Historic Preservation Board
Regular MeetingCampbell, CA · September 29, 2020
Minutes
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, September 29, 2020 | 5:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of September 29, 2020, was called to
order at 5:09 p.m., via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had
to wit.
ROLL CALL
HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent
Michael Foulkes, Chair Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chair
Susan Blake Laura Taylor Moore
Todd Walter
Staff Members Present:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of July 22, 2020.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Blake, the
Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of
July 22, 2020. (3-0-2-0; Commissioners Kendall and Moore were
absent)
ORAL REQUESTS
None
BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Member Blake:
• Advised that there is an HRI property located at 91. N. First Street, directly across the
street from City Hall, that will soon to be put on the market.
• Stated that this home has been empty for a long time.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 2
• Reported that the realtor for this property is from Redwood City and contacted her.
She provided that realtor with a lot of information.
Planner Daniel Fama said he had no updates.
Chair Foulkes asked staff if it is safe to assume that HPB would be conducting its
meetings on Zoom for the foreseeable future.
Planner Daniel Fama replied yes.
PUBLIC HEARING
None
NEW BUSINESS
2. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Update Report
Chair Foulkes said that he appreciates the work of the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee
and the memo prepared.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Stated that this memo can be used as a template for today’s discussion.
• Suggested the Board go through each item one by one and see if consensus can be
reached on any of the items discussed.
ISSUE 1 – FEES
Chair Foulkes called out Item 1 – Fees – and pointed out that there are many levels of
fees being charged throughout the State of California. Some cities charge $1,000. Others
$4,000. Others have annual fees of some sort that area charged to holders of Mills Act
Contracts. He asked staff what Campbell currently charges.
Planner Daniel Fam said he believes it is $1,500.
Member Blake stated that seems high based on cities of comparable size.
Chair Foulkes:
• Asked whether the amount charge is intended to cover the City’s expenses for staff
time and effort in processing and managing these contracts.
• Pointed out that it is likely with an updated Mills Act Program, there will be more
inspections and requirements. Therefore, that existing fee may have to stay as it is in
order to attempt to be cost neutral.
Member Walter agreed that the fee charged is intended to cover basic expenses of
processing and overseeing Campbell’s Mills Act Contracts.
Chair Foulkes asked how that particular fee came up to $1,500.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 3
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reported that the City had a Fee Study prepared about three to four years ago.
• Said that the consultants looked at all of the City’s fees.
• Advised that Campbell’s City Council tends to support subsidizing residential-related
fees charged to homeowners.
• Added that many fees are less than cost to process, which is a policy decision made
by Council.
• Stated that the current $1,500 fee to apply for a Mills Act contract does not cover the
time of review, inspections, public hearings before HPB, Planning Commission and
the City Council. It represents a subsidy already.
Member Walter reported that the fee itself is not included in the Ordinance but is included
in the contract.
Planner Daniel Fama said that it represents an application fee. It is a one-time cost as
the City of Campbell does not currently have an established annual fee for Mills Act
contract-holders.
Member Blake asked if the application fee could be added to the application packet.
Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. It is currently within the City’s approved Fee Schedule
but not on its applications.
Member Walter said that as the HPB has no say on fee setting they should move on to
the next item. If HPB does have a say, this discussion could continue.
Planner Daniel Fama said that HPB’s recommendation to Council would ultimately be
forwarded. HPB could recommend a lesser fee.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that it is less about fee(s) charged but rather about the existing uncertainty.
• Added that he wants to make sure that the process for requesting a Mills Act Contract
is as open as possible for those homes on the Historic Resource Inventory or are a
Landmark, but not waste time for invalid requests.
• Stated that a property owner should have an idea whether their property would meet
the City’s criteria so as to succeed in securing a Mills Act property tax exemption.
Member Blake supported leaving the existing fee of $1,500 for now.
Member Walters agreed.
Planner Daniel Fama asked the HPB if they were interested in establishing an annual
Mills Act Contract maintenance/oversight fee.
Chair Foulkes said it is hard to say right now. He suggested leaving it open for future
consideration.
Planner Daniel Fama reiterated that filing fees ultimately to be charged are up to Council.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 4
ISSUE 2 – APPLICATION DEADLINES
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that there are no specified filing deadlines in Campbell currently.
• Pointed out that some cities accept applications for Mills Act Contracts once or twice
a year.
• Admitted that he personally likes that option.
• Expressed concern that it currently seems that the first homeowner to file wins and is
awarded one.
• Said he would like to see a process that allows for competing properties in order to
pick the most-worthy property.
• Said that having a filing deadline(s) would create more work at one or two times per
year.
• Asked staff for its standpoint on this. Does staff prefer considering Mills Act
applications as they come in or during specified times of year.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Agreed there could be a lot of benefits with defined deadlines each year.
• Added it would perhaps be more equitable.
• Concluded that work comes in waves no matter what. Staff can manage either way.
Member Walter said he likes the idea of specific filing deadline(s), but he would leave it
up to staff to determine when during a calendar year those deadlines should be set. It
doesn’t have to be HPB determining that.
Chair Foulkes asked if the HPB prefers just one application process per year or more.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that he sees arguments for both sides.
• Suggested that going with specified application periods could be tried out to see how
it works.
• Admitted that he does not envision a big wave of applications.
• Stated that having a defined window for applying would be beneficial if there is/are a
restricted number of Mills Act Contracts available.
• Cautioned that the City Council would likely maintain its current cap of 10.
Member Walter suggested asking Council its preference on this.
Chair Foulkes admitted that he would not want to have someone have to wait for a year
to apply but doing these requests one at a time means we have no opportunity to compare
applications for merit. It would be better to look at them collectively to pick the most-
worthy property.
Member Blake:
• Expressed her preference for establishing two application filing deadlines per year.
One in the Spring and the other in the Fall.
• Admitted that it is hard to know who is buying HRI potential homes and what they are
going to do with that home once they own it.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 5
Chair Foulkes said there are benefits to both options.
ISSUE 3 - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs):
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that he wants to spend a fair amount of time brainstorming on the types of
questions potential Mills Act applicants might have.
• Suggested establishing specific criteria but not controlling things to think about in
evaluating a property.
• Added that the focus of consideration should be on the exteriors of this homes and
not just routine repair and maintenance. Not flooring or furnishings such as lamps.
• Stated the need for a checklist to see if a potential qualifies or not.
• Advised that if a property plans just on interior renovations, that property may be
dissuaded.
Member Blake said that this discussion on FAQs dovetails into the next item – Features
Covered.
Member Walter:
• Said that is a beginning list that he appreciates having had distributed. If it can be
approved, it could be passed out.
• Advised that Chair Foulkes gave his suggestions to Planner Daniel Fama who can
give them to us.
ISSUE 4 – CONTRACT DURATION
Chair Foulkes:
• Said this (contract duration) is a policy issue.
• Reminded that currently the City’s Mills Act Contracts carry on. There is not much
these contract holders have to do and this Board doesn’t like that notion.
• Stressed the need for these contract holders to do what they have said they would do.
Make sure that promised work actually gets completed. These contracts should be
tied to work that is above and above routine homeowner property maintenance.
• Advised that he has a contractor that comes to his property several times a year
because things break in an older home.
• Said that he is not wedded to one specific time frame or a maximum of 15 years.
• Added that he thinks a Mills Act Contract should expire when all historically related
work listed on the Mills Act Contract has been completed. If that owner comes up with
other qualified work, they can apply again but not just automatically be renewed.
Member Walter:
• Agreed that the scope of work the applicant wants may dictate how long they want
their contract to go on.
• Suggested that a property owner may choose to distribute the costs of their planned
improvements over a prescribed number of years in order to cover all costs for
qualified work.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 6
• Added that it could involve an amended contract or a whole new application. That
way if a new property comes up all potential properties can be evaluated to find the
worthiest and needed property for a Mills Act Contract.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that it gets confusing and hard to have people keep applying when their
calculations change.
• Added that in an ideal world there would be a difference between perhaps moving an
historic house versus changing out windows on another.
• Stated that the contracts should be more tailored to a preservation project.
