicant's request, the Kirkwood Shopping Center would
have approximately one license per three acres. In comparison, Downtown Campbell has
approximately one license per one acre. This is similar to The Pruneyard, where the City
Council explicitly found that there was not an overconcentration when it approved its Master
Use Permit in 2016. Therefore, given the significantly fewer number of liquor licenses per
acre within the San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center as compared with other areas in the City,
staff recommends the Commission find that no overconcentration would result from the
applicant's request.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 7 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
2. Not create a nuisance. The establishment will not create a nuisance due to litter, noise,
traffic, vandalism, or other factors;
Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the draft resolution (reference
Attachment 1) to ensure continued compliance with operational standards, keeping the
property free from graffiti and trash, and requiring the continuous maintenance of
landscaping. The Conditions of Approval also prohibit dumping of glass bottles after 8 PM
(to avoid potential impacts to residential uses to the east), restrict music to indoor use only
and prohibit live entertainment, and empower the Community Development Director to
schedule revocation or modification of the permit in the event that the business generates a
verifiable complaint(s) related to violations of its conditions of approval and/or related to its
operation within a six (6) month period.
3. Not disturb the neighborhood. The establishment will not significantly disturb the peace and
enjoyment of the nearby residential neighborhood; and
See response to ‘b.’ above.
4. Not increase demand on services. The establishment will not significantly increase the
demand on city services.
The applicant’s proposal to add beer and wine sales to an existing restaurant is not
anticipated to incur a significantly increased demand on city services. Conditions of
Approval have been incorporated into the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment 1) to
minimize impacts to adjoining uses which could result in complaints or incur additional
demand on such services, and require the owner to obtain and maintain a valid business
license and ABC liquor license for the life of the activity served.
5. Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy. The establishment would be consistent with the
Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy, when applicable.
This finding is not applicable to the proposal as the project site is located outside of the
Downtown.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Written Description
Shopping Center Size (in Acres) Approved "On-Sale"
Liquor Licenses
Liquor Licenses
per Acre
Hamilton Plaza Shopping Center 12 2 1 per 6 acres
Kirkwood Plaza Shopping Center 12 2 1 per 6 acres
San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center 9 3 (w/approval) 1 per 3 acres
Campbell Plaza Shopping Center 11 5 1 per 2.2 acres
Downtown Campbell 301 26 1 per 1.15 acres
Pruneyard Shopping Center 27 252 1 per 1.08 acres
(1) Defined as the boundary of the Downtown Development Plan excluding the Civic Center.
(2) The maximum number of "on-sale" licenses authorized by the Pruneyard Master Use Permit
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 8 of 8
PLN-2022-23 ~ 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road
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 GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (PLN-2022-23) FOR 136 N. SAN TOMAS AQUINO ROAD TO ALLOW THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE BEVERAGES ("LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT") IN ASSOCIATION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (D.B.A. TUSTACOS TAQUERIA).
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:
1. The Project Site is a tenant space located within the San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center.
2. The Project Site is located at the northeast corner of North San Tomas Aquino Road and West Campbell Avenue. 3. The Project Site is within the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and within
the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Land Use District as depicted on the City of Campbell Zoning and General Plan Maps, respectively. 4. The Proposed Project is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine beverages ("Liquor Establishment") in association with an existing
restaurant (d.b.a. Tustacos Taqueria). 5. A "liquor establishment" is defined by CMC Ch. 21.72, below. In accordance with the definition of a liquor establishment, any restaurant (which includes cafés) that sells alcohol is subject to a Conditional Use Permit requirement, when specified by the
applicable zoning district.
"Liquor establishments" means a retail activity that is primarily devoted to the selling
of alcoholic beverages as a stand-alone bar or tavern, or in conjunction with a
restaurant or nightclub facility, for consumption on the premises.
6. In the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning districts, "liquor establishments" are identified as conditional use that require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to establishment.
7. As conditioned, alcohol beverage service in the restaurant shall be ancillary and
subordinate to the primary purpose of serving food. 8. The business would operate between 10:00 AM to 8:30 PM, Monday-Friday, and 9:00 AM to 8:30 PM on Saturday and Sunday and, accordingly, would not constitute a late-
night use.
9. The Project Site provides approximately 620 shared parking spaces. The existing restaurant will not be expanded such that its parking demand remains unchanged
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46__ Page 2 of 4 136 N. San Tomas Aquino Road Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
10. The overconcentration of alcohol-serving establishments within a geographically defined area can create a cumulative impact that overwhelms the area creating an undesirable
result such as drunk in public, vandalism, and disorderly conduct.
11. For purposes of its overconcentration analysis, to determine whether or not an "overconcentration" of liquor establishments exists, the Planning Commission recognizes the San Tomas Shopping Center as constituting the "surrounding area".
12. Approval of the Proposed Project would result in three alcohol-serving establishments within the San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center, or approximately one per three acres. In comparison, the Campbell Plaza and Pruneyard Shopping Centers have one alcohol-serving establishment per two and one acres, respectively.
13. The proposed project, as conditioned, would be consistent with the following General Plan policies and strategies:
Policy LUT-5.3: Variety of Commercial and Office Uses: Maintain a variety of attractive and convenient commercial and office uses that provide needed goods, services and entertainment.
Policy LUT-11.2: Services Within Walking Distance: Encourage neighborhood services within walking distance of residential uses
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.
14. In review of the proposed project, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project's traffic safety, traffic congestion, site circulation, landscaping, structure design, and site layout.
15. 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.
16. 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:
Special Findings for Liquor Establishments (CMC 21.46.070):
1. Over concentration of uses. The establishment will not result in an over concentration of these uses in the surrounding area;
2. Not create a nuisance. The establishment will not create a nuisance due to litter, noise,
traffic, vandalism, or other factors;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46__ Page 3 of 4 136 N. San Tomas Aquino Road Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
3. Not disturb the neighborhood. The establishment will not significantly disturb the peace and enjoyment of the nearby residential neighborhood;
4. Not increase demand on services. The establishment will not significantly increase the
demand on city services;
5. Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy. The establishment would be consistent with the Downtown Alcohol Beverage Policy, when applicable;
Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040):
6. 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; 7. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;
8. 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;
9. 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; 10. 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;
11. 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; Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
12. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and leasing, and minor
alteration of an existing private structure; and 13. 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. 46__ Page 4 of 4 136 N. San Tomas Aquino Road Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23) to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine beverages
("Liquor Establishment") in association with an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tus Tacos
Taqueria) located at 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Stuart Ching, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
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 (PLN-2022-23) to
allow the on-site sale of beer and wine beverages ("Liquor Establishment") in association with an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Tus Tacos Taqueria) located at 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans and Written Description included as Attachments 3 and 4 in the May 10, 2022 Planning Commission
Staff Report, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Approval Expiration: The Approval granted herein shall be valid for one year from the effective date of Planning Commission action (expiring May 20, 2023). Within this one-
year period a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license
from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) must be secured. Failure to meet this deadline will result in the Approval being rendered void. Once established, this Approval shall be valid in perpetuity on the property, subject to continued maintenance of a Type 41. Discontinuation of alcohol service for a continuous period of twelve months, as
evidenced by surrender or revocation of the ABC license, shall void the Approval without
the need for formal revocation by the decision-making body. 3. Signage: No signage has been approved as part of this development application. New signage shall not be installed prior to approval of a sign permit as required by the
Campbell Municipal Code. New signs shall conform to the San Tomas Plaza Master Sign
Plan. 4. Operational Standards: Any restaurant operating pursuant to this Approval shall conform to the following operational standards.
a. Approved Use: The approved use is a "restaurant, standard" with ancillary general alcohol sales ("liquor establishment") as defined by the Campbell Municipal Code and limited by the operational standards listed herein. At no time shall the restaurant be operated as a stand-alone bar/tavern.
a. Restaurant Seating/Patron Occupancy: Total indoor patron occupancy shall be
limited to 32 seated persons as originally indicated by Building Permit No. BLD2007-00217, subject to the maximum occupancy capacities of certain rooms as determined by the California Building Code (CBC). At no time shall there be
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46__ Page 2 of 4 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
more than 32 patrons within the establishment, excluding those waiting for service. It is the responsibility of the business owner to provide adequate entrance controls to ensure that patron occupancy is not exceeded.
b. Bar Area Seating: There shall be no separate "bar area," defined as a separate
area, tables, or a room intended primarily for serving alcoholic beverages.
c. Maximum Occupancy Sign: The business owner shall install a new maximum occupancy sign of a size to be determined by the Community Development Director, conspicuously posted within the premises, which shall include the maximum occupancy noted herein and include a visual depiction of the floor plan
included in the approved construction drawings submitted for a building permit.
d. Floor Plan: All chairs and tables within the dining area shall consists of standard-height furniture (i.e., not "high-top"). All tables and chairs shall be placed in such a manner to allow sufficient area for dining and shall not be stacked or removed from the dining area or placed outside. At no time shall the seating be reconfigured
to created large open spaces for patrons to congregate, dance, drink, or socialize.
e. Alcohol Beverage Service: Alcohol beverage service shall only be allowed in conjunction with food service within the dining area.
f. Food Service: Full menu food service shall be provided at all times during the Business Hours (i.e., the kitchen shall not be closed).
g. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation shall be as follows. By the end of 'Business Hours' all patrons shall have exited the restaurant. By the end of the 'Operational Hours' all employees shall be off the premises.
