Historic Assessment - 1222 Harriet Ave - 1993HISTORICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT'
FOR
1222 HARRIET AVENUE
IN T'HE CITY OF CAMPBELL
FOR
LARRY SHUCK
19079 SARATOGA GLENN PLACE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
BY
ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE
353 SURBER DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95123 (408) 227-2657 =
GLORY ANNE LAFFEY, HISTORIAN
JULY 21, 1993
INTRODUCTION
Architectural and historical research for the barn and residence at 1222 Harriet Avenue
(APN 403-13-125) was carried out in July 1993 by Glory Anne Laffey, principal of
Archives and Architecture. Mrs. Laffey has been conducting cultural resource evaluations
in Santa Clara County since 1979. She has a MA in Social Science and has been profes-
sionallycertified by the California Committee for the Promotion of History. Evaluation of
the structures was requested by Mr. Larry Shuck. The proposed development plan calls
for demolition of the two buildings and the subdivision of the property into six lots in-
tended for single family residences.
The subject property is located on the east side of Harriet Avenue between Westmont Av-
enue and Hacienda Avenue. 1228 Harriet Avenue, a two-story farmhouse associated with
the subject buildings, has been designated a landmark property by the City of Campbell
(1989).
The field work for this evaluation included a survey of the property and a physical exami-
nation of the structures on July 9 and 12, 1993, dunng which photographs of the buildings
were taken. Archival research was carried out between July 8 and 19 at local repositories
of historical records which included the County Assessor's Office, Recorder's Office, Of-
fice of the County Surveyor, the San Jose Historical Museum archives, the Campbell His-
torical Museum, the California Room of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Public Library, the
consultant's personal library, and the research files of Charlene Detlefs-Duval.
The following report is presented in four sections: the historical background, the descrip-
tion of the property and buildings, an evaluation of the historical significance of the prop-
erty and/or buildings, and a discussion of the impacts of the proposed project with recom-
mendations for mitigation, if appropriate.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Campbell area of the Santa Clara Valley was originally part of the range lands of Mis-
sion Santa Clara until secularization of the California missions in 1822. In 1791, while re-
turning to Santa Clara after founding Mission Santa Cruz, neophyte Indians showed Padre
Lasuen a mountain trail between the coast and the Santa Clara Valley. Lasuen reported that
this trail was "rougher, but it was also shorter and more direct" and proceeded to have Indi-
ans improve the trail under his direction (Lasuen in Wulf n.d.:6). Parts of this trail became
what is now known as Highway 17.
The portion-of Campbell that includes the study area was originally included in the rancho -
Rinconada de los Gatos, granted to brother-in-laws Sebastian Peralta and Jose Hernandez
in 1839 (Arbuckle 1968:29; Bruntz 1983:3; Hoover et al. 1990:409). Arbuckle suggests
that Peralta and~Hernandez may have applied for possession as early as 1824. The two
men constructed an adobe house in the center of the rancho near Los Gatos Creek, located
in what is now Vasona Park.
Born about 1793, Peralta was soldier at San Francisco from 1819 to 1822. He served as
regidor in San Jose in 1833 and was a widower by 1841 (Bancroft 1886:773). The father
of sixteen children, Jose Hernandez came to California in 1798 as a oonvici settler who was
pardoned in 1803 (Bancroft 1886:782). Testimony before the Land Commissioners in
1853 indicates that the grantees had a house upon the land before the grant was made in
1839. They lived together with their families, ranging cattle and sheep. In 1847 they di-
vided the rancho "each having a stock of cattle and cultivating the land." At this time,
Peralta caonstructed a new adobe residence at the present site of the John D. Morgan Park in
Campbell (Wulf n.d.:24).
The late i844s were a significant period in California's history and in the development of
the Santa Clara Valley. As American and European settlers began to drift into Mexican
California during the 1830s and 1840s, many were attracted to the Pueblo of San Jose.