• Pointed out that historic homes are costly to maintain.
• Suggested providing smaller benefits but each qualified historic homeowner gets one.
That would be easier to administer.
• Agreed that contracts should not simply renew but rather homeowners should have to
come back again with a new application.
Member Walter questioned whether the HPB has the ability and/or right to establish such
a change in process. Perhaps the City Council and City Attorney can work their magic
on that question.
Chair Foulkes ask staff if HPB has any say.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Explained that there are two mechanisms.
• Added that it would be a breach of contract to simply terminate a Mills Act Contract.
First there must be a notice of non-renewal.
• Said that these contracts are for 10 years and renewed each year for another 10 years
forward. These renewals are currently automatically done. Therefore, it would take
10 years to terminate an existing one.
• Added that should the program change to allow for longer contracts, such as 15 years,
the notice of termination would need to occur by year five to allow for the 10-year
termination notification.
• Advised that the HPB could recommend the creation of different contract durations
moving forward.
Chair Foulkes asked if the new contracts could be non-renewable.
Member Walter asked why 10-year contract duration was established at the beginning.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reiterated that notice would need to be made to current holders that their contract will
not be renewed once expired in 10 years from time of such notification.
• Added that these types of legal questions would need to be check with the City
Attorney.
• Stressed the importance to remember to issue notices of non-renewal once the new
Mills Act is adopted.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 7
• Assured that staff has mechanisms in place to follow up on expiration dates. For
example, cell towers have 10-year renewals. Therefore, it would be possible to
schedule out five to ten years to send out non-renewals to Mills Act Contract holders.
Chair Foulkes:
• Added that the homeowner has the burden to know to reapply if they want to extend
their contract. It is important to put that responsibility on the homeowner.
• Said that the application should provide 10 years’ worth of projects. They would need
to provide another set of projects in order to reapply.
• Stated that homeowners have to have “skin in the game.”
Member Blake said or at least accountability.
Member Walter asked how we should proceed from here.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that is suggestions include a maximum 10-year contract that is not
automatically renewed. They should be required to submit a new application every
10 years.
• Said that way that homeowner can decide at that time to either renew or terminate.
They must be able to make the case for renewal with a new punch-list of projects.
• Added that this process would be much easier to administer.
• Pointed out that the oversight will be whether they are keeping up with their list of work
committed to be done on their home or not. Right now, we don’t know what they’re
doing.
• Said this would be a less-burdensome process to administer.
Member Blake reported that these property owners submit a report each year to the
County. Unfortunately, the County simply throws the updates away and cannot or will not
share the information with the City in which the Mills Act Contract is issued.
Member Walter agreed that some form of calculations need to be provided to determine
if 10 to 15-year contracts make sense. They must be more defined or have a sunset date.
Chair Foulkes:
• Agreed with Member Walter that makes sense.
• Reminded that in the webinar the HPB watched together, one of the featured cities
has variable durations for their Mills Act Contracts.
• Asked if everyone having the same is easier than having differing durations.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reminded that there is a way for staff to remember to resend notices to Mills Act
Contract holders to advise them they must renew or expire their contract.
• Added that if the desire of HPB is for a maximum 10-year contract, it would require
the immediate notice of non-renewal to set the clock now for 10 years into the future.
• Restated that a 15-year contact needs notification in year 5 to terminate at year 15. A
20-year contract would be advised at year 10 that their contract will expire in 10 hears.
• Reminded that the current contract is renewed each year for another 10 years forward.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 8
• Concluded that if the HPB wants to see more defined contracts, we can achieve that
goal. The question is how.
Member Walter said he would do more research on the duration of contracts elsewhere
in California to see if 10 years is the strict minimum duration.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that information would be helpful to help us to better understand.
• Questioned what the Mills Act tax discount rate is received by holders.
• Suggested determining the median homeowner benefit to compare that to if someone
were to purchase a newly constructed home.
• Reiterated the need to encourage the harder more-costly maintenance projects
required on an historic home.
ISSUE 5 – REGISTER TO QUALIFY
Member Walter suggested the importance to require a home to be registered, if not
already done, to the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) in order to secure a Mills
Act Contract.
Planner Daniel Fama agreed that requiring this inclusion on the HRI would serve as an
incentive to add homes to that list.
Chair Foulkes:
• Admitted that he would rather have a tool to give every HRI property homeowner some
kind of financial benefit. That would make a Mills Act Contract into a specific benefit
of being on the HRI.
• Pointed out that come cities give grants out for qualified work on historic homes.
• Reminded that Campbell’s current program has a maximum of 10 contracts (not all
yet assigned) so the program serves just 10 homes.
• Restated his support for shorter duration in order to be able to assist more homes with
needed historic repairs. Spread the dollars out to more people to improve more HRI
properties.
• Suggested that it is a limited benefit right now as it functions.
ISSUE 6 – APPROVAL PROCESS
Chair Foulkes asked what is currently done? What is newly proposed?
Planner Daniel Fama reminded that he has not yet worked on a Mills Act Contract
application process since he became the Staff Liaison for HPB. He said if he had to
process one now she would want to visit the subject site, talk with the owner, see the
proposed materials and do a pre-inspection.
Member Blake agreed that we should do those things.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 9
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Suggested that perhaps another subcommittee could be convened to provide an initial
review of a proposal before it comes to the whole HPB.
• Compared that to the Planning Commission, which has its Site and Architectural
Review Committee (SARC), a subcommittee consisting of two PC members, that meet
a month prior reviewing an item coming forward to PC. SARC provides the PC with
initial information during the PC public hearing and it is also included in the staff report
prepared for the meeting.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said the idea of a subcommittee is a good one that would be helpful to the process.
• Opined that the last application was not that good and included a lot of irrelevant
elements. There was no demonstration of economic need.
• Admitted that it would be better if that proposal had undergone that sort of
subcommittee review discussion ahead of time. Perhaps it could have been
encouraged not to apply.
Planner Daniel Fama said that this subcommittee would simply be reviewing a proposal
to determine the adequacy of the submittal prior to bringing to forth to the HPB.
Member Blake said she agrees with that.
Member Walter:
• Agreed with Member Blake that could be done.
• Pointed out that the Mills Act Contract is a contract between the City and the applicant.
• Asked if the Council reviews a Mills Act Contract application package prior to the HPB.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that local government has Boards, Committees and Commissions to provide
oversight to staff.
• Added that a Mills Act Contract would first be brought forth to the HPB and from there
onward to the City Council.
• Gave as an example the Planning Commission. Staff initially reviews an application
subjectively and creates the staff report for the Planning Commission to use to conduct
a public hearing. Upon conducting its hearing, the PC makes its decision for final
action or, when required, will forward its recommendation for action on to the Council
for final decision. The PC is free to disagree with the staff assessment and
recommendation.
• Said that the HPB can review the existing Mills Act processes and decide as to
whether it meets the goals of the Board and City. Again, the HPB can disagree with
any staff recommendation and go in another direction. That’s the role of the HPB.
• Conclude that review and decision making is not just black and white. There are also
grey areas. There are several levels of due process depending on the type of item
under consideration.
• Suggested that a pre-inspection process could be submitted to the subcommittee as
a part of the pre-inspection team.
Member Walter said that could be done.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 10
Member Blake agreed and said it would be an appropriate step.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that part of the benefit of updated the existing Mills Act Program is to develop
more comprehensive reviews of any property under consideration.
• Agreed that City staff could conduct an initial pre-inspection and bring their results on
to the Sub Committee for review and recommendation onward to the HPB.
ISSUE 7 - REQUIREMENTS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Chair Foulkes asked about changing the current project specific list.
Member Walter:
• Said that the existing list needs to be cleaned up. Currently there are listed items, such
as carpets or chandeliers, that don’t qualify as legitimate expenditures for a Mills Act
Contract.
• Added that the list should reflect the that repairs should be concentrated on exterior
updates to a home. Interiors are secondary and lower on the list if included at all.
• Supported the concept of limiting any and all supportable repairs to just exteriors. It
could include things such as structural repairs.