• Business Hours 9:00 AM – 9:00 PM, daily
• Operational Hours 8:00 AM – 10:00 PM, daily
h. Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is permitted as part of this Approval, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing. Future requests for live
entertainment shall require approval by the Planning Commission.
i. Outdoor Seating: Outdoor dining up to twelve (12) seats may be approved by the Community Development Director through issuance of a Zoning Clearance pursuant to CMC Section 21.36.150 provided that satisfactory parking is provided. If approved, outdoor seating shall be subject to the following standards:
i. The design and make of all furniture (chairs, tables, planters, and umbrellas,
etc.) shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.
ii. During non-business hours, chairs and tables shall be stacked, stored inside, or otherwise secured to prevent unauthorized use
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46__ Page 3 of 4 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
iii. All outdoor furniture shall be kept clean and in good repair and replaced and/or fixed as necessary.
iv. Exterior heaters shall be electric or natural gas. Propane heaters are prohibited unless the Community Development Director approves a propone
canister enclosure.
v. The operational standards of this Conditional Use Permit shall apply to the outdoor seating area.
j. Loitering: There shall be no loitering allowed outside the business. The business owner is responsible for monitoring the premises to prevent loitering.
k. Noise: Unreasonable levels of noise, sounds and/or voices generated by the
establishment shall not audible to a person of normal hearing capacity from any residential property. In the event verified complaints are received by the City regarding such noise, the Community Development Director may immediately curtail the Hours of Operation, pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 5
(Revocation of Permit).
l. Smoking: “No Smoking” signs shall be posted on the premises in compliance with CMC Section 6.11.060.
m. Trash & Clean Up: All trash disposal (except for glass bottles as noted below),
normal clean-up, carpet cleaning, window cleaning, sidewalk sweeping, etc. shall
occur during the "operational hours." Refuse and recycling receptacles shall be kept within the enclosure except during collection in compliance with CMC Ch. 6.04 (Garbage and Refuse Disposal).
n. Glass Bottles: Glass bottles shall be discarded no later than 9:00 PM daily.
o. Liquor License: The applicant shall obtain and maintain in good standing a Type
41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the restaurant.
p. Employee Training: The establishment shall use an employee training manual
that addresses alcoholic beverage service consistent with the standards of the
California Restaurant Association and the ABC.
q. Designated Driver Program: The establishment shall maintain and actively promote a designated driver program (e.g., complimentary non-alcoholic beverages for designated drivers), including posting in a conspicuous place
contact information for local designated driver services.
r. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be maintained in compliance with the standards provided in CMC Ch. 21.28 (Parking and Loading).
s. Property Maintenance: The business owner shall maintain all exterior areas of the business free from graffiti, trash, and rubbish.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46__ Page 4 of 4 136 N San Tomas Aquino Road Conditional Use Permit (PLN-2022-23)
t. Outdoor Activity: Other than outdoor seating, no outdoor activity (e.g., cooking) is permitted in association with the establishment.
u. Storefront Glazing: All storefront glazing shall remain unobscured, except for the 25% of window area permitted to be occupied with window signage.
v. City Meetings: At the discretion of the Chief of Police, periodic meetings will be conducted with representatives from the Police Department/Alcohol Beverage Control for on-going employee training on alcoholic beverage service to the general public.
w. Landscape Maintenance: The owner/operator of the property shall provide on-
going maintenance of the required landscaping for the project.
5. Revocation of Permit: Operation of the restaurant with alcohol service pursuant to this Approval is subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030 and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke a Conditional Use Permit if it is determined that the sale of alcohol has become a nuisance
to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of this Approval or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates three (3) verifiable complaints related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise,
etc.) and/or related to the service of alcohol within a twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking of the Approval. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of the Approval upon the occurrence of less than three (3) complaints if the Community Development
Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action. The Director may also at such time immediately restrict the establishment's Hours of Operation to address noise complaint in a timely manner. In exercising this authority, the decision making body may consider the following factors, among others:
a. The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the
establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of patrons actions;
b. The number of complaints received from residents, business owners and other citizens concerning the operation of an establishment,
c. The number of arrests for alcohol, drug, disturbing the peace, fighting and public
nuisance violations associated with an establishment;
d. The number and kinds of complaints received from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control office and the County Health Department; and
e. Violation of conditions of approval.
Item No. 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ May 10, 2022
PLN-2021-70 Key Public Hearing to consider request of Nicholas and Andrea Key for property at 705 El Patio Drive to rescind the listing of a designated Structure of Merit
from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment A), recommending that the City Council rescind
the designation of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit from the Campbell Historic Resource Inventory, subject to payment of a $45,000 fee in-lieu of property restoration. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The action to remove the subject property from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) may be
deemed Exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for the action to have a significant effect on the environment.
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar
Avenue, and is bordered by single-family residences to the east and townhomes to the north, as shown on the aerial map, below.
The property is developed with a single-family residence, recognized as a Structure of Merit on the HRI, constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style (reference Attachment B – Site Photographs). According to the City's Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) 523A form, this home was one of several of this architectural style built within the Rancho del Patio subdivision during the 1930's under the supervision of B.J. Smith (reference Attachment C – DPR Form). The existing residence is slightly over 1,000 square feet incorporating two bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, and small dining area.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 2 of 7 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.
Historic Preservation: The City maintains a list of 145 historic properties known as the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), which was originally established in 1984. Within the HRI, there are
three types of "historic resources" (properties), as listed, below. Only the City Council may add or
remove properties from the HRI.
Structure of Merit: A historic resource possessing outstanding aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering historic value. Structures of Merit were formerly named "designated historic resource inventory properties" in prior enactments of the current
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Landmark: A historic resource found to have exceptional historic significance in Campbell.
Historic District Property: A geographically defined area that has been designated by ordinance of the City Council as possessing a concentration, or a thematically related
grouping, of historic resources which contribute to the historical character of the area.
Today, there is only one historic district in Campbell, the Alice Avenue Historic District.
Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.33 and in conjunction with the Campbell Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Buildings and by reference the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the City protects these structures from alterations that would undermine
their historic integrity so that they may be preserved for the enjoyment and appreciation of future
generations. This is accomplished by a multi-tier regulatory approach that is generally intended to allow for expedited approval of most minor changes (e.g., window change-outs, new roofing, etc.) while requiring a more thorough review of significant changes (e.g., additions or alterations to "character-defining" features) to these identified historic resources.
Property Background: The subject property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI),
along with 649 El Patio and 58 S. Third Street, by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012. The property's designation occurred after extensive public outreach and review by both the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) and the Planning Commission as noted in the City Council staff report (reference Attachment D). In support of the decision to list the property on the HRI,
the Council found that it possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering
interest or value of an historical nature". As noted by the DPR form, the property typifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character-defining features, including a flat-roof, cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco-covered chimneys with brick reveal.
Last year, the homeowners, submitted a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit to allow
construction of a 523 square-foot addition, incorporating an expanded living area and master bedroom, and an additional bedroom. The application was agendized for consideration before the HPB at its September 22, 2021, meeting (reference Attachment E – Staff Report). Prior to the meeting, staff discovered that the homeowners had performed unauthorized alterations to the
building that were not shown in the application. As a result, the September 22nd HPB hearing was
continued to a date uncertain (reference Attachment F – Meeting Minutes). City staff began consulting with its Historical/Architectural Advisor, Mark Sandoval to evaluate the alterations and determine next steps. The City requested Mr. Sandoval to prepare a report to ascertain whether (and how) the façade of the structure could be restored, and if so, if it would retain sufficient
integrity to remain eligible to remain on the HRI.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 3 of 7 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.
Unpermitted Alterations: The photographs, below, compare the subject property before and after the unpermitted alterations. The scope of the alterations includes removal of the box-formed
columns and recessed casement window, application of new stucco resulting in the loss of the
original texture, creation of a new arched feature over the entryway, and construction of connected walls extending from either side of the house. As a result of these changes, the structure no longer resembles its original appearance. If the applicant had applied for City approvals and permits, these alterations would have required a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit application
since the "character-defining features" of the structure would have been removed (CMC Sec.
21.33.070.B.1.a), as identified in the DPR prepared for the building.
Proposal: Based on the results of Mr. Sandoval's review (discussed, below) and determination that the alterations have modified the character defining features and historical integrity of the structure, the homeowners are seeking to rescind the historic designation of the property, as permitted by CMC Sec. 21.33.060.D.1.
ANALYSIS
As specified by CMC Sec. 21.33.060.D, rescinding a property's historic designation requires the City Council, upon independent recommendations of the Board and Planning Commission, to find that "based on substantial evidence and findings of fact in the record that the resource no longer has historic value with respect to the designation criteria." The historic designation criteria are as follows:
(a) The resource is associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage;
(b) The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to our history;
(c) The resource yields, or has the potential to yield, information important to our prehistory or history;
(d) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction;
(e) The resource represents the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder; or
(f) The resource possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city.
The Municipal Code further indicates that "in the case of disagreement as to the significance of a historic resource [between the Historic Preservation Board and Planning Commission], a historic evaluation report and/or structural report shall be required." In this case, a historic report has been prepared for use by the HPB and the Planning Commission.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 4 of 7 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.
Mr. Sandoval's report traces the history of the Rancho Del Patio tract in which the subject property is located and evaluates the current status of the structure in this context (reference Attachment
G). Mr. Sandoval concludes that the unauthorized alterations have modified the building's
historical integrity and character defining features, rendering it ineligible for continued listing as a Structure of Merit on the HRI. Regarding restoration of the building to its pre-altered condition, Mr. Sandoval concludes that although restoration of the façade is technically feasible, he is not supportive of such an approach noting that the "original historical integrity of the home has been
significantly diminished" as a result of the unpermitted modifications, compounded by the owner's
proposed addition. For this reason, the report recommends that the City should consider removing the property from the HRI.
Given the extent of the unpermitted alterations and the determination by the City’s historic consultant that the historical integrity of the building cannot be restored, staff is supportive of
removing the property from the HRI in that the structure no longer embodies the distinctive
characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. Moreover, maintaining a property that has lost its historical integrity on the HRI undermines the purpose of the list and dilutes the importance of other registered properties. As identified by Mr. Sandoval, although the structure could be restored to resemble its original appearance, it would simply be a representation of the
original and arguably still lack the building’s original integrity and historic value to qualify its
listing on the HRI.1
In-Lieu Fee: The City's Code Enforcement Officer issued an Administrative Citation in the amount of $275 (inclusive of a $100 fine and $175 in administrative fees) to the applicant for performing work without a building permit. The Municipal Code does not identify any additional
penalties or fines for unauthorized construction resulting in the alteration, damage, or demolition
of a listed historic resource. Although CMC Sec. 21.33.100 does obligate owners to maintain their historic property in good repair and specifies that allowing an historic resource to "suffer severe deterioration beyond the point of repair" constitutes a public nuisance subject to administrative penalties, it does not address unpermitted alterations to a property.