With a population of about five hundred, by the end of the decade San Jose was the lazgest
town in northern California, situated in a fertile undeveloped valley. In 1846 the United
States declazed War on Mexico, sent troops to California, and in 1848 acquired the Mexi-
can proviiflce of California in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Closely following the ac-
quisition of California by the United States was the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills
which precipitated a sudden influx of population to the state. This event accelerated Cali-
fornia statehood, which was achieved in 1850 with San Jose serving as the first state capi-
tal.
As the last town on the route to the southern Mother Lode, San Jose became the supply
center for hopeful miners as they passed through the area. Large numbers of these miners
were farmers from the eastern United States and Europe, and could not fail to recognize the
agricultural potential of the Santa Clara Valley. ~ After a time in the gold fields, large num-
bers of these miners returned to the valley to take up farming. The high cost and scarcity of
flour, fruit, and vegetables during the early Gold Rush made agricultural pursuits as prof-
itable and more dependable than mining (L,affey 1952).
This rapidly growing, land-hungry population was greatly frustrated since much of the
arable land in the San Francisco Bay area was taken up by the large Mexican grants. In
many cases the boundaries of the grants were only roughly identified, a factor also frustrat-
ing to the American settler. Many immigrants believed that the territory ceded by Mexico in
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was now the public domain of the United States. Yet
when they tried to make claim to these lands they came into conflict with the Mexican own-
er. Many settlers took matters into their own hands and occupied the land in defiance of the
law and the gr3ntholder, maintaining the belief that the lands were public and attacking the
legality of Mexican titles. In order to bring order out of chaos, the United States govern-
ment creased the California Land Claims Commission to validate the Mexican titles by de-
termining legal ownership and establishing fixed boundaries for Mexican-claimed property.
This process in many cases worked to the detriment of the Mexican landowner. The pro-
cess of title confirmation was long, cumbersome, and expensive, and many Mexican
rancheros found the economic and legal difficulties which they had to face insurmountable.
Even when the ranchero gained legal title to his land, the eviction of the numerous squatters
was an almost impossible task (Broek 1932).
Agricultural development in the Santa Clara Valley after 1850 can be divided into three dis-
tinct phases. The first phase, from 1850 to 1865, was characterized by cattle ranging, ex-
tensive grain cultivation, and all around experimentation with crops. Beginning rn 1865,
wheat farming superseded cattle raising and the foundations were laid for specialization in
horticulture. From 1875 through the 1930s, fruit production surpassed the declining wheat
culture, and many other forms of intensive land utilization were developed under the in-
creasing use of irrigation (Brcek 1932).
The size of the ranches in the valley were closely correlated with these changing land uses.
The Mexican ranchos consisted of several thousands of unfenced acres over which cattle
ranged. Early American ranchers fdlowed the Mexican practice of free tanging-their cattle
for some years; however, the spread of farm enclosures and environmental factors caused
the large stock ranches to give way to move intensive land use in the form of a smaller stock
breeding farms or dairy farms confined to several hundred acres. Wheat farms during this
4
period also ranged from 100 to 500 acres in size, averaging 213 acres in 1880. With the
increasing crop value per land unit the large farm became unnecessary, and the correlated
increase in land prices, cultivation costs, and growing population led to the all around sub-
division of farm lands into highly specialized "fruit ranches" from 3 to 50 acres in size
(Laffey 1991).
The cultivation of fruit trees was established during the Hispanic colonial era (1776-1848),
when small orchards were planted on the western edge of the pueblo of San Jose near the
Guadalupe River and the acequia madre (main water ditch). The first American orchazds
generally followed this practice, being established north of town along the acequia,
Guadalupe River, and Coyote Creek. After the discovery of artesian water in 1854, or-
chard cultivation became more widespread, but orchards were still fairly small in size and
concentrated within the city limits. In 1856 the first experimental orchards were set out in
the Willows azea (Willow Glen) and in the wake of their success were followed by more
extensive orchazds during the 1860s. As the production of various types of fruits proved
successful and with improved transportation, more orchards were planted throughout the
valley during the 1870s and 1880s. By 1890 orchazds were spreading into the Evergreen
area and south of San Jose along Monterey Road, completely dominating valley agriculture
by the end of the century (Laffey 1991).