• Said with such strict guidelines being proposed, there may or may not be many people
who would want to participate.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that the biggest expense and item that most often fails, are window restorations.
He added that he didn’t see that option as a criterion. These historic windows operate
using pulleys and weights.
• Suggested that the list not become too specific. It should include common things that
old houses need to repair.
Member Walter said he was not opposed to offer enough of a list but with a little wiggle
room left for consideration of flexibility when appropriate.
Member Blake said that she and Member Walter can come up with an updated draft
potential project list for further review and consideration by the whole HBP.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that some Mills Act Contract holders may have already maximized the value of
the property. It’s hard to gauge that.
• Added that the Mills Act Contract needs to have a process for when there is conflicting
information being provided.
• Said that there should be an ability to state financial need to receive a Mills Act
Contract.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that there is an issue with requiring a proof of need for a Mills Act Contract.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 11
• Pointed out that the Mills Act Contract belongs with the property itself and not just its
current owner who may have applied for it.
• Added that the term “need” can often be temporary. A homeowner can get better
paying job or promotion and the “need” changes.
• Said it is important whether need can be a consideration from a legal perspective, and
he would suggest checking in with the City Attorney. It may well be a very slippery
slope.
Chair Foulkes:
• Advised that per previous HPB Staff Liaison(s), need is not a criterion.
• Added that we will need to be clear one way or the other and take that notion out if it
is not appropriate.
Planner Daniel Fama said he has made a notation to check in with the City Attorney on
this issue.
Member Walter said that this is in the current contract now, the need for financial
assistance, so he’s assuming that it’s okay.
Planner Daniel Fama said that while it may be included in the existing application
materials, the City Attorney doesn’t see everything that goes out and may be unaware of
this provision in this case.
Chair Foulkes said that most historic homes located in Campbell are fairly similar in terms
of value.
ISSUE 8 - REHABILITATION / MAINTENANCE PLANS
Chair Foulkes:
• Said it would be important to have proof provided by historic homeowners of
completed construction permits for any and all approved repairs using Mills Act funds.
• Recounted that he had recently processed a Dead Tree Removal Permit. The process
required him to provide a site plan and other application information despite being a
“dead” tree.
ISSUE 9 - PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that structural issues are critical.
• Reminded that business locations don’t qualify for Mills Act Contracts.
• Added the importance of having a home on the HRI and/or being a Landmark.
Landmark designation achieves higher prioritization.
• Said that seismic retrofitting also equates a higher priority need.
ISSUE 10 - ACCOUNTABILITY
Chair Foulkes:
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 12
• Said he was stunned to learn that Mills Act Contract homeowners turn in annual
documentation to the County but nothing to the City.
• Stated that we also need to receive an accounting.
• Added that he’s not sure at what level. It could be annually reporting, more often
and/or a site inspection conducted every five years.
• Advised his support for creating a pre-inspection process for new applications.
Planner Daniel Fama said that requesting annual expenditure and completion information
yearly is easier. He said it would be challenging for a homeowner to accurate report past
work for longer than a year.
Member Walter stated his support for a pre-inspection for new applications, provision of
annual financial updates to HPB and the requirement for a site inspection every five years
a home has an open Mills Act Contract.
Member Blake:
• Said that some property owners were able to provide information to the City. Some
had receipts while others had sent their original information to the County.
• Admitted that there is a lot to check out.
• Reported that before the COVID-19 situation, the Planning Intern was able to send
copies for four properties over to Member Walter. She did not get any property owner
information submitted.
Planner Daniel Fama said he would resend the material to Member Blake.
Member Walter said that Planner Daniel Fama had previously forwarded the information
to him and Chair Foulkes.
Planner Daniel Fama said he would re-send it.
ISSUE 11 - FEATURES INCLUDED
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that one consideration may be the cost of tree maintenance and/or removal.
• Added that he has previously seen landscaping as an item for inclusion for one of the
contracts.
• Recounted that this year he paid $25,000 to have a very large tree removed.
• Cautioned that maintenance of heritage trees can be really expensive. He pays
between $5,000 and $10,000 each year on tree maintenance on a rotational basis.
• Said that tree maintenance might be something to highlight as eligible. That could
include the cost for retaining an arborist to supervise the maintenance of these
heritage trees.
• Added that trees not well tended can become quite a liability if there is some form of
failure of the tree.
Member Blake said that every three to four years she has her trees pruned at a cost of
about $2,000 each time. As her trees are close to her neighbors’ homes it is important to
have regular professional maintenance. Having one fall over would be a big deal.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 13
Member Walter said that maintenance of heritage trees located on an HRI property that
has a Mills Act Contract, can be considered a task representing qualified work that can
be covered by the use of Mills Act funds.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said he has two thoughts on the subject of regulating what qualifies as eligible work
within a Mills Act Contract home.
• Stated that the intent of the Mills Act concentrating on exteriors is that represents the
part that is visible to the public and community. Whereas no one will see what has
been done to the interior.
• Stressed for an emphasis of exteriors over interiors.
Member Blake:
• Agreed with Chair Foulkes.
• Said that the exterior of a historic home represents its architectural integrity.
• Stated that the interior of a home, not including a bearing wall, and windows are not
generally qualifying updates.
• Said that it is important to better refine what work is applicable within the interior and
for sure it should not include decorative items such as a chandelier.
Member Walter said that in addition to what is done to the exterior of a home, items inside
that are safety related should be allowed. That could include fireplaces, structural safety
and foundation. Those types of interior expenses should be qualified.
Chair Foulkes:
• Reiterated his support to having most qualified work done as being done to the
exterior.
• Agreed with the concept of allowing work within the interior as it is related to life and
safety and in conjunction with other work being done to the home’s exterior.
ISSUE 12 - STRUCTURAL / ARCHITECTURAL / ENGINEERING REPORT
REQUIREMENTS
Chair Foulkes said that those types of technical reports should be required only when
submitted for Building Permits and not while seeking approval for a Mills Act Contract.
Planner Daniel Fama said that it may require such reports for a homeowner to be able to
property establish just what types of work will need to be done to the home.
Member Walter:
• Said that having a homeowner spend money up front to show the City what work
needs to be addressed may not be necessary.
• Added that part of the Building application process could be these supporting reports
prepared once that Mills Act Contract gets approved.
Member Blake said that proving the need for structural repairs will require a structural
report.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 14
Chair Foulkes suggested that such a report may not be needed before the Mills Act
actually gets approved for a property.
Member Walter:
• Said that without such report(s) we will not know the extent of work required during
the application process but only after its approval. It will only become known during
the building permit process.
• Suggested that perhaps the Mills Act Contract not be signed prior to permits being
applied for and secured.
• Stressed the need for more information up front to better determine the extent of work
and to correlate that work with actual costs.
Planner Daniel Fama agreed that if a home needs structural repairs the question remains
whether it really does and to what extent.
Member Walter suggested adding language to the Mills Act Contract that its approval is
contingent on the applicant to obtain additional and specific information from an engineer.
Planner Daniel Fama said that Council could approve a Mills Act Contract with a condition
that structural reports be provided to prove consistency with the projects proposed under
the contract. If the application is deemed disqualified the contract would not be executed.
ISSUE 13 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CONTRACTS PER YEAR
Chair Foulkes sought verification that currently Campbell can have up to 10.
Member Blake:
• Verified that 10 contracts is correct.
• Added that 10 contracts have not yet been assigned to a property.
• Reported she had spoken recently with Mayor Landry and she was very encouraging.
• Suggested that it might be an opportunity to ask for more contracts but there is more
work to do on updating the program first.
• Questioned how much in taxes the City loses by granting Mills Act Contracts.
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that it is a small percentage.
• Added he has no problem with having a maximum limit and also to increasing it
upward from the current 10 allowed. It is supportable with the clarity and transparency
being created with this update to the regulations.
• Concluded he hopes this will help encourage more applications.
• Said that open questions remain on increasing up to 15 or 20 and whether the
contracts should expire or not.
ISSUE 14 - PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP
Member Blake said “Nah.” Not necessary.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 15
ISSUE 15 - ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
Chair Foulkes asked staff if all submittals are not done electronically.