However, the City may impose a fee as a condition of approval to affirmatively support findings
for approval as necessary to determine consistency with the General Plan or other city policies, and when a clear nexus can be established. In this instance, the unauthorized work and proposed removal of the building from the HRI represents a resource loss that is in conflict with Campbell’s historic preservation policies and ordinances. As such, staff recommends that removal of the
property from the HRI, necessitates payment of a fee in-lieu of restoring the property to its historic
condition (which as noted, above, is technically feasible, but not an advisable course of action). This fee, incorporated as a condition of approval, is proposed in the amount of $45,000, representing a conservative estimate of the cost to restore property to its previous condition.2
1 In some circumstances, restoration could be found appropriate, however. For example, had the property been located in a historic districts where its pre-alteration appearance contributed the districts' architectural character/theme, restoration could have served a broader goal of maintaining that architectural character/theme. 2 The fee amount is the sum of an estimate provided by the City's Historic Architectural Advisor for architectural and engineering design and consulting services, and preparation of historic evaluation for the property including an update to DPR 523 form, in the amount of $28,250 and a construction cost estimate for the restoration work provided by the City's Acting Building Official in the amount of $24,840, less a 15% adjustment factor. These estimates are included as Attachment H.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 5 of 7 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.
Application of this fee would support the City's obligations to the Certified Local Government Program (CLG). As provided in Appendix G of the Certified Local Government Application and
Procedures, August 1999, (reference Attachment I) the City is obligated to "Enforce appropriate
state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties," including "adopt[ing] local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources." Since the City's current Historic Preservation Ordinance lacks a substantive enforcement mechanism to deter or punish unlawful alterations (or
demolitions) of designated historic resources, imposition of an in-lieu fee would serve this
purpose.
Moreover, imposition of the fee would further implementation of General Plan Policy LUT-8.1 (Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources) and Policy CNR-1.1 (Historic Resource Preservation) and their applicable supporting strategies, below, by encouraging
the preservation of existing and potential historical resources in the community, and by
maintaining the integrity of the HRI and the City's historic preservation program.
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.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Update Historic Resource Inventory: Review the City’s neighborhoods for consideration of adding significant structures, landmarks, trees or district status to the Historic Resource inventory on a regular basis, and update the list accordingly.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Certified Local Government Status: Attain Certified Local Government Status of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives: Develop incentives to encourage preservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate historic Building and Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements.
Strategy LUT-8.1i: Altering or Demolishing Historic Resources: Establish procedures, including
identifying alternatives, for proposals that significantly alter or demolish historic resources.
Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible.
Strategy CNR-1.1a: Historic Resources Inventory: Maintain and update an inventory of historic resources for use in evaluating development proposals and determining if sites or
buildings are of local, State or federal significance.
Consistent with State law, the funds would deposited into a dedicated account that will be
exclusively used to support the preservation of historic resources, as directed by the City Council, including activities such as the distribution of monetary grants to restore historic structures, conducting surveys to identify potential historic structures for formal listing and protection on the Historic Resource Inventory, updating the City of Campbell Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Buildings, and/or updating and expanding of the City's Mills Act Historical Property
Contract Program.
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 6 of 7 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.
HPB Action: The HPB considered the applicant's request at its March 23, 2022 meeting. The item had been continued since January so that staff could prepare the necessary documentation for the
recommended in-lieu fee. After an extensive discussion, the Board adopted a resolution
recommending that the City Council remove the property from the HRI subject to a fee in-lieu of property restoration in the amount of $5,000 (reference Attachment J – Meeting Minutes).
Future Code Updates: As illustrated by this example, the lack of a substantive enforcement mechanism authorized in the Campbell Municipal Code to deter or punish unlawful alterations (or
demolitions) of the City’s designated historic resources leaves them exposed to future damage. As
such, staff will be seeking Council authorization to prepare a Zoning Code Text Amendment to adopt provisions to allow for increased penalties and enforcement for unauthorized damage or destruction of historic resources. For example, other cities, such as Pleasanton, Burlingame, and San Francisco, have had to address similar deficiencies in their codes by adopting sizable fees and
other penalties to discourage unpermitted alterations or demolitions of historic resources.
Public Comment: No public correspondence on this request has been received.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may consider the following alternatives:
1. Reduced Fee: The Commission may support imposing a fee in-lieu of property restoration, but
may recommend a lower dollar value to the City Council. 2. Deny the Request: If the Commission is not supportive of removing the property from the HRI and would rather compel restoration of the property to its previous condition, it may
recommend denial of the rescission request. This action would require continuance of the
public hearing so that a denial resolution may be drafted for the Commission's consideration. Attachments:
A. Draft Resolution (approval)
B. Site Photographs
C. DPR Form D. City Council Staff Report, dated 5/1/2012 E. HPB Staff Report, dated 9/22/2021 F. HPB Meeting Minutes, dated 9/22/2021
G. 705 El Patio Drive, Campbell, CA –Review of Non-Permitted Alterations, Mark Sandoval
H. Cost Estimates I. Certified Local Government Application and Procedures - Appendix G J. HPB Meeting Minutes, dated 3/23/2022
Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2022 Page 7 of 7 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.
Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 46xx BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
RESCIND THE LISTING OF 705 EL PATIO DRIVE AS A STRUCTURE OF MERIT FROM THE CITY OF CAMPBELL HISTORIC PRESERVATION INVENTORY, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF A FEE IN-LIEU OF PROPERTY RESTORATION.
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 regards to the recommended approval to
rescind a Structure of Merit from the Historic Resource Inventory (PLN-2021-70):
Environmental Finding:
1. This action is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for
the action to have a significant effect on the environment.
Evidentiary Findings: 1. The Subject Property is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar Avenue.
2. The Subject Property is zoned R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District on the City of Campbell Zoning Map.
3. The Subject Property is designated Low Density Residential on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The Subject Property is developed with a single-family residence, a designated Structure
of Merit constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style, located
within the Rancho Del Patio tract.
5. The Subject Property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012 through adoption of Resolution No. 11396. In support of the decision to list the property on the HRI, the City Council found that it
possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value
of an historical nature". As noted by the Subject Property's Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523, the property typifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character-defining features, including a flat-roof, cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco-covered chimneys with brick
reveal.
6. The Subject Property incurred unpermitted physical alterations made by the property owner during calendar year 2020, which have been evaluated by the City's Historic Architectural Advisor in a report entitled 705 El Patio Drive, Campbell, CA – Review of Non-Permitted Alterations. The report identifies the extent of the changes as:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
Gone are the original three box-formed columns that once dominated the front gabled wall of the home, in addition to the deeply recessed feature casement window next to the entryway to the home. These
character-defining features were unique and were not found on any of the other six homes constructed on El Patio at the time. In addition, it appears the property owner may have also added the stucco walls
with gate openings, which separate the rear and side yards of the property from the street, along with the tile-faced and brick half-circular main entrance landing and the brick-paved walkway, as part of the
same remodel.
7. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) 21.33.070 (Application for an Exterior Alteration to a
Historic Resource), specifies that an application for exterior alteration to a historic resource (including, but not limited to, replacement of windows, doors, columns, porches, chimneys, roofing, or siding materials) shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Further, CMC Section 21.33.070.B.1.a (Structures of Merit) provides that any proposed alteration that alters the character-defining features of
Structure of Merit shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board as a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit in accordance with the CMC Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit - Tier 1).
8. The Subject Property incurred unpermitted physical alterations without prior consideration of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit and without the benefit of
a building permit.
9. The Historic Architectural Advisor's report on the unpermitted alterations concludes that the "original historic integrity of the home has been significantly diminished" and that the "city should consider removing the property at 705 El Patio Drive from the City of Campbell’s Historic Resource Inventory."
10. By diminishing the historic integrity of the Subject Property, the unpermitted alterations are inconsistent with the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines and by reference, the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Such inconsistency would likely have required denial of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit and compulsion of a request for a Tier 2 Historic Resource Alteration Permit pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.090 (Historic
Resource Alteration Permit - Tier 2).
11. Upon completion of the Historic Architectural Advisor's report, the Property Owner submitted a request to rescind the historic designation of the property.
12. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.060.D.1 (Initiation), rescinding of the property's historic designation requires the City Council, upon independent recommendations of the
Historic Preservation Board and Planning Commission, to find that "based on substantial evidence and findings of fact in the record that the resource no longer has historic value with respect to the designation criteria."
13. Maintaining a property that has lost its historical integrity on the Historic Resource Inventory undermines the purpose of the list and dilutes the import of other listed
properties.
14. Although possible to restore the Subject Property to its original condition, the Historic Architectural Advisor opines that "such measures will probably not add any additional historic value to this property, especially in light of the extensive past non-permitted building alterations to the exterior of this home and the new room addition currently
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
proposed by the property owner. As a consequence of these collective building modifications to this small home the original historic integrity of the home has been significantly diminished."
15. Removing the Subject Property from the Historic Resource Inventory due to unpermitted
alterations that otherwise would not have been approved is inconsistent General Plan Goal LUT-8 (Preservation of historic buildings, districts and cultural resources), and its supporting policy and strategies and with the intent and purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as specified in CMC Section 21.33.010.B (Purpose), by
hindering the City's ability preserve culturally and historically significant resources and
fulfilling its responsibility, as a certified local government, to enforce state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic resources.
16. In furtherance of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the City's Certified Local Government status, approval of the rescission request is subject to
payment of fee in-lieu of restoration of the Subject Property to its previous condition. This
fee is imposed pursuant to the following findings:
a. The purpose of the in-lieu fee is to provide funds for the maintenance, restoration and preservation of historic resources in the City of Campbell.
b. The in-lieu fee will be deposited in separate account that will be exclusively used to
support the preservation of historic resources within the City of Campbell as directed by the City Council, including but not limited to, preparation of historic evaluation reports for evaluation of eligible resources for formal listing on the Historic Resource Inventory, distribution of monetary grants to restore historic
structures, an update to the City of Campbell Design Guidelines for Historic
Residential Buildings, and/or an update and expansion of the City's Mills Act Historical Property Contract Program. c. There is a reasonable relationship between the in-lieu fee's use and the request for
the Subject Property to be removed from the Historic Resource Inventory in that
the funding would further General Plan Policy LUT-8.1 (Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources) and Policy CNR-1.1 (Historic Resource Preservation) and their applicable supporting strategies, below, by encouraging the preservation of existing and potential historical resources in the
community, and by maintaining the integrity of the HRI and the City's historic
preservation program.