As the rural population of the county increased, service centers were established in the out-
lying azeas to provide social and economic needs of the rural communities. The town of
Campbell was laid on the property that Benjamin Campbell had purchased from Juan
Galindo in 1851. After the South Pacific Coast narrow gauge railroad line was built
through the ranch in 1880 connecting Oakland and Santa Cruz, and a post office was estab-
lished in Campbell's home, Benjamin planned a subdivision of his property and laid out the
town in 1885. Campbell began selling residential lots in 1888 and by 1895 this new settle-
ment had become a thriving village (Watson 1989; Cutting 1929, 1947).
Ira Joseph Lovell
The project area was originally part of property acquired by Ira J. Lovell in' 1853, who ac-
cording to historian Munro-Fraser was one of the earliest American settlers in the Redwood
Township (1881:309). This 237 acre farm was roughly bounded on the north by Arroyo
San Tomas Aquino, on the east by San Tomas Aquino Road, on the south by Pollard
Road, and on the west by Harriet Avenue and Abbott Avenue. A native of Kentucky,
Lovell married Ann Laurette Campbell in 1836. Ann's father, William Campbell with her
brother Benjamin and many other relatives, joined a large wagon train in 1846 headed for
California. The company separated into smaller groups as disagreements azose about
which route-to take. Among the splinter groups was the ill-fated Donner Party. Camp- -
bell's party, however, safely arrived m Santa Clara County on October 25, 1846 (Watson
1989:12).
Benjamin Campbell returned to Missouri in 1851 to marry Mary Louise Rucker. Then
twenty-five years of age, he prepared to bring his in-laws, and his sister's families--the
Lovells and the Finlays--overland to Califorma The party of 44 people departed Saline
County, Missouri, in April 1852. Mrs. Lovell was pregnant with her eighth child, who
was born on August 9, while crossing the plains of Nevada By the time the travelers sur-
mounted the Sierras and had reached Stockton both Ann Laurette, exhausted from the birth
of her daughter, and Ann's sister, Mazgazet Jane Finley, were seriously ill.-Both women
were quickly taken to San Jose ahead of the rest of the party; however, Margaret died on
September 30 before the rest of the party arrived. Ann Laurette and her infant daughter
survived (Watson 1989:36).
5
Ira Lovell purchased a farm on the northern boundary of the Rancho Rinconada de tos
Gatos, now the San Tomas area of Campbell. Although part of a Mexican land grant,
Lovell succeeded in obtaining a good title without the usual delays and expenditures. He
devoted the property to general farming until the mid-1880s, when he set out sixty acres in
orchard and vineyard (Foote 1888:521).
The Lovells were active members of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and their son
James Michael became a minister of that denomination. Ira and Ann Laurette had thirteen
children, only eight surviving to adulthood. Their oldest son, William McNary, was a suc-
cessful attorney, who served as District Attorney in Santa Clara County, before moving his
family to Tucson, Arizona (Watson 1989:40). John Alexander Lovell served as constable
and deputy sheriff in the 1890x.
The Ira and Ann Laurette lived on the ranch until their deaths: Mrs. Lovell in 1891 and Ira
Lovell in 1898 (Guinn 1904:302). In 1896, Ira subdivided the remaining 112 acres of his
farm into 5 parcels. The subject area was part of Lot 5 of this subdivision, originally con-
taining 25.45 acres (Recorded Map F-1:5~. At this time the title to L.ot 5 was transferned to
Ella and George Beaver (Deed 208:348). Ella Laurette was the Lovell's youngest surviv-
ing daughter who in 1904 was "residing with her husband and family at Longacres near her
father's old homestead" (Guinn 1904:303). In 1922, George Beaver was descnbed as a
retired capitalist living with his wife, son, and two daughters in Palo Alto (Sawyer
1922:627).