Planner Daniel Fama replied yes.
ISSUE 16 - APPLICATION CHECK-OFF LIST
Chair Foulkes said it makes sense to him.
ISSUE 17 - ATTACHMENTS
Chair Foulkes:
• Said there should be pictures provided showing the changes once completed.
• Reported that the current way of uploading pictures into the permitting system (MGO)
makes it hard to have decent quality resolution photos.
• Suggested to Planner Daniel Fama that the City may want its third-party vendor to
increase the pixels.
OTHER
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that it would be nice to figure out the average tax savings per contract. Is it $300
or $3,000 or $30,000 in savings to the holder We don’t know?
Member Walter said he would run the numbers first.
Planner Daniel Fama said that is a philosophical question. Is the intent for big fixes or
routine maintenance? To what extent is parity sought?
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that the intent is not for covering costs of customary home upkeep.
• Said for an owner should relay to us with really compelling and expensive project(s).
Member Walter asked if HPB has missed anything else needed discussion.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that one open question remains regarding the potential for changes to existing
contracts with an expiration date.
• Stated that he would have a discussion with Director Paul Kermoyan on that topic
based on materials gathered from current contract holders.
• Advised that Council wants very specific financial aspects of things brought before
them.
• Added that would include Mills Act Contract holders quantify the extent that their tax
benefit is being reinvented into their historic home, which should provide a financial
understanding of how well the program/contract works.
• Said that those sorts of facts may support whether such contracts should be retained
or cancelled.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 29, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 16
Chair Foulkes:
• Said that he feels having expiration dates for all contracts is better.
• Added that the new Mills Act rules should apply to all existing and future contracts.
• Said that the current standard of 10 years is sufficient time for existing owners to
show how good a steward they are of their historic home.
• Suggested a contract should not be a perpetual ride. Once sufficient work has been
completed it is best to put that contract to a better project (site).
• Asked if there is anything else.
• Listed the following next steps:
o Subcommittee to come back with updated information
o Staff to check up on questions raised today with Director
o Next meeting is set for October 27, 2020, at which time the entire Board can
go over a revised draft with the changes talked about today.
Planner Daniel Fama said that the emphasis is on more specific improvements such as
seismic upgrades and foundation issues.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting
scheduled for October 27, 2020, at 5:00 PM, using Zoom.
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________
Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison
Agenda
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, September 29, 2020 | 5:00 PM
Virtual Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
This Historic Preservation Board (HPB) meeting is conducted via telecommunication and is
compliant with provisions of the Brown Act and Executive Order N-29-20 issued by the
Governor.
The following Board Members are listed to permit them to appear electronically or
telephonically at the Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of September 29, 2020: Chair
Mike Foulkes, Vice-Chair Yvonne Kendall, and Board Members Todd Walter, Susan Blake, and
Laura Taylor Moore.
While members of the public will not be able to attend the meeting of the Campbell Historic
Preservation Board in person, the meeting will be live-streamed on YouTube at
(https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell).
Interested persons may register to electronically participate in this Zoom HPB meeting at Please
click the link to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82313241745?pwd=Uk1BR0haOU9VZHdXWEgveTI4Q2l6Zz09. The Passcode:
060504. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about
joining the webinar. The complete agenda packet will be posted by Friday, September 25, 2020
on the City website at https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/Historic-Preservation-
Board-4, and will include all materials for this meeting. Please be advised that if you challenge
the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Historic Preservation Board at, or prior to, the Public
Hearing by email to planning@campbellca.gov. Questions may be addressed to the Daniel
Fama, Board Secretary, at (408) 866-2193 or danielf@campbellca.gov.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Board Members or the Board Secretary may request that agenized items be considered in a
different order than shown in the agenda or be postponed to a subsequent meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of July 22, 2020 (Voice Vote)
Meeting Minutes, 7/22/2020
Historic Preservation Board Agenda for September 29, 2020 Pg. 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Board on matters
of community interest that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may
limit speakers to three minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Board from acting
on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up.
BOARD/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NEW BUSINESS
2. Mills Act Program Update Discussion
The Board will discuss the preliminary recommendations made by the Mills Act ad hoc
Subcommittee for the Mills Act Program update and any related potential revisions to
the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Subcommittee Memorandum
STUDY SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Board meeting of October 28,
2020, at 5:00 PM to be conducted via Zoom.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available
for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the
meeting, please contact Corinne Shinn at the Community Development Department, at
corinnes@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2140.
ITEM 1
Historic Preservation Board
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, July 22, 2020 | 5:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting of July 22, 2020, was called to order at
5:09 p.m., via Zoom, by Chair Foulkes, and the following proceedings were had to wit.
ROLL CALL
HPB Members Present: HPB Members Absent
Michael Foulkes, Chair None
Yvonne Kendall, Vice Chai
Susan Blake
Laura Taylor Moore
Todd Walter
Staff Members Present:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes of January 22, 2020.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Kendall, seconded by Member Blake, the
Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of
January 22, 2020. (5-0)
2. Approval of Minutes of February 26, 2020.
Motion: Upon motion of Member Moore, seconded by Member Blake, the
Historic Preservation Board approved the minutes of the meeting of
February 26, 2020. (4-0-0-1; Member Kendall abstained)
ORAL REQUESTS
None
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 2
BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
3. 1940 Hamilton Avenue – Historic Review (Informational Only – No Action Required)
The owner of 1940 Hamilton Avenue commissioned an historic review of the property,
prepared an historic resource consultant. The consultant’s materials were peer-reviewed
by the City’s Architectural Advisor Mark Sandoval, who concurred with the determination
that the property does not meet any of the minimum threshold eligibility requirements
needed to be listed on the California Register of Historic Resources or as a local historic
resource by the City as either a Structure of Merit or a Landmark property.
Historic Review Materials
Peer-Review Memo (Mark Sandoval)
Planner Daniel Fama advised that this item is informational only as this property is not
included on the HRI (Historic Resource Inventory).
Member Blake:
• Reported that she had reached out to this property’s current owner to suggest
consideration of addition to the HRI.
• Advised that that property owner was not interested at all in historic designation.
• Pointed out that this property was presented with a commendation after the
remodeling of the house on this property for commercial use.
• Lamented that many years ago the then-owners of this house wanted to donate the
structure to the City if the City found a property on which to relocate it.
• Admitted that “we” did not succeed in that task.
Chair Foulkes asked staff if any changes to the existing structure would be brought forth
to the HPB.
Planner Daniel Fama replied no. He said that oversight would not be within the purview
of the HPB but rather would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Member Moore:
• Pointed out that this situation reflects the “downside” of our preservation ability.
• Said in that in her opinion there is no question that this house should be considered
potentially historic when one looks at it.
• Suggested that the consideration of materials salvageability should be looked into
if/when this structure were to be completely demolished.
Planner Daniel Fama said that suggestion could be considered when this project is
submitted. Either that the building be allowed to be relocated in whole or as architectural
salvage of any viable materials.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that he was surprised about the data provided in the peer review responses.
• Admitted that he agrees with Member Moore that if this house is not considered
historic-worthy, what is?
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 3
• Opined that this house seems to be the most historic in appearance. More than others
that are on the HRI. However, this one is not included on the HRI.
• Reminded that the HPB wants to preserve its buildings rather than tearing them down.
This structure seems more valuable than others that are on HRI.
• Reiterated that the goal of the HPB is to push hard to encourage worthy structures
from being kept and well-maintained as historic structures.
• Stated that this situation here perplexes him.
• Added that he finds in unfortunate that review of plans for this structure will not come
to us (HPB).
Member Moore:
• Reported that the original owner of this home was named Hamilton.
• Suggested it might behoove doing some research to see if this home is named for
something unrelated to Campbell such as Mt. Hamilton.
• Stated perhaps the house was named by the circa 1840’s original Hamilton Family
that was important to Campbell.
• Pointed out that that Hamilton Avenue itself comes through their property and may
be the reason for naming both the house and Hamilton Avenue.