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.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Update Historic Resource Inventory: Review the City’s neighborhoods
for consideration of adding significant structures, landmarks, trees or district status to the Historic Resource inventory on a regular basis, and
update the list accordingly.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Certified Local Government Status: Attain Certified Local Government
Status of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives: Develop incentives to encourage preservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate
historic Building and Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements.
Strategy LUT-8.1i: Altering or Demolishing Historic Resources: Establish procedures, including identifying alternatives, for proposals that significantly alter or
demolish historic resources.
Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation: Ensure that the City and its citizens
preserve historic resources as much as possible.
Strategy CNR-1.1a: Historic Resources Inventory: Maintain and update an inventory of
historic resources for use in evaluating development proposals and determining if sites or buildings are of local, State or federal
significance.
d. Furthermore, the imposition of the in-lieu fee would be in support of the City's
obligations to the Certified Local Government Program. As provided in Appendix G of the Certified Local Government Application and Procedures, August 1999, the City is obligated to "Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties," including "adopt[ing] local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection
of historic and archeological resources." Since the City's current Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.33) lacks a substantive enforcement mechanism to deter or punish unlawful alterations (or demolitions) of designated historic resources, imposition of an in-lieu fee would serve this purpose until such time the deficiency may be remedied.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the rescission request on which the fee is imposed in that the amount of this fee ($45,000) is a conservative approximation of the cost to restore the Subject Property to its previous condition. The fee amount is the sum of an estimate provided by the City's
Historic Architectural Advisor for architectural and engineering design and consulting services, and preparation of historic evaluation for the property including an update to DPR 523 form, in the amount of $28,250 and a construction cost estimate for the restoration work provided by the City's Acting Building Official in the amount of $24,840, less a 15% adjustment factor.
17. The Planning Commission has considered all evidence in the record and verbal testimony.
18. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the request, as currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
19. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the request.
20. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the request to rescind the listing of the Subject Property as a Structure of Merit from the Historic Resource Inventory, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will
have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 46xx Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
1. The resource is not associated with events that have made an important contribution to
the broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage;
1. The resource is not associated with the lives of persons important to our history;
2. The resource does not yield information important to our prehistory or history;
3. The resource does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction;
4. The resource does not represent the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or
builder;
5. The resource does not possess significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city; and
6. Rescinding the resource from the Historic Resource Inventory, is consistent with the
General Plan, as conditioned upon payment of a fee in-lieu of property restoration.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council rescind the historic designation of a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit "A").
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Stuart Ching, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLN-2021-70 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
1. Approved Request: Approval is granted for the request to rescind the listing of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit from the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), subject to these Conditions of Approval.
2. Effectiveness of Approval: The approval to rescind the historic designation of the above
referenced property shall only be effect upon payment of a fee in-lieu of property restoration as identified by Condition of Approval No. 3.
3. Required In-Lieu Fee: This approval is subject to payment of a fee in-lieu of property restoration in the amount of $45,000. The funds from this fee and all earnings from its
investment shall be expended exclusively in support of the City of Campbell's historic
preservation program as directed by the City Council.
4. Timing of Payment: Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made within ninety (90) days of the City Council action. Failure to pay the fee shall render this approval void and result in recommencement of enforcement action by the City for violations of the Campbell
Municipal Code related to the unpermitted alterations to the subject property.
5. Form of Payment: Payment of the fee in-lieu shall be in conjunction with and subject to an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney waiving any right to challenge the validity of the fee pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000 et seq.).
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: El Patio California Mission Revival District P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 705 El Patio City Campbell Zip 95008 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN: 279-45-003 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style popular in the 1930’s, this single family residence sits between the entrance to a condominium complex and Los Gatos Creek at the terminus of El Patio Drive. One story in height and primarily flat topped it has a parapet with tile coping surrounding built-up roofing. Cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing rise at the front and provide the character defining look to the structure. The walls are of stucco with a large trowel handcrafted pattern. A recessed entryway is set between molded columns that appear embedded into the front façade, a detail not typical to the style. The windows are steel casement set without trim into the stucco surface. Two stucco-covered chimneys rise above the roof near the front of the building with brick revealed near the top that then rises from two sides into arches. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present:
Building Structure Object
Site District Element
of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Front Façade, 07/24/07 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
Historic Prehistoric
Both Late 1930’s *P7. Owner and Address: Karen F. Shore 244 Bonita Rd. Portola Valley, CA 94028 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Leslie A.G. Dill Architect 110 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 *P9. Date Recorded: 4/1999 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Inventory Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-78 Survey. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Style *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built, late 1930’s *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: b. Builder: *B10. Significance: Theme Architecture Area Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) In January, 1931, the subdivision map for Tract No.2, Rancho del Patio was drawn by civil engineer R. W. Fisher, This became a California Spanish Revival Style subdivision with a total of 7 houses built under the supervision of B.J. Smith on El Patio. His son-in-law, Charles Lynds, painted 5 of the houses inside and out. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See P11 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: See P8 *Date of Evaluation: See P9
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
5
o~ .Ci\Jt~
tJ ~
o 0
OltCHA.\\.\J
City
Council
Report
Item:
Category:
Meeting Date:
15.
Public Hearing
May 1,2012
TITLE: Public Hearing to consider a City initiated application to designate three
properties as Historic Resource Inventory Properties (PLN2012-63).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution, designating 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio Drive, and
58 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory properties.
BACKGROUND
When a property is listed on the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), it joins a select
group of other historic properties, all of which exhibit a degree of local significance. A
listing on the HRI identifies structures that contribute to the character of a neighborhood,
that help define the City's past, and that foster increased connections to Campbell's
cultural and historical heritage. Currently 214 properties have been surveyed and have
been placed in one of three levels of historic designation:
1. Landmark Properties: There are 55 properties designated as Landmark properties.
This designation identifies properties that the City Council has determined having a
special aesthetic, architectural, cultural, engineering, or historical value or interest.
Landmark designation includes specific properties, such as the Ainsley House and
the Campbell Community Center, and those properties located within the Alice
Avenue Historic District.
2. Properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory: There are 84 properties on
the City Council approved inventory of buildings and structures. These are
properties found significant to the City of Campbell's history, architecture,
archaeology and culture but not designated as Landmark Properties or found within
a designated Historic District.
3. Potential Additions to the Historic Resource Inventory List: There are currently 75
properties identified by the Historic Preservation Board as potential additions to the
Historic Resource Inventory. These properties have been identified as being
potentially significant to the City of Campbell's history, architecture, archeology, and
culture, but have not been approved by the City Council for designation as either a
Landmark Property or a HRI property. They are simply a group of surveyed
properties that could potentially be added.
City Council Report - May 1, 2012
Historic Resource Inventory Designation
Page 3 of 5
questions regarding historic resource designation. After receiving input from seven of
the property owners, the HPB scheduled a public hearing to continue the designation
process. On March 28, 2012, the HPB held a public hearing to determine which of the
13 property owners support HRI designation. Two property owners, 649 EI Patio Drive
and 58 S. Third Street, had previously expressed their support and continued
participation. The property owners of 705 EI Patio Drive were supportive of bringing
their property to the Planning Commission for recommendation as long as they are able
to withdraw their property from consideration pending their additional research
reference Attachments 2 & 3, Location Maps & Historic Surveys). As the HPB has
expressed its desire to only bring forward those property owners of the first 13 who
support inclusion, the Board adopted a Resolution recommending HRI designation for
649 EI Patio, 705 EI Patio, and 58 S. Third Street, with the understanding that the
property owners of 705 EI Patio may withdraw their property from consideration with the
full support of the Board.
Planninq Commission Public Hearinq: The Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider the proposed project at their meeting of April 10, 2012. The Planning
Commission considered the HPB's evaluation of each of the identified properties
against the criteria set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In summary, the
HPB found that the three properties still under consideration met the following required
criteria:
1. 649 EI Patio Drive was found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 3a, and 3b.
2. 705 EI Patio Drive was also found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 3a, and 3b.
3. 58 S. Third Street was found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 c, 3a, and 3b.
The attached meeting minutes reveal that the Planning Commission questioned if any
additional restrictions would be placed on historic resource designated properties. Staff
explained that historic resource designation may subject a property to a more detailed
design review process consistent with the City's adopted historic residential design
guidelines and the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic structures.
If an owner of an historic resource complies with the adopted design guidelines and
standards, project review would be consistent with that of a property not designated as
a historic resource. After discussion, the consensus of the Planning Commission was
that the Historic Preservation Board's evaluation of the three residential properties
whose owners desire designation was appropriate and supportable.
Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two Commissioners
absent) to recommend that the City Council designate 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio
Drive, and 85 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory properties(reference
Attachment 4, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes).
Evaluation of Outreach Process: The strategy for bringing forward the 75 properties on
the "Potential" list was to create a process that would allow property owners to
voluntarily place their structures on the HRI. This process would involve outreach to
Item No. 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Staff Report ∙ SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
PLN-2021-160 Key, N. Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicholas Key for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the
construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure
of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive in the R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), recommending approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Sections 15303 and 15331 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROJECT DATA
Proposed Requirement
Zoning Designation: R-1-6 (Single-Family) N/A
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential N/A
Net Lot Area: 13,945 square-feet 6,000 sq. ft. (Min.)
Density: 5.2 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max.)
Building Height: 14 feet (addition) 35 feet (Min.)
Building Square Footage:
Existing Living Area: 1,055 square feet
Proposed New Area: 523 square feet 1,578 square feet (Total House Size) Existing Front Porch: 14 square feet
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .11 (1,578 sq. ft) .45 (6,275 sq. ft.) (Max.)
Building (Lot) Coverage: 11% (1,592 sq. ft.) 40% (5,578 sq. ft.) (Max.)