Twentieth Century Owners
In 1901, the Beavers sold the west 15 acres of L.ot 5 to Augustus W. Littleton, who was
reputed to have been an English gentleman who had brought his ailing wife to Santa Clara
County for her health. He is credited with constructing the large, two-story farmhouse at
1228 Harriet Avenue. Littleton proceeded to acquire several adjacent properties, eventually
acquiring an estate of over 70 acres. The noise from the newly constructed railroad line in
the area, however, greatly disturbed Mrs. Littleton, and they sold the property in 1908 to
Mr. W. J. Conatser and returned to Oxford, England (Campbell Museum files; Deed
1908).
At this point, there is gap in the line of title that archival research was not able to fill. Oral
tradition states that the property was acquired by A. J. and Harriet Martin shortly after their
marriage. The Martins are credited with constructing in the 1920s the smaller residence that
is thought to originally have been a carriage house (Campbell Museum files). The 1920s
seems to be rather a late date for the construction of a carriage house, however, and, if
constructed during this time period, it is more likely to have been a guest house or servant's ---
quarters. If this house was indeed a former carriage house, it was more likely to have been
constructed by the Littletons before 1908, and it may have been then converted to a resi-
dence by the Martins in the 1920s.
After the death of her husband, Harriet married her widowed neighbor, Arthur M. Roesch
in 1936 {Campbell Museum files). Roesch was employed as a supervisor for the Flying A
Gas Company and maintained an orchard and chicken ranch near the intersection of Fawn
Avenue and Archer Way (Campbell Museum files). Formerly known as Allendale Avenue,
Harriet Avenue was dedicated in 1937 (Supervisors Road Book). Harriet Roesch sold 15
acres to Felice and Mary Helen Bersano in 1938 (Deed 895:584). The Bersanos were the
owners of the Villa Felice restaurant in Saratoga. An active member of the Orchid Society,
Mrs. Bersano raised orchids on the property in addition to maintaining an orchard (Camp-
bell Museum files).
In 1953, the Bersanos sold S acres containing the farmhouse, barn, and small residence to
James and Louise Tolosano. The Bersanos retained a 10 acre orchard making provision in
the record of sale for easements for irrigation and water lines between the two properties
(Official Record 2653:476).
Married in the 1930s, the Tolosanos had resided for many years on N. Fourth Street in San
Jose. James worked for a trucking firm and Louise was an office manager. After their
move to Campbell, they also harvested the fruit from their small orchard. The Tolosanos
subdivided the property in the 1960s, moving several rental houses onto lots facing Harriet
Avenue. In 1977, the property fronting the farmhouse on Hacienda Avenue was sold for a
townhouse complex. In recent years, Mrs. Tolosano and her son James split the remaining
acreage, with Mrs. Tolosano retarnrng the half acre with the farmhouse, and Jim Tolosano
retaining the 139 acres containing the barn and smaller residence (Tolosano 1993).
DESCRIPTION
The property at 1222 Harriet Avenue (APN 403-13-125) is a 1.39 acre pazcel that includes
an one-and-a-half-story residence and a barn. This property has been split from the parcel
that contains an associated two-story farmhouse. The farmhouse, now at 1228 Harriet Av-
enue (APN 403-13-126), is a designated Campbell landmazk and is not included in this
evaluation. However, since the barn and small residence are architecturally associated with
the farmhouse, a description of the large farmhouse is included below.
Large Farmhouse
Constructed about 1901, this two-story Neoclassical farmhouse features a dominant central
entry porch extending the full height of the facade. The porch is supported by triple sets of
colossal Ionic columns. The portico is surmounted by a pedimented gable embellished
with dentil molding and a small Palladian window. An upper porch is supported by the
house and columns and has an open, spindlework balustrade. The front door rs framed by
side lights and an elliptical fanlight. The hipped roof of the house has wide, overhanging,
boxed eaves with a wide entablature compnsed of a wide frieze band decorated wrth a
dentil molding. The house is sheathed with tri-lap bungalow siding. Fenestration includes
double-hung sash windows with amulti-paned upper sash.