Planner Daniel Fama said he, as a city planner, is not able to dispute what the owner’s
historic consultant has prepared. That report was properly peer-reviewed for the City by
Mark Sandoval.
Member Kendall said that many properties included on the HRI are not considered to be
either Structures of Merit or Historic Landmarks.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that the HIR lists Structures of Merit, Historic Landmarks and potentially historic
properties.
• Reminded that a property owner has to agree and sign-on in order to be added to the
HRI.
• Added that the City would have required the owner to pay for a historic evaluation on
this structure if they hadn’t already had one prepared pro-actively as they did.
• Concluded that now when they bring forth their redevelopment proposal for a new
office building, that requirement (box) is already checked.
Chair Foulkes:
• Agreed that the report provided has gone through all the right channels.
• Added that it serves as an example of why our current system doesn’t work.
• Suggested that the process should work differently in the future.
Member Kendall asked staff what it would take to update the HPB Ordinance.
Planner Daniel Fama replied he would first need to discuss that topic with Director
Kermoyan and get back to the HPB with a response.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 4
Member Walter:
• Asked staff if there’s a way HPB can have Mark Sandoval provide it with some
“lessons learned” outline to help us moving forward with other structures(s) in the
future.
• Suggested Mark Sandoval might be able to explain/compare other properties to this
one.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Said that the bigger issue is how the criteria is set up and how they interpret it.
• Added that he would see if Mark Sandoval is willing to provide that feedback.
• Suggested that request be postponed until he can get direction from Director
Kermoyan and perhaps Council.
• Explained that Council has to buy off on new projects that require staff time to process
such an update and ensure it is a priority to Council to allow it.
Chair Foulkes suggested taking further discussion of this proposal off-line and bring it
back when appropriately sanctioned.
PUBLIC HEARING
4. 20 Alice Avenue – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll
Call Vote)
Public Hearing to consider the application of Barzin Keyhankhadiv for a Tier 1 Historic
Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow construction of an approximately 800
square-foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known
as the Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue. Staff is recommending that
this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reported that the applicant is requesting a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit
for a residence on 20 Alice Avenue. This home is located east of Winchester
Boulevard.
• Said that the owners are proposing an approximately 800 square addition to an
existing single-family residence.
• Advised that this home is not a Landmark but is located within an Historic District (Alice
Avenue Historic District).
• Stated that staff has worked with the applicant to ensure compliance with standards.
• Pointed out that the addition is proposed for the back of the home.
• Said that the siding of the new portion of this home would be thicker so as to be
obviously different from the older and new sections of this home.
• Recommending the HPB adopt a resolution approving this application.
Member Blake:
• Reminded that these applicants came before the HPB a few years ago with a larger
addition.
• Added that HPB worked with them on their project and it then went on to the Planning
Commission where it was approved.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 5
• Pointed out that this proposal under consideration this evening is less large and
doesn’t affect the garage at the back as the original approval would have done.
• Stated that this is a very nice design and she supports it with no hesitation.
Member Moore concurred.
Member Kendall concurred as well.
Chair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
There was no one present wishing to speak.
Chair Foulkes closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Chair Foulkes asked if there are any thoughts or comments from the HPB.
Member Kendall:
• Said that this is a well-designed project.
• Recounted that Alice Avenue is a narrow street with lots of street parking along both
sides.
• Added that it can sometimes be challenging to drive down Alice Avenue.
• Suggested that as part of the site management condition of approve that the project
be required to have its trucks arrive and depart from Winchester rather than driving a
long way on Alice Avenue from the other direction.
Chair Foulkes:
• Echoed the comments of the other HPB Members.
• Said that this project provides thoughtful design.
• Added that it is the kind of project that the HPB likes to see that upgrades the livability
of the home while retaining its historic architecture as seen from the street frontage.
Motion: Upon Motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore, the
Historic Preservation Board adopted Resolution 2020-04 approving a
Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow
construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to an
Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary
Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue, with the added condition
to require project construction related truck traffic to access the
project site from Winchester Boulevard , by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Kendall, Moore and Walter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Abstain: None
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 6
NEW BUSINESS
Member Kendall advised that she has to recuse from participating on this item as she
resides within noticing distance to this property. She left the meeting during the
discussion on this request.
5. 204 Alice Avenue – Review of Windows
Approval of windows as required by an approved Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit (PLN2019-110) for property located at 204 Alice Avenue.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Reported that the Board needs to approve the windows being proposed for this
property.
• Added that the proposed materials are identified in packet.
• Advised that the property owners are present this evening.
Chair Foulkes asked if there were questions for staff. There were none.
Chair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Item No. 5.
Marie & Kornel Kovacs, Applicant/Owners of 204 Alice Avenue, introduced themselves.
Marie Kovacs:
• Reminded that wood windows were originally approved for this house when the
previous owners owned the home.
• Stated that she and her husband, Kornel, would like to consider use of wood-clad
windows instead due to the cost and maintenance differences.
Kornel Kovacs:
• Showed examples of what was originally approved (all wood) with what they are now
proposing instead (wood-clad).
• Pointed out that all-wood windows require lots of maintenance and upkeep while
wood-clad windows offers the same outside appearance as wood but comes pre-
finished. That equates to no maintenance being required for years to come. These
wood-clad windows withstand weather better. They shrink less and stay as beautiful
as the day they were installed into the future.
• Assured that these wood-clad windows would look exactly the same with a significant
price difference. All-wood windows for this project would cost $9,000 while the wood-
clad windows for this project would cost $5,000.
Chair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Item No. 5.
Chair Foulkes asked for comments from the HPB.
Member Walter:
• Pointed out that the HPB has allowed aluminum and similar wood-clad windows in
previous projects as long as they match the house.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 7
• Admitted that he is fine with this proposed product and would himself want to put in
wood-clad windows versus solid wood.
Member Blake:
• Reminded that the Secretary of Interior Standards need to be reconsidered.
• Assured that architectural details can be matched as she did so herself.
Chair Foulkes said that what the Board has done in the past was to be a stickler for wood
windows in the front elevation. He agreed that the Board needs to follow its prior more
recent approvals that allowed other than wood windows.
Member Blake said that she is excited that these owners will also include shutters. She
is ecstatic about that addition.
Motion: Upon Motion of Member Walter, seconded by Member Moore, the
Historic Preservation Board took action to approve a Tier 1 Historic
Resource Alteration Permit (PLN2019-110) to allow fiber clad windows
for property located at 204 Alice Avenue, with the requirement that
said fiber-clad windows matches what is already there on this home,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore and Walter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Abstain: Kendall
Member Kendall returned to the meeting at the conclusion of Item No. 5.
6. Certified Local Government Annual Report
Review and approve the 2018-2019 Certified Local Government Annual Report.
Planner Daniel Fama:
• Advised that this is opportunity for the Board to review and approve this annual report
as required by our CLG status.
• Added that its submittal was delayed a bit.
• Stated that it is up to the HPB to review, approve and adopt a Resolution for this
action.
Member Blake said that the report was straight and well said.
Member Moore concurred.
Member Walter as well.
Chair Foulkes said that in looking at attendance records he extends his congratulations
to Members Blake and Walters for their perfect attendance records.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 8
Motion: Upon motion of Member Kendall, seconded by Member Blake, the HPB
Adopted a Resolution approving the 2018-2019 Certified Local
Government Annual Report. (5-0)
OLD BUSINESS
7. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee Report
The Subcommittee will provide a monthly update on its activities to the Board.
Member Walter:
• Said that there are two parts to the actions of the Subcommittee.
• Advised he and Member Blake met in February with Planner Daniel Fama and
Planning Intern Michael Sze. At that meeting they talked about the audit and
discussed development of what criteria should be created to evaluate potential Mills
Act approvals.
• Added that a letter was sent out to all eight current Mills Act holders. He and Member
Blake each took on four.
• Reported that they received back information from each holder.
• Advised that the next step will be to look at materials provided by each owner and
compare what was accomplished with what was included on the original Mills Act
contract. This work will be split between City staff and members of the Mills Act ad
hoc Subcommittee to determine if the materials for each home commemorate with the
contract.