Parking: N/A (non-conforming) 2 spaces (Min. Required)
Setbacks: Front (south): 21 ½ feet 20 feet Interior Side (east): 29 ½ feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
Street Side (west): 13 ¼ feet 12 feet Rear (north): 103 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Site: The project site is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar
Avenue. The property is bordered by single-family residences to the east and townhomes to the
north, as shown on the aerial map, below:
The property is developed with a single-family residence, recognized as a Structure of Merit
constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style (reference Attachment 2 – Site Photographs). According to the City's DPR (Department of Parks and Recreation) form, this home was one of several constructed in this architectural style built within the Rancho del Patio subdivision during the 1930's under the supervision of B.J. Smith (reference Attachment 3). The existing residence is slightly over 1,000 square-feet incorporating two bedrooms, a kitchen, living
room, and small dining area.
Background: The property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), along with 649 El Patio and 58 S. Third Street, by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012. The property's designation occurred after extensive public outreach and review by both the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Commission as noted in the City Council staff report (reference Attachment 4). In including the property on the HRI, the Council found that it possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value of an historical nature". As noted by the DPR form, the property exemplifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character-defining features, including a flat-roof, cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco-covered chimneys with brick reveal.
Proposal: The application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit would permit construction of 523 square-foot addition to the structure. The addition would allow for an expanded living area, an additional bedroom, and expanded master bedroom. As shown the submitted project plans, the proposed addition would be located to the rear of the structure (reference Attachment
5).
ANALYSIS
Environmental Determination: Construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence is considered Categorically Exempt Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration,
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources are also Categorically Exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 if the project is found consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties. Lastly, there are no unusual circumstances, as defined by
Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt. Administrative Procedure: Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.070.B, a proposed
exterior alteration or material change to a Structure of Merit may be considered through either an
"expedited" building permit review or referred to the Historic Preservation Board for review of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit. Referral to the Board is warranted when a proposal may alter the "character-defining features" of the structure. The Community Development Director has determined that a substantial addition, such as the 523 square foot addition proposed by this
application, warrants a referral to the Board. The Board’s recommendation to approve or deny the
Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit applies to staff's review of a Zoning Clearance necessary to formally authorize to deny the proposed work. Findings for Approval: In order to recommend approval of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit, the Board must affirmatively determine the project meets findings for approval. Findings
establish the evidentiary basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval necessary to meet the findings. The following identifies each of the applicable findings in italics followed by staff's analysis of the consistency of the proposed project.
Please note that an Historic Evaluation Report was not required for this project since staff believed
that the findings for approval could be affirmatively determined without one. However, the
Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Sec. 21.33.070.A.2.) does allow the City to require such a report if the Board believes that additional review is warranted to support a recommendation.
1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
The project site is located in the R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. As
indicated under 'Project Data', the proposed addition conforms to applicable development standards specified by the Zoning Code. Although the property does not have any on-site parking, expansion of a single-family residence does not require construction of a garage or carport.
2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not
limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
The Design Guidelines indicate that additions "should respect the significant character-defining features that are found in the building’s architectural style" and "maintain a compatible relationship with the rest of the home in size, scale, use of materials,
craftsmanship, and overall visual appearance." The proposed addition satisfies these
requirements by incorporating building forms, features, and materials comparable to the existing residence. Specifically, the use of a flat roof extends a fundamental component of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style to the addition. New materials, including a painted wood door and new metal windows with black anodized frames and grids would also
maintain design consistency with the home's architectural style.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
3. The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district; and
The design and placement of the proposed addition has been carefully planned so as to
maintain the historic integrity of the resource, which is accomplished my avoiding alteration to the front façade.
4. The proposed action is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows:
a. The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the historic
resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size, massing, scale
and proportion, and materials.
The proposed addition incorporates a flat roof consistent with the design expression of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. Although the addition would be slightly taller than the existing structure, as discussed below, it is still a single-story addition and the
difference in height is not of a degree that would render the addition incompatible in
terms size, scale, massing, or proportion.
b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic resource.
Other that the walls affected by the addition, the proposed project would not result in
the removal of integral features of the historic resource.
c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible.
There are no deteriorated features that would be modified by the proposed project.
d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed
such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource shall be protected if
the addition is removed in the future.
The proposed addition would be differentiated from the existing residence through an increase building height that would clearly differentiate the new area from the existing
residence such that there would no question as to what constitutes the original house.
This approach maintains essential form and integrity of the historic resource while allowing the home to utilize a consistent material (stucco) across the entirety of the structure. The Board recently recommended approval of an addition to a home on Alice Avenue using this similar approach.
Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
Public Comment: No public comment was received on this application.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Site Photographs 3. DPR Form 4. City Council Staff Report, dated May 2, 2012 5. Project Plans
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 | 5:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of September 22, 2021, was called to order at 5:00 p.m., via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had
to wit.
ROLL CALL HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent
Michael Foulkes, Chair None
Todd Walter, Vice Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore
Staff Members Present:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Planner Daniel Fama directed the Board to open up Item 2 and continue that item to a date uncertain.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of June 23, 2021.
Motion: Upon motion of Vice Chair Walter, seconded by Member Moore, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of
June 23, 2021, as submitted, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None Abstain: None
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 2
ORAL REQUESTS
None
BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Advised the Board that their app publisher has transition to a new platform prototype. He will demonstrate the updated HPB app at their next meeting.
Vice Chair Walter asked updating about the last Council meeting.
Planner Daniel Fama said that update could be covered during the Mills Act Ad Hoc Subcommittee update later in the agenda.
*** PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 705 El Patio Dr. – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll Call
Vote) Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicholas Key for a Tier 1 Historic
Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the construction of an
approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive in the R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Planner Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows:
• Reported that the application/owner of 705 El Patio Drive re-stuccoes this structure, work that would have required a permit. There were other alterations done.
• Advised that staff has consulted with Mark Sandoval and spoke with the applicant.
• Said that a quote has been received for the evaluation to be done by Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Key will provide a deposit to cover the expense of that review and report.
• Added that staff will be working with Mr. Key on what the next steps will be.
• Suggested that Chair Foulkes open the public hearing and allow anyone to speak to this item.
• Advised that the project architect, Mr. Nelson, is here.
Chair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Foulkes closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Vice Chair Walter said that this applicant had been asked to use materials that are different in order to differentiate the original house from the addition. This is too much alike.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 3
Planner Daniel Fama suggested that discussion be tabled for when this matter is brought back to the Board. He added that it is the Board’s purview to conclude on that requirement to differentiate the materials.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that the Board will have to see how we see this lack of differentiation. We have seen enough examples to this point.
• Pointed out that different cities do it (differing materials between original and additions) in different ways.
• Added that it is on a project-by-project basis now. The Board will share its views on
what’s best and what’s discretionary.
Planner Daniel Fama suggested the scheduling of a study session to discuss. Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore the
Historic Preservation Board CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN the consideration of a Tier-1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
*** OLD BUSINESS
3. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion: The
Subcommittee will provide a monthly update of its activities to the Board. Planner Daniel Fama:
• Advised that the City Council approved three Mills Act Contract applications. The
extending the maximum number of contracts up from 10 to 11 in order to approve all three applications submitted for consideration at this meeting.
• Added that Council indicated support for the review/audit of existing Mills Act Contract
properties. That assignment will be split. Chair Foulkes:
• Said splitting that task makes sense.
• Asked if all Mills Act Contract holders have complied with the submittal of required material. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 4
Vice Chair Foulkes:
• Affirmed that all required information has been submitted and the Subcommittee will
go through and firm the information is accurate.
• Pointed out that the property owners’ submittal materials are not all at the same level of completeness.
• Said that the Subcommittee, after reviewing the material, will let the owners know the
information that is lacking/missing. Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said there are files for all existing contracts.
• Stated that a letter would go out requiring a standardized format.
• Added that they will need to go over each file item by item. There will likely be some
gaps in information provided.
• Pointed out that these property owners submitted their materials directly to the County with the assumption the City would get copies too.
• Said that the new information just provided will be cross compared to the respective
existing contracts.
• Cautioned that the earlier contracts didn’t have very complete work plans so they will be harder to judge.
Chair Foulkes:
• Questioned whether only the Subcommittee should review this material or should all members of the Board handle some by parceling them out amongst the four of us?
Planner Daniel Fama said it might be too subjective to parcel out the review to too many. A new spreadsheet will be populated to best compare. Vice Chair Walter said that is what they had started to do. They have information for four
properties to do.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Shared his computer screen (remote meeting) to show a letter sent out on February
14, 2020, just before COVID.
• Added the letter required submittal of a complete reporting form, invoices, photographs, and copies of materials that had previously been sent by owners to the County.
Vice Chair Walter said that the County didn’t share that submitted material and didn’t keep it. It is gone. Planner Daniel Fama clarified that even if the County still had the material submitted, they
would not have shared that material with the City.
Vice Chair Walter said that the new material identifies expenses and will help close holes in the reporting with help from the property owners.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 5
Member Moore asked if in future the property owners report to us (City), and we then give the information to the County.
Planner Daniel Fama said he believes the County wants to get out of collecting this
reporting material. Member Blake said they property owners can just submit to both the City and the County each year.
Planner Daniel Fama said the Subcommittee and he would meet. They can come into City Hall to meet if they are comfortable doing so. Member Blake said she would be fine with that as she is fully vaccinated.
Vice Chair Walter said that with 11 contracts issued, our Mills Act Contracts are fully assigned. There will be no more at this point. Planner Daniel Fama said that is correct. Council made a one-time exception to add one
more contract to provide it to the three properties the HPB had forwarded to them for
selection. Member Blake asked if those three new contracts are 10-year.
Planner Daniel Fama said that we would need to issue a “notice of non-renewal” to these
three new Mills Act Contracts to set the specific 10-year expiration date. Vice Chair Walter asked if the non-renewal notices can be sent to the other eight existing contact holders.
Daniel Fama replied that Council did not assign that. Vice Chair Walter:
• Said the Subcommittee has been going through the agenda created last year and reviews each section to create a more defined guideline.
• Added that one packet identifies all 15 to 16 items there.
• Stated that final changes will be coordinated with Planner Daniel Fama and the final
written format of the document completed with the key things we want to have in there. Member Blake:
• Said that other tasks underway are a draft checklist for the revied application, revised
FAQ’s (Frequently Asked Questions) document, revised conditions of approval and the review of the ranking system/matrix. Chair Foulkes said that is great. He added that we got Council’s attention on this.