The house was seriously damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and has been unoc-
cupied since that time. The grounds now associated with the farmhouse include large oak
trees, fruit and ornamental trees, and overgrown and neglected landscaping. Remnants of
walkways and former landscaping features can be detected. A swimming pool is located in -
a fenced yard to the east of the house. A brick barbecue is located to the rear of the house.
The pool and barbecue were constructed by the Tolosanos in the 1960s.
Neoclassical was a dominant style for domestic building throughout the country during the
first half of the 20th century. The early phase of popularity, from about 1900 to 1920, em-
phasized hipped roofs and elaborate, correct columns. This revival of interest in classical
azchitecture dated from the World's Columbian Exposition held in Chicago in 1893. The
exposition planners mandated a classical theme, and many of the best-known architects of
the day designed dramatic colonnaded buildings arranged around a central court. The ex-
position was widely photographed, reported and attended, and soon these. ~leoclassical
models became the latest fashion throughout the country (McAlester and -McAlester
1986:344-34~.
7
This house is an early representation of Neoclassical architecture in Santa Clata County. It
presents an almost textbook example of this style, closely resembling Early Classical Re-
vival styles of the 1770 to 1ffi0 penod. As the style gained populanty it became more
eclectic in form and detail.
Barn
This one-and-a-half story barn features a hipped roof with a centered gable. The usual
feature of the barn is its classical details, mirronng the style of the main house. The eaves
of the barn are boxed with a narrow frieze decorated with dentil molding. The wood
frame, single wall building is sheathed with tri-lap bungalow siding with fluted classical pi-
lasters on the corners. The barn has a rear extenston with a shed roof and unadorned frieze
and corner boards. Fenestration includes sash and casement windows with plain sur-
rounds. A large double loft door is located in the centered gable. The large sliding barn
doors on the lower floor are missing. The barn has wood plank flooring and no founda-
tion.
The interior of the barn is divided into several work areas serving unidentified functions.
Two rooms have been set aside as living quarters. Jim Tolosano recalls that these quarters
were occupied by an Italian gardener who worked for the Bersanos. Newspapers underly-
ing the peeling wallpaper date to 1949, confirming Tolosano's memories.
Based on the barn`s architectural features and building materials, it is probable that it was
constructed at the same time as the large farmhouse. While architecturally intact, the bam is
in a badly deteriorated condition, suffering extensive earthquake, termite and water damage
(Cagwin & Cagwin Exterminators 1993).
Small Residence
The one-and-a-half story residence is similar in form and style to the barn. It features a
hipped roof with a centered gable. It also reflects the Neoclassical styling of the main
house, with boxed eaves with a wide frieze band, dentil molding, tri-lap siding, and fluted
pilaster corner boards. Fenestration is mixed with single and paired sash windows, tri-part
fixed sash windows with multi-paned transoms, and large multi-paned fixed sash picture
windows flank the front entrance. The picture windows were probabled added in the
1940s or early 1950s. The attached porch has a balcony.
The house has undergone several remodeling phases. A one-story extension with shed
roof on the rear of the house may be original, but has been re-sided and aluminum sliding
windows added. A car port, one-car garage, and shop was attached to the main building --
about 1963 (Tolosano 1993). This addition was enclosed and the interior has been finished
as a living space. It has a flat roof with aluminum covering and plywood siding.
Landscaping around the building contains remnants of an arbor and fishpond, with over-
grown vegetation. Trees include a large oak, and mature fig and walnut trees. The yard
has been enclosed by a chain link fence.
The consultant was unable to determine the construction date for this building. It appears
to be contemporary in style and materials to the main farmhouse and barn. According to
oral tradition, the building originally functioned as a carriage house; however,~o archival
or physical indications were found that confirmed this use. It is also believed that the
house was constructed in the 1920s by the Martins; however, this later construction date
lends less credence to its original use being a carriage house. If the house was built in the
1920s, it probably originally functioned as a guesthouse or servant's quarters.
8
The acreage around the barn and small residence retain remnants of a former orchard of
apricot, prune, fig, and walnut trees. There are also several lazge oak trees, and remnants
of ranching activities, including a old gas pump, a hitching post, an orchard spraying appa-
ratus on a wagon, and a windmill assembly.