Planner Daniel Fama suggested that a meeting be scheduled with him and the
Subcommittee.
Member Blake said that is a good idea.
Member Walter:
• Continued with the second part of the plan of the Subcommittee, which is looking at
the Mills Act contract.
• Reported that they have scoured cities throughout the State to find good examples of
a Mills Act Contract from which we can compare our program.
• Added that info was part of a desk item that Planner Daniel Fama sent out by email.
• Said they wrote out a first recommendation for everyone’s input and revision
suggestions. Once revised, the Mills Act topic would go back before the City Council
with a recommendation for approval.
• Encouraged feedback from the rest of HPB.
Chair Foulkes asked if there are any initial comments from the Board.
Member Blake:
• Reminded that the City of Monrovia did a webinar that we all watched.
• Stated that it is exciting to see how they handled their Mills Act program.
• Admitted that she and Member Walter used a lot of information from Monrovia in
preparing their initial draft.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 9
Member Walter:
• Suggested that the Board send their individual comments to Planner Daniel Fama by
email. Daniel can then forward them on to the Subcommittee.
• Stated that by the next meeting there can be a refined list based on the feedback
received.
Planner Daniel Fama reminded all Members to use their City email not their personal.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated that perhaps the whole next meeting could be devoted to the Mills Act.
• Pointed out that Monrovia shows just how flexible cities can be with their Mills Act
contracts. Reporting and oversight can be implemented.
• Added that with issues such as windows could be assisted within the Mills Act.
• Opined that if property taxes for a Mills Act property are reduced and those savings
can be used to defray rehab costs.
• Expressed support for the concept of a limited-duration Mills Act Contract. It would
be nimbler.
• Said that we have unique issues in Campbell in regard to preservation. It seems as if
we are not optimally utilizing the Mills Act Contracts with their long-term duration.
Member Walter referred to the desk item from Deb Craver and asked if Ms. Crave holds
a Mills Act Contract.
Planner Daniel Fama replied yes.
Member Moore said that Ms. Craver provided the perfect balance for what we do. What
we need to hear.
Member Blake encourage all members to review the draft materials.
Member Walter asked for Ms. Craver’s address.
Member Blake replied 110 S. Second Street.
Member Walter asked if there are any questions for the Subcommittee at this time.
Chair Foulkes:
• Stated his appreciation for the time and effort of the Subcommittee.
• Added that he hopes HPB can focus on this Mills Act project.
• Pointed out that the Council has been asking for more information.
• Advised that he would be participating in a joint Zoom meeting the next day hosted by
the Mayor and including all the other Board and Commission Chairs.
• Supported spending more time on this task so Member Kendall won’t have to continue
to recuse for much item once it is completed.
Member Blake said that the Mills Act is pretty interesting.
Member Moore agreed.
Historic Preservation Board Minutes for July 22, 2020 (Regular Meeting) Page 10
Member Walter said that it is amazing just the variety of different Mills Acts out there. We
may well have the best of all by including the best aspects of others out there.
Ms. Maria Kovacs stepped forward and said she is currently going through the application
packet for a Mills Act Contract. She asked if she could ask questions. They are looking
to paint their home and wonders if she needs to present her proposed paint colors for
approval.
Planner Daniel Fama suggested that Ms. Kovacs call him directly about the Mills Act
application process and also advised her that she doesn’t need approval for her paint
choices. She is free to select her own paint colors.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 6:05 p.m. to the next Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting
scheduled for August 26, 2020, at 5:00 PM, using Zoom.
PREPARED BY: ______________________________________
Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Michael Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST: ______________________________________
Daniel Fama, HPB Staff Liaison
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-04
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A TIER 1
HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION PERMIT (PLN-2020-12) TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 800 SQUARE-
FOOT REAR ADDITION TO AN ALICE AVENUE HISTORIC
DISTRICT PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MARY
FABLINGER HOUSE, LOCATED AT 20 ALICE AVENUE IN THE R-
1-6-H (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / HISTORIC OVERLAY)
COMBINING ZONING DISTRICT.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Board Secretary, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Historic Preservation Board finds as follows with regards to file number PLN-2020-12:
1. The project site is a 7,371 square-foot single-family residential property located on
Alice Avenue, east of Winchester Boulevard , within the Alice Avenue Historic District.
2. The project site is zoned R-1-6-H (Single-Family Residential / Historic Overlay) on the
City of Campbell Zoning Map.
3. The project site is designated Low Density Residential on the City of Campbell
General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The project site is developed with a single-family residence, a non-landmark historic
district resource constructed in 1938 in a vernacular style, commonly known as the
Mary Fablinger House.
5. The proposed project is an application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit
(PLN2019-110) to allow construction of an approximately 800 square-foot rear
addition.
6. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration
Permit (Tier 1)) requires that any alteration to a landmark or historic district property
be reviewed through "Tier 1" Historic Resource Alteration Permit.
7. The proposed project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Policy LUT-8.1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and
cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building
patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural
heritage of the community.
Policy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and
substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing
character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood,
especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent
design characteristics
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2020-04 Page 2 of 3
PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
Policy LUT-20.1b: Building Patterns: Ensure that new development is designed to blend in with
the existing building patterns of the neighborhood. For example, if the majority
of the garages on the street are at the rear of the site, the new building should
be designed to accommodate a rear garage.
8. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as
currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Historic Preservation Board further finds and
concludes that:
Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 Findings (CMC Sec. 21.33.080):
1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the
applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but
not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings;
3. The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural,
cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district;
4. The proposed action is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as
follows:
a. The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the
historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size,
massing, scale and proportion, and materials.
b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or
significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial
relationships that characterize the historic resource.
c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the
greatest extent possible.
d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be
constructed such that the essential form and integrity of the historic resource
shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
5. This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to minor alterations to existing
structures.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Preservation Board approves a Tier 1
Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow an approximately 800 square-
foot rear addition to an Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the
Mary Fablinger House, located at 20 Alice Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval (attached Exhibit “A”).
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2020-04 Page 3 of 3
PLN-2020-12 ~ 20 Alice Avenue
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of July, 2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Board Members: Kendall, Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter
NOES: Board Members:
ABSENT: Board Members:
ABSTAIN: Board Members:
APPROVED:
Mike Foulkes, Chair
ATTEST:
Daniel Fama, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN-2020-4)
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, 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 Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration
Permit (PLN-2020-12) to allow an approximately 800 square-foot rear addition to an
Alice Avenue Historic District property commonly known as the Mary Fablinger
House, located at 20 Alice Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the
Project Description stamped as received by the Community Development
Department on March 3, 2020, except as may be modified by conditions of approval
contained herein.
2. Permit Expiration: The Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit approval shall be
valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring August 3, 2021). Within
this one-year period, an application for a building permit must be submitted. Failure
to meet this deadline or expiration of an issued building permit will result in the
Historic Resource Alteration Permit being rendered void.
3. Side Material: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide an
example of the new siding for the Community Development Director’s review and
approval.
4. Rough Framing and Planning Final Required: Planning Division clearance is
required prior to rough framing and final Building Permit clearance. Construction not
in substantial compliance with the approved project plans shall not be approved
without prior authorization of the necessary approving body.
5. Minor Modifications: Minor Modifications to the approved project plans are subject to
review and approval by the Community Development Director. Minor modifications
include alterations in floor area of no more than 50 square feet on the first floor,
alterations to second story windows that are not oriented toward neighboring yards
and result in an increase in window area of no more than one square foot and
horizontal relocation of no more than one foot from the approved window location,
and minor alterations to façade material. All other modifications are subject to review
at a public hearing.
6. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all
Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the
construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 2
Building plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit
Revision and approval by the Building Official prior to Final Inspection.
7. Fences/Walls: Except as noted below, any newly proposed fencing and/or walls
shall comply with Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.18.060 and shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department.
8. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: As a remodel/addition/rehabilitation
project with a total project landscape area equal to or less than 2,500 square
feet, this project is subject to the landscaping and irrigation standards in Chapter
21.26 of the Campbell Municipal Code. The building permit application submittal
shall include compliant Planting and Irrigation Plans and shall include the following:
a. A completed Landscape Information Form.
b. A note on the Cover Sheet in minimum 1/2” high lettering stating “Planning
Final Required. The new landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed
prior to final inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning
approval.”
9. On-Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties
and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of
any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance
with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting
fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential
development and shall incorporate energy saving features.
10. Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the
name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public
street prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements
during construction:
a. The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead
contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of
building permits.
b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction
shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the
Building Official.
c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the
project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working
condition.
d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited.
e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air
compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as
possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and
businesses.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 3
f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the
adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell.
Building Division:
11. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed
addition to and remodeling of the existing structure. The building permit shall
include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit.
12. Plan Preparation: This addition may require plan prepared under the direction and
oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. When applicable, plans
submitted for building permits shall be “wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying
professional person.
13. Construction Plans: The conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover
sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit.
14. Size of Plans: The minimum size of construction plans submitted for building
permits shall be 24 in. X 36 in.
15. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include a competent site plan that
identifies property and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as
appropriate. Site plan shall also include site drainage details.
16. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be
blue-lined on the construction plans. Compliance with the Standards shall be
demonstrated for conditioning of the building envelope and lighting of the building.
17. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building
permits, in accordance with C.B.C Chapter 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of
Campbell, Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter.
18. Non-Point Source: The standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution
Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan submittal. The specification
sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division service counter.
19. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to
issuance of the building permit:
a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407)
b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010)
c. San Jose Water Company (279-7900)
d. School District:
i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405)
ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960)
iii. Moreland School District (379-1370)
iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 4
Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the
School District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has
approved the building permit application.
20. P.G.& E.: Applicant is advised to contact Pacific Gas and Electric Company as early
as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or
relocations may require substantial scheduling time and can cause significant delays
in the approval process. Applicant should also consult with P.G. and E. concerning
utility easements, distribution pole locations and required conductor clearances.
21. Intent to Occupy During Construction: Owners shall declare their intent to occupy the
(e) dwelling during construction. The Building Inspection Division may require the
premises to be vacated during portions of construction because of substandard and
unsafe living conditions created by construction.
22. California Green Building Code: This project shall comply with the mandatory
requirements for new residential structures (Chapter 4) under the California Green
Building Code, 2016 edition.
23. Build It Green: Applicant shall complete and submit a “Build it Green” inventory of
the proposed new single family project prior to issuance of building permit.
24. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water run-off from impervious surface created by
this permitted project shall be directed to vegetated areas on the project parcel.
Storm water shall not drain onto neighboring parcels.
25. Site Management: This project shall use the following Site Management policies:
• Job Site Manager. Every permitted job must have an identified person to
manage the work and be responsive to issues that come up during construction.
It is important to identify this person and provide contact information to the
Building Inspector at the beginning of the construction process. When a change
is made concerning site manager, the inspector should be made aware of the
new person and contact information.
• Construction Debris. At the end of each construction day, attention should be
made to collect and manage construction waste and debris. Trash must be
covered and removed from the site as soon as reasonable. Respect the
neighbors and keep a clean site! Sites that fail to manage trash can and will be
cited.
• Construction Hours. Every Permitted job is required to observe the permitted
hours of construction. Construction work is allowed from 8:00am to 5:00pm
Monday thru Friday. Construction is allowed on Saturdays from 9:00am to
4:00pm. No work is allowed on Sundays or Legal U.S. Holidays. Workers
showing up at job sites before the permitted times may create a problem and
should be discouraged from arriving earlier than 15 minutes before permitted
times. Material deliveries should never be scheduled before permitted hours. It
is the responsibility of the Contractor to manage and coordinate deliveries.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 5
Citations and/or Stop Work Notices will be issued to Contractors violating the
permitted hours.
• Dust and Dirt. Many jobs will create dust and dirt on the street. When it rains,
sites may have mud running into the sidewalk and street. All job sites must keep
all rain runoff on the site and prevent water from running from the site into the
gutter and street. Vehicles tracking mud and dirt into the street require cleanup
and keeping the sidewalks and streets clean. If you fail to manage your dirt, dust
and mud, your site may be issued a ‘Stop Work’ notice and/or a citation.
• Music and Unnecessary Noise. Radios and loud music or other noise not
related to construction is discouraged and will keep the neighbors from
complaining. Earbuds are a good way to keep the music playing and not a
problem for the neighbors. Job sites are not a good place for a worker’s dog.
Animals should be left at home.
• Construction Vehicles. Construction vehicles shall access the property only
from S. Winchester Boulevard and shall not travel westbound on Alice Avenue
except to leave the project site.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The scope of this project triggers the requirement for Frontage Improvements as
required by Campbell Municipal Code 11.24.040. The applicant will be required to apply
for an Encroachment permit to construct frontage improvements as listed below. The
building permit and grading permit will not be issued until all Public Works Conditions of
Approval have been satisfied.
26. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the
site, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, currently set at
$2,120.00 per net acre, which is $357.00
27. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District
requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution
prevention. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the
quantity of stormwater runoff to the bay.
Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management
Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP
Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start
at the Source: A Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start
at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA), 1999; and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development
Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document to Start at the Source
(“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003.
28. Utilities: All on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 21.18.140 of
the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 6
Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requirements of
the serving utility companies.
Utility locations shall not cause damage to any existing street trees. Where there
are utility conflicts due to established tree roots or where a new tree will be installed,
alternate locations for utilities shall be explored. Include utility trench details where
necessary.
29. Water Meter(s) and Sewer Cleanout(s): Existing and proposed water meter(s) and
sewer cleanout(s) shall be relocated or installed on private property behind the
public right-of-way line.
30. Utility Coordination Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the
applicant shall submit a utility coordination plan and schedule for approval by the
City Engineer for installation and/or abandonment of all utilities. The plan shall
clearly show the location and size of all existing utilities and the associated main
lines; indicate which utilities and services are to remain; which utilities and services
are to be abandoned, and where new utilities and services will be installed. Joint
trenches for new utilities shall be used whenever possible.
31. Pavement Restoration: The applicant shall restore the pavement in compliance with
City standard requirements. In the event that the roadway has recently received a
pavement treatment or reconstruction, the project will be subject to the City’s Street
Cut Moratorium. The applicant will be required to perform enhanced pavement
restoration consistent with the restoration requirements associated with the Street
Cut Moratorium. The City’s Pavement Maintenance Program website
(https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/219) has detailed information on the streets currently
under moratorium and the enhanced restoration requirements.
32. Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits:
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall
execute a street improvement agreement, cause plans for public street
improvements to be prepared by a registered civil engineer, pay various fees and
deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment
permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by
the City Engineer. The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer:
a. Show location of all existing utilities within the existing public right of way
along Alice Avenue and the alley project frontages.
b. Remove and replace broken existing driveway apron and necessary sidewalk,
curb and gutter along Alice Avenue project frontage.
c. Remove and replace broken and uplifted sidewalk along Alice Avenue project
frontage. Sidewalk replacement should be from score mark to score mark.
d. Remove and replace broken curb along Alice Avenue project frontage
e. Install City approved 2 - 24 inch box Sapium sebiferiums aka chinese tallow
tree along. Alice Avenue project frontage. Spacing to be determined at
encroachment permit stage.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ~ 20 Alice Ave. (PLN-2020-4) Page 7
f. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as
necessary.
g. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City.
33. Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Building Permit Final: Prior to
allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings,
the applicant shall have the required street improvements installed and accepted by
the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City.
34. Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future, are required to maintain
the landscaped park strip in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited
to: lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Street trees shall not be pruned by the property
owner.
35. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate encroachment permits for the installation of
utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas,
electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits
for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work.
36. Additional Street Improvements: Should it be discovered after the approval process
that new utility main lines, extra utility work or other work is required to service the
development, and should those facilities or other work affect any public
improvements, the City may add conditions to the development/project/permit, at the
discretion of the City Engineer, to restore pavement or other public improvements to
the satisfaction of the City.