Planner Daniel Fama said that once the audit is complete we will find a way to forward it on to Council. It will have to be prioritized and added to a work plan.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) Page 6
Member Blake said she was happy with the Council meeting result and the revised set of direction being developed for the Mills Act program.
Chair Foulkes asked if there was anything else to add on this matter.
There was none. Chair Foulkes asked if there are any items for the October meeting.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Advised that there currently are no items ready for the October 27th meeting.
• Said that perhaps 705 El Patio could go to that meeting but that depends on when Mark Sandoval is available to do the evaluation of that property.
• Admitted it was less likely that the October meeting would occur.
Member Blake added that the November 24th meeting will not occur, as scheduled, due to its proximity to the Thanksgiving Holiday. Therefore, the next meeting will occur on December 8th. Planner Daniel Fama said he didn’t want to hold up Mr. Key to December so perhaps a
special meeting could be arranged sooner than December 8th. *** ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 6 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled
for October 27, 2021, at 5:00 PM, using Zoom.
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________ Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________ Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
CAMPBELL, CA
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED
FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
Prepared For:
CITY CAMPBELL PLANNING DIVISION
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Revised Draft Date: 11/5/21
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 1
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The owner of the property located at 705 El Patio Drive is seeking to renovate their existing single-story 1,055.4-square-foot home and
add a 529.5-square-foot addition to it. The home is listed on the City of Campbell Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Structures of Merit
(2021HRI) as part of the El Patio California Mission Revival District. During the initial review of this project, it became apparent that
significant alterations to the front of the home had been performed without securing a building permit. These changes to the façade of
the original home greatly changed the appearance of the home as viewed in an earlier photograph prepared for the 1977–78 Historic
Resource Survey DPR523A Form by Leslie A.G. Dill Architect.
As a consequence, the City of Campbell Planning Department asked me to make a recommendation based on answering the following
questions:
1. Would it be feasible to reconstruct the original historic appearance of the home by removing all traces of the non-permitted
façade work?
2. If it were possible to return the front of the home to its original appearance, would this, along with the proposed new room
addition to the rear of the home and other alterations as illustrated in the drawings prepared by Detail Ink dated August 4, 2021
(consisting of 6 pages), still leave this historic resource eligible to remain on the City of Campbell’s Historic Resource Inventory?
To answer the above questions, one must determine if this home at 705 El Patio Drive merits being listed on the Historic Resource
Inventory, assuming the past non-permitted alterations had not been performed and enough historic homes remained along El Patio
Drive to qualify as a potential historic district that this property had once been associated with.
HISTORY OF RANCHO DEL PATIO TRACT NO. 2
In 1882, Francis Marion Righter purchased 10 ½ acres that extended east of the railroad tracks to the Los Gatos Creek. Righter built a
house and planted an apricot orchard. The original Righter house was destroyed by fire in 1896 and replaced with the present house at
599 El Patio Drive, a city landmark built by George Whitney.
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21 Page: 2
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
F. M. Righter died on April 19, 1929. The following year, on April 9, 1930, the San Jose Evening News reported that building contractor
Bert J. Smith of San Jose had purchased the Righter property. Smith subdivided the 10 ½ acres into 19 house lots and recorded the
Rancho Del Patio Tract No. 2 on February 17, 1931 (Santa Clara County Recorded Maps [SCC] Book Y Page 26). The Righter house sits on
the two-acre Lot 19. Most of the remaining lots were about one-third of an acre. The San Jose Mercury on May 17, 1931, reported that
B. J. Smith had “opened a new subdivision on the Righter tract, adjoining the Ainslee cannery, where five homes are under way.” The
houses were built in a Mission Revival style.
The location of the first six houses of the Rancho Del Patio tract, all built in 1931, are documented in completion notices published in
the San Jose newspapers and in the Building and Engineering News of San Francisco:
Lot Current Address Date Owner Source
2 598 El Patio Drive February 13, 1932 Z Hodges SJ News,
2/27/1932
3 616 El Patio Drive October 28, 1931 Walter W Sides BEN, 11/7/1931
11* 677 El Patio Drive
December 11, 1931 B F Harrison BEN, 12/26/1931
13 705 El Patio Drive December 18, 1931 Raymond R.
Allison
BEN, 12/26/1931
16 661 El Patio Drive December 7, 1931 Lloyd W. Hitchman BEN, 12/12/1931
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 3
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
17 649 El Patio Drive December 7, 1931 John P Morley BEN, 12/12/1931
*The Lot 11 number could be a typographical error. More likely the house was on Lot 15, now 677 El Patio Drive.
These six houses, plus the Righter House and the house at 197 Poplar Avenue (built on portions of lots 6 and 7), were the only houses
enumerated on El Patio Drive in the 1940 census. The Ainsley cannery land to the south of El Patio Drive was subdivided into house lots
in 1945 (SCC Recorded Maps Book 7 Page 54). Portions of Lot 8 were repurposed as Poplar Avenue to connect the new subdivision to El
Patio Drive. Reverse street address listings in the 1968 San Jose suburban city directory and an aerial photo taken on May 9, 1968,
show that only 12 houses had been built in the subdivision by 1968:
The vacant land to the north of the Rancho Del Patio subdivision was developed as the Pruneyards Villas condominium complex in 1979
(SCC Recorded Maps Book 417 Page 36). As housing density increased in the surrounding neighborhoods, the large lots of the Rancho
Del Patio tract were resubdivided between 1980 and 2015, as shown on the County Surveyor Record Index
(sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com). Recorded tract maps are labeled in pink text:
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21 Page: 4
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
The six original Mission Revival bungalows of Rancho del Patio now make up a small fraction of the 29 single-family residences on El
Patio Drive and on the two streets converted from original subdivision lots, El Patio Court and Poplar Avenue. Of those original
bungalows, 598, 661 and 677 El Patio were either demolished or so extensively remodeled that their integrity has been completely lost.
The houses at 616, 649, and 705 El Patio still retain some integrity, but all have been altered to a greater or lesser extent.
The housing stock along El Patio Drive does not represent one historic time period or style; instead, it is a collection of houses built
between 1890s and the 2010s. The three remaining Mission Revival houses built by Bert J. Smith in 1931 represent only a dim reminder
of the intention of the builder to create a subdivision of houses in a Spanish-influenced style appropriate for the Rancho Del Patio
name. The El Patio Drive does not meet the Criteria A/1 standards to qualify as a potential historic district. The individual houses now
on the city’s historic resource inventory, 616, 649, and 705 El Patio Drive should be evaluated on their own merits as representative
examples of Mission Revival architecture with sufficient integrity to their 1931 date of construction.
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 5
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
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
resource 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. As noted in these Standards, reconstruction of a historical
resource is a permitted means and tool used in historic preservation. Reconstruction is defined as, “the act or process of depicting, by
means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the
purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. ʺ
When reconstruction is used as a justifiable treatment and a means to preserve—by recreating missing components or features on a
historical building, when no other property with the same associative value in an historic district has survived, and when there is
sufficient historical documentation available to ensure an accurate reproduction or depiction of that missing component or feature,
then reconstruction may be considered as a preservation treatment.
STANDARDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION
These Standards will be applied when taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of
features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21 Page: 6
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and
conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close
inspection and properly documented for future research.
4. Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or
removal.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the
restoration period will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration
requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible,
materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A
false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining
features that never existed together historically.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause
damage to historic materials will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed,
mitigation measures will be undertaken.
10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
DESCRIPTION OF NON-PERMITTED ALTERATIONS
The home at 705 El Patio Drive is designed in the Mission Revival Style that was extremely popular in the 1930s. It is a small one-story
building and is clad in textured stucco with a flat-topped parapet roof along the sides and a cross-gabled roof with a Spanish tile roof at
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 7
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
the front of the building. The entrance to the home is accessed from the driveway by a straight brick-paved narrow walk that
terminates at a half-circular tile-and-brick entrance landing with steps that is placed beneath a recessed shallow arch entryway. At
either side of the door, decorative wrought iron wall-mounted light fixtures are placed. To the right of the recessed doorway, a new
rectangular divided lite mulled window is placed flush with the outside front wall of the building—replacing the original recessed putty
glazed steel tripartite window (fixed center panel with casements attached on either side) as seen in the earlier photograph of the
home. To the left of this entrance, the original clad fireplace chimney with the Moorish-influenced double-arched brick chimney cap
stands. The original hand-tooled heavy-textured stucco surface finish appears to have been removed in favor of a lighter troweled
texture finish that seems to have been applied over the entire exterior of the home as part of the owner’s non-permitted remodel.
Beyond this feature, the façade wall continues a short distance until it terminates at the east corner edge of the building. Positioned in
the center of this wall is a new divided lite single-hung rectangular window that has been substituted for the original putty glazed steel
casement window that once occupied this opening.
In comparing the earlier photograph of the home that appears on the DPR Form with what is viewed from the street today, it appears
as if they are two completely different structures. Gone are the original three box-formed columns that once dominated the front
gabled wall of the home, in addition to the deeply recessed feature casement window next to the entryway to the home. These
character-defining features were unique and were not found on any of the other six homes constructed on El Patio at the time. In
addition, it appears the property owner may have also added the stucco walls with gate openings, which separate the rear and side
yards of the property from the street, along with the tile-faced and brick half-circular main entrance landing and the brick-paved
walkway, as part of the same remodel.
RECOMMENDATION
The reconstruction of the primary street façade of the home located at 705 El Patio Drive certainly can be achieved; however, to do so
successfully will require both the financial resources and the unconditional dedication to properly execute this work in accordance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Regardless of these efforts, it is my opinion that such measures will probably not add any
additional historic value to this property, especially in light of the extensive past non-permitted building alterations to the exterior of
this home and the new room addition currently proposed by the property owner. As a consequence of these collective building
modifications to this small home the original historic integrity of the home has been significantly diminished. The National Register
criteria recognize seven aspects to integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21 Page: 8
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
historic integrity, a property must always possess most of the above aspects including its association with a residential neighborhood or
historic district. If the property has lost this integrity, it can no longer convey the reason for its historic significance. Therefore it is my
opinion that the city should consider removing the property at 705 El Patio Drive from the City of Campbell’s Historic Resource
Inventory.
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.