EVALUATION FOR SIGNIFICANCE
The standards used for this evaluation are the review criteria for Campbell landmarks or
historic districts according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 21.41). The re-
view criteria are as follows:
A. Historical and Cultural Significance.
1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural
social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architec-
tural history; or
2. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or
national history; or
3. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or
method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of
indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
4.~t is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or
architect.
B. Historical, Architectural, and F~gineering Significance.
1. The construction materials or engineenng methods used in the
proposed landmark are unusual or significant or uniquely ef-
fective;
2. The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is
beautiful, or its details and materials are beautiful, or unusual.
C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting.
1. It materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood;
2. Its location represents an established and familiar visual feature
of the neighborhood;
3 It is a geographically definable area, urban or viral, possessing a
significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, struc-
tures, or objects unified by past events, or aesthetically by plan
or physical development;
4. The collective value of the historic district taken together may be
greater than the value of each individual structure.
Criterion A relates to the cultural and historical significance of the resource. These
buildings were constructed in the early decades of the 20th century by A.W. Littleton, A.
W. Conatser, or A. J. Martin. Very little information could be found concerning these in-
dividuals and their activities, and it appears that they or subsequent residents had little in-
fluence on the historical or cultural development of the area.
Criterion B relates to the distinctive physical characteristics of the building. The most
distinguishing feature of these two structures in the fact that they reflect the Neoclassical az-
chitectural style of the large fartnh-tee: =-~~-barnally rs unusual in this aspect.
'Therefore th~_tw-a-~utbuii~iings-anp~inally added'to~tke_~veraileffect and design of the
landmark farmhouse, creating a cohesive-architectural unit. However, the architectural in-
tegrity of the ancillary`btntaings is seriously-impacted by the in~pro~riate_remodeling of
the smaller residence and the extreme detenoratian of the barn which substantially detract
9
from the architectural_itttegrity_of the unit. Fortunately, the farmhouse by itself has enough
si~nifican~ar~chitectural merit to support its landmark status.
Criterion C relates to the resowce's neighborhood aad geographical setting. Whereas
these buildings provide an example of an estate of a gentleman farmer of the early twenti-
eth-century, the historical context and geographical setting has been substantially de-
stroyed. The property around the historical buildings has been subdivided with modern
houses obscuring and encroaching upon the historic structwes. Presently the property is
entered from the rear and there are no views of the facade of the main house from public
thoroughfares. From the street, one is hardly aware of the presence of the historic struc-
tures.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the forgoing research and evaluation, the barn and residence at 1222 Harriet Av-
enue exhibit limited characteristics of architectural significance according to criterion B of
the review criteria. Based on this evaluation, the following analysis of project alternatives
is offered:
1. No project.
A no project alternative would leave the barn and small residence in place and retain
what remains of the historic setting of the landmark farmhouse. This alternative is
not justified, however, by the limited architectural contribution of the structwes. In
addition, the extremely high cost of stabilization and/or rehabilitation of the struc-
tures makes their preservation very unlikely.
2. Project Redesign and Relocation of buildings on site.
Redesigning the project to integrate the buildings into the project would provide for
the preservation of the buildings, but would probably result in making the project
economically unviable. Red i ht be accomplished by leaving the buildings
in place or by relocating the bwTdngs on site. r ~ as _ 1;-it-would
Alternative 1, the limited architectural value, cne aadec- ume-~~`i,ense of re-
design, and the unlikely possibility that expensive stabilization and/or rehabilitation
of the structures will take place, does not justify consideration of the alternative.
3. Relocation of buildings off-site.
Relocation of the buildings would allow the project as presently designed to go
forward. It would require, however, that anoff-site location and use be found for --
the buildings. Even if it were possible to move the structures off-site, the limited
-- - --
architectural value of thebuil ing~f'm-tht, uimirnsl~Ey it removal from-their
his c~rical-association with the landmark_ farmhouse,--would not justify the pro-
hibinve added expense of this alternative.