ITEM 2
CityofCampbell
SuggestedMillsActAdditions
Date: 3/18/20
To: HPBmembers,DanielFamaandMichaelShwe
From: MillsActSubcommittee–SusanBlakeandToddWalter
ThesubcommitteereviewedanumberofdifferentMillsActprogramsthroughoutCaliforniaCitiesandthe
followingareitemsthissubcommitteesuggeststobeincludedintherevisedCityofCampbellMillsActProgram.
Fees:Althoughthefeeshouldbedevelopedbythecitymostfeeswefoundwerearound$1,000andoneashigh
as$4,000.Somecitiesrequiredanannualfeetomanagethecontractperproperty.Campbellmaywantto
includeafeeforthe5yrinspectionorothercityrequiredservicestomaintaineachMillsActcontract.
Applicationdeadline:ManycitieshadoneortwotimesayearwhentheMillsActapplicationwasdue.We
suggestimplementingasimilarapproachbutCampbellwillneedtoreviewtheirtypicalstaffingrequirementsto
determinewhattimeeachyearwouldbethemostappropriateforaduedate,alongwithhowthiswillimpact
timeforHPBandCityCounciltoreviewtheapplication.
FAQ:ManycitieshadFAQandwesuggestincludingthisintheprogramtoassistowners.Onespecificitemto
includeisastatementthatdependinghowlongtheapplicanthasownedthepropertytheirprop13taxeswillbe
lowerthantheMillsActcalculationtherefore,applyingforthisprogramisnotwarranted.
ContractDuration:Mostcitieslisteda10yearcontractwiththeautomaticrenewalsothatthecontractwas
alwaysa10yearduration.Onecitysetthelimitto15yearsmax.Campbellandtheirlegalteamshouldreview
thisitemanddeterminewhatisappropriatethatstillmeetstheMillsActrequirements.
HRI/Register:AllcitiesrequiredthepropertytobedesignatedinordertoapplyfortheMillsAct.
Approvalprocess:Mostcitiesrequiretheapplicationtobesubmittedtoplanningforreview.Onceplanning
completedtheirreviewandfounditwasacceptabletherewasapublichearingtoreviewtheapplication.This
occurredeitheratthehistoriccommissionorsomecitieshadthisoccuratthecitycouncillevelwithnohistoric
commissionreview.SomecitiesrequiredapreͲinspectionwiththeapplicantandthecitywithinafewweeks
aftertheapplicationissubmitted.Thisappearstoassisttheownerandthecitytodetermineiftheproposed
scopeofworkmeetstheMillsActintentandthecitiesintentpriortoreviewingorapprovingtheapplication.We
feelthepreͲinspectionisagoodideaandwillassisteveryonebysettingabaselineofwhatthepropertylookslike
andthemostappropriateitemstoberehabilitated.Italsomakessensetocontinuewithourcurrentprocess
whichrequirestheapplicanttosubmittotheplanningdepartment,theyreviewforcompletenessandaccuracy,
thenHPBreviewsviaapublichearingandthenthefinalrecommendationgoestocitycouncilfortheirreview.
Requirements/ConditionsofApproval:MostcitiescitetheworktobedoneshallfollowtheSecretaryofInteriors
StandardsandtheydidnotlistspecificelementsliketheCampbellapplication.Mostcitiesalsoindicatethework
shallcoverhealthandsafetyitemssuchasfoundations,roofing,electrical,plumbingandmechanicalbutnotin
anygreatdetail.Wesuggestfollowingthissimilarapproachandremoveourcurrentprojectspecificlistfromthe
application.
Somecitiesalsoincludedarequirementregardingthemaxvalueoftheproperty.Housescouldnotexceed$1.5m
andcommercialpropertiescouldnotexceed$3m.Wemayormaynotwanttoincludesuchsimilarlanguage.
3DJHRI
Rehabilitation/MaintenancePlan:Allcitieshadsomesortofarequirementtoincludeaplanindicatingthe
proposedwork,whenitwillbecompletedandaprofessionalcostestimate.Somecitiesalsorequirephotosof
thestructureandtheareasofproposedwork.Theyalsorequiredasiteplanandsomerequiredproofthatall
previousandcurrentpermitswereclosed.
Priorityconsideration:Mostcitiesindicatedthefollowingwouldbethepriorityforconsiderationandwesuggest
followingtheseitemsaswell.
1. Structureindangerofdeteriorationorstructuralupgradesrequiringsubstantialrehabilitation.
2. Financialassistance.
3. Additionsdonotqualifyforprogram,sodonotsubmitthistypeofwork.
4. _____________________________________________________________________________
5. _____________________________________________________________________________
Oversite/Accountability:AsnotedabovesomecitiesrequireapreͲinspectionaspartoftheapplicationprocess.
Mostcitiesrequireannualreportsfromtheownerandperiodicinspectionsat5yearintervals.Onecityrequired
inspectionsevery2yearsupto10yearsandthenevery5yearsafterthefirst10years.WesuggestapreͲ
inspection,annualreportswithphotosandreceiptsforcompletedworkandinspectionsevery5years.
Whatfeaturesdoesthecontractcover(exterior/interior):AllcitiesstatedtheSecretaryofInteriorsStandards
isthebasisoftheprogramandincludesexteriorandinterior.Weneedtodiscussifweagreetheinteriorshould
beincluded?Somecitiesstatedthatlandscapewasincludedbutnotcostlyrehabilitation.Wehaveaheritage
treeprogramsowecanaddresstreesunderthisprogramandnotincludeitintheapplicationprocessunlesswe
feelthecostoftherepairsandmaintenanceofthetreesshouldbeallowedintheMillsAct?Again,weshould
discussifwefeelthisisappropriatetoincludeinourprogram.
Isanarchitectural/engineeringreportrequired:Onecityrequiredthisreportifstructuralrepairswereincluded
intheapplication.Wesuggesttheapplicantincludealetterstatingifanystructuralrepairsareincludedandthey
wouldsubmitplansandcalculationstothebuildingdepartmentasrequiredtoreceiveapermitiftheirMillsAct
applicationwasapproved.Thiswaytheydonothavetospendmoremoneyupfronttohaveanengineerprepare
areport,unlesstheapplicanthasanengineerreviewingtheirpropertypriortotheapplicationandrequestthey
provideasimpleletterstatingwhattheyfound.Thentheapplicantcanincludethisdocumentintheir
application.
Maximumnumberofcontractsawardedperyear:Somecitiessetalimitonthenumberofcontractstheywould
approveeachyear.ThisisopentodiscussionifCampbellshouldorneedstoaddthisprovisiontotheprogram.
Currentlytherearelessthan10contractsandnotmanyownershavesubmittedanapplicationovertheyearsso
limitingcontractsperyearmaynotbenecessary.
PreͲapplicationworkshoprequirement:Oncecityrequiredtheownerswhowereplanningtosubmitan
applicationattenda2hourworkshop.Wedonotsuggestaddingthistoourprogram,buttheinformationthat
wouldbeprovidedatthisworkshopmaybeusefulifweprovideditonourwebsitesopotentialapplicantscan
review.
Electronicsubmittal:Somecitieshadanonlineapplicationprocessandothersrequiredtheapplicationtobe
submittedviaathumbdrive,DVDorothersimilarelectronicprocess.Wesuggestimplementingthelatterso
Campbellcanbe“Green”andthedocumentswouldalreadybearchivedandeasytoaccess.
ApplicationpackagecheckͲofflist:Mostcitiesincludeanapplicationchecklisttoassisttheapplicantsin
preparingandsubmittingthecorrectdocuments.Weagreeachecklistshouldbeincludedinourapplication.
3DJHRI
Attachments:Oncetheaboveitemshavebeendiscussedandweagreewiththebroadpicturechangeswecan
thendiscussdetaileditemssuchastheproperformsandattachmentswewanttoincludeintherevised
application.
Other:
1. Shouldweincludelanguagethattheapplicantshouldspendroughlyequaltoorexceedthepropertytax
savings?
2. ?
3. ?
3DJHRI
Get email alerts for Campbell
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.