BONNIE MONTGOMERY, is Cultural Resource Historical Consultant and has a M.A., from San Jose State University, Department of
History. Specialization in American history. Phi Alpha Theta history honor society and a M.A., University of Maryland at College Park,
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences. Awarded teaching and research assistantships. Certified and licensed as a speech-
language pathologist, 1990–1994. She also has a B.A., Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, Department of Modern Languages,
Literature, and Linguistics. Major in linguistics, concentrated studies in French and Japanese. Graduated summa cum laude, Phi Beta
Kappa.
705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 9
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
Bonnie has extensive experience in researching and writing historical context statements and property histories and in preparing
DPR523 forms and assist in preparing HABS documentation and National Register applications. She has also been responsible for
preparing city historical landmark nominations and Mills Act applications.
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/.
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.
Project
Location 705 El Patio
Job Desc Historic Architectural Replacement
Date 2/14/2022 Pg of
Qty Item/Description Matr'l Labor Sub-Con Final
200 yds Remove and replace stucco 12000 12000
same amount to remodel existing stucco 0
Re-Frame columns 400 600 1000
Window treatments and embelishments 300 300 600
4 Steel putty-base or Wood sidelite windows 2500 600 3100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Construction Total 3200 1500 12000 16700
Drawings, Specefications, Copies 100
Engineering
Drafting 1000
Pln'g- Plan Check, Permit Fees 500
Bldg- Plan Check, Permit Fees 1500
Utility Fees (Water/Elect)By Owner
Trash & Debris Removal 1200
Portable Restroom 300
Fencing and Gates 0
Inspections 200
Total Site Development 4800
Overhead, Mngm,nt, Insurance 12%2004
Builder's Profit 8%1336
Total Materials, Labor, Mngm'nt, Site Dev, O&P 24840
1
Daniel Fama
From:M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. <msa@msandovalarchitects.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:46 AM
To:Daniel Fama
Subject:Re: 705 El Patio Follow-up
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Daniel,
I'm guessing the total would be something in the nature of $28,250. This sum would include the
following:
Full architectural and engineering design and consulting services including estimated expenses in the
amount of approximately $24,750; and
Preparing a new historic evaluation for the property including the updating of the current DPR forms
in the amount of $3,500.
The above budget numbers are rough, and would not included any design work or construction
support services for the owner's new proposed room addition, only as the new construction work may
relate to its interfacing with the historical aspects of the existing building's character defining features
and surfaces.
I hope the above estimate is helpful to you.
Warm regards,
Mark Sandoval, AIA
Requirements
(Excerpt from Appendix G, Certified Local Government Application and Procedures, August 1999, pp 41-47.)
Local governments may be certified to participate in the CLG program by complying
with the following requirements:
I Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties: A. State enabling legislation provides for local jurisdictions to enact appropriate
historic preservation legislation. California Government Code Sections 65850, 25373, and 37361 enable city and county legislative bodies to provide for “the protection, enhancement; perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.”
B. Local governments must adopt local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources. C. The local legislation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).
D. The CLG will adopt a historic preservation plan or a historic preservation element for the local jurisdiction's General Plan, as authorized by the California Government Code, prior to or upon applying for a CLG grant. E. The CLG commission will participate in the environmental review of specific federally sponsored projects, such as community development programs
involving HUD Block Grant funds unless it is determined by OHP that the necessary expertise is not available to the local government. The CLG will establish programmatic agreements with the state agreeing to ensure compliance with Section 106 provisions of the NHPA. F. The CLG commission will participate in the environment review of local
projects in accordance with the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission may review and comment on permit actions affecting significant listed historic properties and other resources eligible for listing, in accordance with local ordinance requirements and with CEQA. Procedural guidelines should include
standards for demolition stays, design review criteria, anti-neglect requirements, and appeal strategies.
II Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law:
A. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five (5) individuals with all members having demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation. B. At least two (2) Commission members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural
history, planning, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and landscape architecture or related
disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization,
or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are available in the community. Commission membership may also include lay members who have demonstrated special interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation.
C. A local government may be certified without the minimum number or types of
disciplines established in state procedures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those positions, or that some alternative composition of the commission best meets the needs of the protection of historic properties in the local community.
D. Commission members shall be appointed by the chief elected local official,
city council, or board of supervisors consistent with the provisions of the preservation ordinance. The appointing authority shall make interim appointments to fill unexpired terms in the event of vacancies occurring during the term of members of the commission. The appointing authority
shall also act within sixty (60) days to fill a vacancy. Terms of office of the
commission members shall be according to the local preservation ordinance. E. The commission shall meet at least four times a year, with meetings held in a public place, advertised in advance, and open to the public, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings.
Written minutes of commission meetings shall be kept on file, available for
public inspection, and submitted to the state as a part of the CLG Annual Report. F. Each commission member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains
directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. The CLG Regional Workshops sponsored by the OHP are important sources of information. The annual State Historic Preservation Conference generally provides special sessions devoted to the issues, objectives, and responsibilities of commissions. Commissions may also bring
in professionals to provide training on site. G. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the state at the end of each calendar year. The reports shall include, but not be limited to, such information as narrative summary of accomplishments, summaries of new and corrected survey activities, number of properties
designated under local ordinance in relation to inventory for community, summaries of National Register applications reviewed, summaries of historical contexts prepared, number of federal tax certifications reviewed, number of properties on which design review was held, number of properties on which environmental project reviews were conducted, property owners of
Mills Act contracts approved, summarization of local preservation activities, list of local landmark designations, description of public education activities, lists of commission members and resumes, list of staff and resumes, detailed listing of commission and staff training received, commission attendance
2
records, summary of changes in preservation laws, summary of adoption or updates of historic preservation plan or historic preservation element of your
community's General Plan, commission meeting minutes and agendas, and
other pertinent activities performed by the commission.
III Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties: The CLG shall be responsible for organizing, developing, and administering an
inventory of cultural resources within the entire spatial jurisdiction of the CLG.
A. The commission shall develop procedures for conducting an inventory of culture resources. Survey activities shall be coordinated with and complementary to the state program to ensure that survey results produced by the CLG will be readily integrated into the statewide comprehensive
historic preservation planning process.
1. The CLG shall be responsible for overseeing the compiling, recording, and updating of inventory information on cultural resources within its jurisdiction. The information shall be based on comprehensive surveys conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures.
Surveys completed prior to the certification of a local government may be
re-evaluated in accordance with state standards and may be submitted for inclusion in the State database. 2. As part of any ongoing survey effort, procedural requirements must allow for periodic update of survey results as buildings gain maturity and as new
areas are incorporated or annexed by the CLG.
3. The commission must adopt state guidelines for conducting its inventory of historic properties. State-approved inventory forms (DPR-523, A-L) and the OHP's Instructions For Recording Historical Resources shall be used to facilitate integration into the state electronic data system and for
statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning purposes. Dimitri software is available for the DPR 523 forms. 4. Standards for the evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria. A. The commission shall establish internal procedures to facilitate the use of
survey results in the planning process by the CLG officials and departments. The commission shall submit survey results to the local government for adoption, then forward to OHP. Copies of the survey should be on deposit at the local planning department, building and safety office, public works department, and redevelopment agency. Libraries, colleges, and historical
societies should also receive copies. OHP will make copies available for the appropriate “California Historical Resources Information System” regional center. See IV(A)(2) below for public access requirements.
IV Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation
program: A The CLG shall provide opportunities for public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the CLG, in accordance with appropriate regulations, standards, and guidelines.
3
1. Public participation shall be fully encouraged at local commission meetings. Commission meetings shall be open to the public, with
published agenda and minutes in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown
Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings. The published agenda shall be mailed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen organizations interested in the commission’s activities. 2. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the performance of the
historic survey program at all levels of responsibility to identify and
inventory significant cultural resources in the jurisdiction of the CLG. The public can serve as volunteers to assist in the survey effort. Survey results shall be of public record and on file at a public institution, except in the case of sensitive resources, e.g., archeological sites subject to
vandalism.
3. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the nomination process for the National Register of Historic Places program. The CLG shall invite comments from the general public regarding National Register nominations.
4. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in all public hearings on
projects related to CEQA and Section 106 processes.
V Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to the CLG: A. The CLG shall prepare a comprehensive local historic preservation plan
which would identify preservation missions, goals, and priorities. The plan
would also establish preservation strategies, programs, and time schedules. B. The CLG will participate in the review and comment on historic preservation certification applications for tax incentives. The CLG and state may establish procedures for implementation of the investment tax credit program at the
local level in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation. C. Each CLG must have a local historic preservation plan prior to or upon becoming a CLG before any additional grant applications will be considered. The state shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the CLG for
consistency with the identification, evaluation, and preservation priorities of the comprehensive state historic preservation planning process. 1. Annual Review of CLGs: The State shall conduct an annual review of CLGs to assure that each government continues to meet the minimal requirements and is
satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. As part of this review, the state shall examine the annual reports submitted by the CLGs, records of the administration of funds allocated from the HPF, and other documents as necessary. The CLG shall make these records available to the state. A more thorough review and site visit to the Certified Local Government
will occur at least once every three (3) years. 2. Procedures for Decertification: If the state evaluation indicates that the CLG no longer meets the minimal requirements or that in any other way a CLG's performance is not
4
satisfactory, the state shall document that assessment and recommend to the local government steps to bring its performance up to a satisfactory
level. The CLG shall have a period of not less than 30 nor more than 180
days to implement improvements; If the state determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred, the state shall decertify the local government, citing specific reasons for the decertification. Performance shall be deemed unsatisfactory if one or more of the following conditions
exist or is applicable: a) the commission fails to perform its delegated
responsibilities within established time periods; b) the CLG fails to coordinate its responsibilities with the state; c) the commission substantially fails to maintain consistency of its design review decisions with the Secretary's Standards for Historic Preservation; d) the CLG fails
to maintain a qualified historic preservation review commission
membership; e) the CLG fails to enforce the provisions of the local preservation ordinance; f) the CLG fails to enforce its CEQA and Section 106 responsibilities; g) the CLG fails to adequately survey historical resources in its jurisdiction; and h) the CLG fails to comply adequately with
proper fiscal management of HPF grants in accordance with the National
Register Programs Guideline, OMB Circular A-128, and 43 CFR 12. 3. Decertification Appeal: If the state recommends decertification, the local government may appeal to the NPS. The NPS has 45 days to respond to the appeal.