4. Demolition.
Demolition of the barn and sr..all residence would allow the proposed project to go
forward. Thc~[Qject as proposed will further reduce the historic se ting~of_.the--_
_landmark farmhouse; however, tt wtll provide for increased public awareness of the
landmark by increasing~Zt blic view' a acc~ to the rear of the building.- Mitigation
for the loss of the barn and residence may include making such historic artifacts as
the gas pump, orchard sprayer, and hitching post available to the Campbell Histori-
cal Museum or the San Jose Historical Museum for display purposes.
10
Based on the forgoing evaluation and analysis, it is recommended that demolition permits
be issued, upon approval of the Historic Preservation Commission, for the barn and small
t~esidence at 1222 Harriet Avenue. Demolition permits should not be issued until the sale of
the property has been finalized and the all other necessary permits have been issued to the
developer. In the event that the project is not approved for other reasons, this will preclude
needless demolition of the buildings.
it
CONDTITONS OF A. _ ROVAL
FSTI'E ADDRESS: 1228 Harriet Avenue
APPLICANT: L. Bogdan
P.C. MEETING DATE: September 22, 1992
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
The applicant is hereby noted, as part of this application, that he/she is required
to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinance of the City of
Campbell and the State of California 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 which pertain to this
development and are not herein specified.
Phase I: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map submittal
for Phase I:
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tentative Subdivision Map.
The map shall substantially conform to the map prepared by Mark Thomas
& Co. Inc., dated May 12, 1992, except as may be modified by the Conditions
of Approval. (Planning)
2. Proposed Lot Lines: Modify the lot line between lots one and two to provide
lot two with approximately 20 feet of additional street frontage and the lot
line between lots five and six to provide lot five with approximately 15 feet
of additional street frontage for approval by the Planning Director, prior to
_. the submittal of the Final Map. (Planning)
LANDSCAPING AND FENCIlVG
3. Tree Preservation: Submit a tree inventory and tree preservation plan to
ensure protection of mature trees. Parcel lines may be adjusted slightly to
accommodate the preservation of any significant trees. The plan must be
prepared by a licensed arborist and approved by the Planning Director prior
to Final Map approval. (Planning)
4. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls at property lines are limited to a height of
15 inches if constructed of wood. (Building)
STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS
5. Parking and Driveway: All parking and driveway areas to be developed
in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
(Planning)
6. Si ns: Submit a Sign Application in accordance with the provisions of
the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign shall be installed until an
application is approved and a permit issued by the Building Department.
TS 92-0 ~ September 22, 1992
Conditions of Approval Page 2
(Section 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code). (Planning)
7. Pro e~rty Maintenance: The applicant is hereby notified that the property
is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until
the time that actual construction commences. All existing abandoned
structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors
sealed shut, or be demolished and removed from the property. Section
11.201 & 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fue Code. (Fire Department)
8. Trash Containers: Trash container(s) of a size and quality necessary to
serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire
Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a
concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing
doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be
constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash
enclosure area to service these containers. (Fire Department)
9. Utility Boxes:
Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to
installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of
the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the
Planning Director. (Planning)
10. Utility Connections: Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan
_, check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for
underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and
television cables. Each lot shall have separate utilities. (Planning &
Building)
I1. Wells: In accordance with the Santa Clara water District Ordinance 90-1,
the property owner must show any existing well (s) on the plans. The
well(s) must be properly with the District and either maintained or
abandoned in accordance with District standards. Property owners or
their representatives should call David Zozaya at (408) 927-0710 for
information regarding well permits and the registering of, or
abandonment, of, any wells. (Santa Clara Valley Water District)
12. Noise Levels: Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall
comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in
the Noise element of the Campbell General Plan.
13. Prior to final map approval for the Phase I: Applicant to submit plans to
construct a covered parking space on the 26,400 square foot parcel to be
constructed with in 6 months of the final map approval. (Planning)
TS 92-0 September 22, 1992
Conditions of Approval Page 3
14. Site and Architectural Review Permits: All development proposed
residences on vacant R-1-9 zoned lots, will require Site and Architectural
Review Permits. (Planning)
15. Storm Drain Fee: Pay storm drain area fee of $3,525.00.
16. Dedicating Lands for Parks: Pay fee in-lieu of dedicating lands for parks in
the amount of $8,24250 (for one additional lot). (Public Works)
17. Offer for dedication land necessary for 56 foot wide cul-de-sac as outlined
on the attached map. (Public Works)
18. Deferred Improvement Agreement: Execute a deferred improvement
agreement to install improvements from the existing improvements on
harriet Avenue throughout the new street. This agreement shall obligate
the owner of Lot 1 to install improvements along the frontage of Lot 1 on
the new street, as well aone-sixth of the improvements from the new
street to the existing improvements on Harriet Avenue. The agreement
shall obligate the owner of Lot 2 to install the remainder of the
improvements throughout the new street to the existing improvements
on Harriet Avenue. this agreement shall be recorded by the owner as an
agreement running with the land. The owners shall install street
improvements upon further subdivision of either of the two new lots as
. directed by the City Engineer. (Public Works)
19. Parcel MaD: Process and file a parcel map to create the two lots. (Public
Works)
Phase II: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to the final map
approval for Phase II:
20. Assessment of Historical Structures:
a. The property owner shall provide a historical assessment of the
carriage house and barn. The assessment shall be coordinated by staff
and the findings will be subject to review by the Historic
Preservation Board. (Planning)
b. If the Historic Preservation Board finds the buildings historically
significant, then a feasibility and cost assessment for preserving the
structures and/or relocating them shall be provided by the property
owner. If restoration and/or relocation of the structures is found to
be feasible then the structures will be included on the Historic
Resource Survey and a recommendation may be forwarded to
designate the structures as Historic Landmarks. If the buildings are
TS 92-0 September 22, 1992
Conditions of Approval Page 4
not found historically significant by the Historic Preservation Board,
then the property owner may proceed and submit the final map for
the proposed subdivision. (Planning)
c If the Planning Director and the Historic Preservation Board find that
it is feasible to relocate and preserve the barn and/or the carriage
house, than a preservation plan and/or relocation plan must be
submitted to Planning Department, and approved by the Planning
Director. (Planning)
d. All of the above items shall be completed prior to the approval of the
Final Map. (Planning)
21. Provide a clearance letter from West Valley Sanitation District confirming
that the District has approved plans and received surety and fees for the
installation of a sewer system to serve all lots within the subdivision.
Sanitary sewerage service is to be provided by West Valley Sanitation
District. (Public Works)
22. Provide a letter from San Jose Water Company confirming that a Mail
Extension Agreement has been executed by the owner to install a water
distribution system to serve all lots within the subdivision. Water service
is to be provided by San Jose Water company. Locations of fire hydrants
and appurtenances shall be approved by the Fire Chief, Fire Department,
_. City of Campbell. (Public Works)
23. Pay fee in lieu of dedicating lands for parks in the amount of $32,970 (4
additional lots at $8,242.59 each). Note: Upon development, each lot will
be charged its proportional share of a park impact fee for five additional
dwelling units based upon the rate in effect at the time of development
with credit for a proportional share of the fee currently charged. A credit
shall be given for the existing dwelling unit on Lot 2 if the owner can
show that this dwelling unit was legally created. (Public Works)
24. Dedicate additional land fora 56 foot wide cul-de-sac and obtain the
approval of the Civic Improvement Commission for the name of the new
street. (Public Works)
25. Execute an improvement agreement to install improvements throughout
the new street to the existing improvements on Harriet Avenue a
directed by the City Engineer. (Public Works)
26. Submit street improvement plans, pay fees, post surety and deposits for
an encroachment permit for all work within the public right-of-way.
Street improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
TS 92-0 ~ September 22, 1992
Conditions of Approval page 5
approval of the final map. (Public Works)
27. Provide three sets of grading and drainage plans for review by the City
Engineer. (Public Works)
28. Process and file a final map for creation of 5 additional lots. Submit a copy
of the recorded final map to the City Engineer. (Public Works)