4. Decertification Without Prejudice:
CLGs may petition the OHP to be decertified voluntarily and without prejudice. 5. Financial Assistance Close-out: The state shall conduct financial assistance close-out procedures
pursuant to the National Register Program Guideline when a local government is decertified.
VI The CLG shall assume certain responsibilities for reviewing and recommending properties within its jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places.
A. The SHPO shall have the sole responsibility of nominating National Register properties directly to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). B. The CLG shall establish local procedures for the National Register nomination process consistent with the requirements in the NHPA, Section 101(c)(2). 1. Before a property within the jurisdiction of a CLG may be considered by
the state to be nominated to the National Register, the state shall notify the owner, the applicable chief elected local official, and the local historic preservation commission. The commission, after reasonable opportunity for public comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the criteria of the National Register. Within
sixty (60) days of notice from the state, the chief elected local official shall transmit the report of the commission and his/her recommendation to the state. After receipt of such report and recommendation, or if no such report and recommendation are received within sixty (60) days, the state
5
shall process the National Register nomination. The state may expedite such process with the concurrence of the CLG.
2. If both the commission and the chief elected local official recommend that
a property not be nominated to the National Register, the state shall take no further action, unless within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such recommendation by the state, an appeal is filed with the state. If such an appeal is filed, the state shall follow the procedure for making a
nomination pursuant to Section 101(a). Any report and recommendations
made under this section shall be included with any nomination submitted by the state to the Secretary.
VII By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may
delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. Local governments may be
certified to participate in specific program activities under Programmatic Agreements. A. The CLG may develop educational programs promoting historic preservation at the local level such as, but not limited to, sponsorship of preservation
workshops, publication of preservation information, organizing preservation
fairs, conducting walking tours, preparing preservation curricula for schools, etc. B. Commission members may act in an advisory capacity to other officials and departments within the local government and act as a liaison on behalf of the
CLG to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation
issues at the local level. C. The CLG may participate in the Mills Act program or other economic incentive programs to provide property-tax relief for owners of historic properties. D. The CLG may participate in the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act for
issuance of tax-exempt industrial development bonds, providing that the commission shall serve as a part of the required citizen advisory board. E. The CLG may assume certain responsibilities of recommending National Register of Historic Places properties, identified in the CLG jurisdiction, directly to the State Historical Resources Commission.
F. By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG.
6
Historic Preservation Board REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 23, 2022 | 5:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of Wednesday, March 23, 2022, was
called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chair Walter, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL
HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent Todd Walter, Acting Chair Michael Foulkes, Chair Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore
Rob Corteway Staff Members Present: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Bill Selgimann, City Attorney Abby Jones, Executive Assistant
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes of February 23, 2022 Motion: Upon motion of Member Moore, seconded by Member Corteway, the Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes for the meeting of February 23, 2022, with a correction of the date from April 25 to April 27th, 2022, for the next Historic Board Meeting date, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Corteway, Walter, Moore NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Foulkes
ABSTAIN: None ORAL REQUESTS
There were none.
BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Acting Chair Walter asked about the Mills Act audit review of ADHOC subcommittee formation and appointment. Senior Planner Fama clarified that this is a follow-up from the last meeting where the
Board discussed the potential creation of an additional single member subcommittee to assist the Staff in completing the audit of the existing contracts. It requires action from The Board to adopt a resolution and to adopt a separate voice vote to appoint the new member to the subcommittee.
Acting Chair Walter asked if there was a need for an audit if the Board moves forward with the subcommittee. Senior Planner Fama clarified that what he means by audit is verifying compliance with the existing contracts and their obligations under the work plans that were approved. The
intent of the new subcommittee is to have Board Member Corteway focus on the review of receipts that have already been tabulated to cross compare the property tax savings and then inform the Council of how much of the savings has been reinvested into the homes.
Board member Blake stated she has done most of the four audits for the properties she has and needs to know next steps. Senior Planner Fama responded to Member Blake that those audit tasks will be taken given to Board Member Corteway.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore, the Historic Preservation Board adopts resolution 2022-02, recommending forming a Mills Act Audit Review Subcommittee and the appointment of (one) Board Member Rob Corteway to serve on the Mills Act Audit Review Subcommittee, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Corteway, Walter, Moore NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Foulkes
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 705 El Patio Dr. – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit Public Hearing to consider the Application (PLN-2021-70) of Nicholas and Andrea Key to
rescind the listing of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit from the City of Campbell
Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Senior Planner Fama stated that this is a public hearing to consider rescinding the
property at 705 El Patio from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) list.
Senior Planner Fama stated that Architectural Advisor Mark Sandoval prepared a report that was previously provided recommending the City consider removing the property because it no longer satisfies the criteria for inclusion om the City’s local list or the State
registry. As noted from the last meeting, staff did need additional time to work with legal
counsel. City Attorney, Bill Seligmann provided a revised resolution that would tie the action to recommend the recission from the HRI subject to payment of an in-lieu fee of restoration. The approach was to identify the reasonable cause to restore the building to its previous state, if that would have been an action the city would have desired, the costs
come out to a value of $45,000.
Senior Planner Fama stated that the resolution provides the legal bases to ensure that we maintain protections against the HRI properties.
The Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board recommend to the City Council that the property be removed from the HRI subject to payment of an in-lieu fee of $45,000.00 Acting Chair Walter asked if there were questions from staff before he opens the public
hearing. Senior Planner Fama clarified that the action to remove the property would be contingent on paying the fee and stated that If the Board feels this fee is not appropriate, they do not need to recommend to the council. This is just a recommendation, and the Planning
Commission will propose an independent recommendation as well. Board member Corteway asked for the opportunity to make a proposal to vote on an alternate version of the solution that is being proposed.
Senior Planner Fama responded that it depends on the scope of the proposed revision.
Board member Corteway asked what the best way is to rationalize the calculation of the fees and is there legal precedent to create a Zoning Code Amendment when there is a violation that has happened in the past.
City Attorney Seligmann responded to Board member Corteway by stating that he is not aware of this being done in the present context. He stated the law exists. There are state statutes that allow the imposition of in-lieu fees and development impact fees. City Attorney Seligmann clarified that we don’t have to adopt a new rule we just need to
confirm it applies to the situation where someone removed a city resource from the HRI
and now is essentially asking the city to legalize the action after the fact. Removing the property is a discretion action by the City Council, HPB and Planning Commission. In exercise of the discretion, it is accepted and recognized legal practice that we can condition a permit, and one of the ways to condition a permit is by imposing a fee subject
to the existing statutory structure.
Board Member Moore mentioned how long she’s been on the board and stated during her time on the board that there have been plenty of people have said they didn’t want a historic home and The Board let them off the list without violation. Board member Moore
stated this fee is not reasonable or fair nor would it encourage preservation work. Board
member Moore stated she would like to see the City have a Mills Act available for anyone who’d like to participate in historic preservation. Acting Chair Walter asked if Staff has ideas on what other cities charge for similar
situations.
Senior Planner Fama responded to Acting Chair Walter that the fee is to disincentivize unpermitted demolition or alteration.
Acting Chair Walter opened the public hearing.
Mr. Key, Owner/Applicant knows he broke the rules and believes this is a learning experience as he was not aware of the laws regarding his house. Mr. Key believes the historic value cannot be re-added. He came to the Board for guidance on moving forward
and he stated a reasonable compromise would be to maintain the aesthetics of the home
and is more than willing to pay a fee. Mr. Key stated he is concerned that penalties can be imposed without his knowledge and that he would’ve changed the work done to his property had he been aware of such fees being imposed.
Vincent Cortana, Campbell resident, stated that his house was deemed Historic at the
same time as Mr. Key’s house and the City never disclosed that they could potentially be fined for improving their house. Mr. Cortana stated that if he knew he would have asked the city to not put his house on the HRI list. Mr. Cortana mentioned that the work Mr. Key’s did to the house improved the neighborhood and thinks it is ridiculous for Mr. Key’s
to be fined for the work he’s done.
Tim O’Connell, Campbell resident, stated support of Mr. Keys, that the work done to the
property has improved the neighborhood. Tammy S., Campbell Resident, mentioned that they are shocked at the fees proposed on
the Key’s. The Key’s home draws attention in a positive way and the home at 705 El Patio
was a reason they almost did not purchase in the neighborhood. The improvements made by the Key Family, absolutely gave the neighborhood value. Acting Chair Walter closed the public hearing
Board Member Corteway recommended charging a lower amount. Believes that there something in place to disincentivize property owners in the future from taking unpermitted actions.
The Board discussed the proposed in-lieu fee amount.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Moore, seconded by Member Corteway, the Historic Preservation Board adopts resolution 2022-03, recommending that the City rescind the designation of 705 El Patio as
a structure of merit from The City of Campbell’s Historic Resource inventory subject to an in-lieu fee of property restoration of $5000.00, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Blake, Corteway, Walter, Moore NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Foulkes ABSTAIN: None OLD BUSINESS
2. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report and Program Update Discussion
Staff and/or the Subcommittee will report on the status of the Mills Act Program. Acting Chair Walter reported that he and Board member Blake met to discuss enhancing the outline of the recommended changes to the Mills Act contract and they are further in
developing it and will be submitting a packet with recommendations to the board for the
next meeting. He would like for all Members to be present for this meeting. One of the components will be in-lieu fees related to similar situation as today. Senior Planner Fama stated that the City Council has not made the Mills Act a formal
workplan for the department. Once the audit of existing contracts has been done, the
Board will go before the Council to advise them of what the subcommittee has been working on. Board member Blake asked if the Historic Preservation Ordinance will need to be updated
to include the in-lieu of fees.
Senior Planner Fama responded they will seek Council authorization when the matter
reaches them. Board member Blake asked if the in-lieu fees are for removing the property from the HRI.
Senior Planner Fama responded the in-lieu fees are just for this application and in the
future, it will be a fine. *** ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 6:14 PM to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting scheduled for April 27, 2022, at 5:00 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street. Campbell, California
PREPARED BY: Abby Jones, Executive Assistant APPROVED BY:
Michael Foulkes, Chair ATTEST: Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison